With the Democratic National Committee about to elect a new chairman, they are in the throws of a battle – more like a puppet show – between the Clinton and Sanders wings of the party. According to a story from the NY Times,
The outpouring of protests across the country has scrambled the contest for chairman of the Democratic National Committee two weeks before the vote, as party activists thrash out who should be the face of a newly energized party.
The surge of liberal activism in response to President Trump’s election has transcended the divisions that some Democrats feared would cleave the party after its defeat in November. But it has also injected volatility into a race for party chairman that had been shaping up as a straightforward proxy war between the candidates most closely identified with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Hillary Clinton.
Resisting the Resistance
You don’t need to travel back too far in your time machine to arrive at the phenomenon of the Occupy protests, and how they were crushed by the Obama administration, only to find the commissioner of hope and change recycling the 99% moniker for his 2012 reelection campaign shortly after, only to win and do the bidding of the 1%. With entertainers and politicians claiming to represent “the resistance” to Trump, it can be daunting to know who to trust. Here’s my measure: anyone claiming to represent the resistance (whatever that means at this juncture) is as credible as one claiming to represent God. Actions, as the saying goes, speak louder than words. It’s also a safe bet that any politician, group or organization telling you to put your faith and trust in the hands of the Democratic Party as a means to resist Trumpism is something to resist itself.
Identity dog whistles
In the wake of the 2016 electoral disaster for the Democrats, hand wringing and Monday morning quarterbacking included identifying the party’s four decade-old Golden Calf: reliance on identity politics to wrangle votes. Judging by their “resistance” strategy, however, they seem to be playing the same old gender card, which is working wonders to divide otherwise compatible resisters.
I found myself on the unfortunate end of a social media thread when I took issue with the portrayal of Senator Elizabeth Warren as a victim; her being cut-off from speaking in opposition to now-confirmed Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. While the silencing of Warren was completely unwarrented, she knew full well what the dynamics and potential consequences were. She’s a big girl, playing in the big leagues. What she also knows, though, is how garner attention and support. Hence the #LetLizSpeak hashtag that quickly appeared on social media, and the divisive, gender identity politics that followed.
Someone notorious even took the opportunity to weigh in.
“She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”
So must we all.https://t.co/JXROGHPNkH
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 8, 2017
If Warren is the ballsy resister she’s playing on TV, where was she during the primary when risk was real? She chose the politically safe path and hitched her wagon to Hillary Clinton. One can only speculate on the outcome of the election had she rolled the dice with Bernie. Making that point on the Facebook thread didn’t end well.
What’s interesting about the newly awakened women’s movement is that it is relational only to women of a particular mindset: women of a conservative bent, or who supported Trump, are not invited. Also, this is not exclusively a movement of women. As we saw in the in Women’s March following the inauguration, men are also invited. Liberal, anti-Trump men. So with a simple calculation, it’s clear that what’s parading itself as a women’s resistance movement is simply a reactivating of the Democratic Party, feminist base. Okay, fine, too. But here’s where I start seeing double. The #FreeMelania hashtag and meme, offering feigned sympathy toward First Lady Melania Trump, projecting that she’s hostage to her husband is typical nasty, liberal sneering. Why treat another woman this way, ladies? But it gets more perverse. You’d think feminists would cheer a first lady eschewing the staid, traditional role in order to stay home and put her son’s needs first. But no. You don’t need to travel very far in the establishment, liberal press for fretting over Melania Trump’s actually very empowered choice. How very sexist of professed feminists.
Of course, when you reflect on the touted, very non-traditional first husband role that Bill Clinton would’ve played, liberals really need to ask themselves who’s being played here. Hint: look for the nearest mirror.
The show must go on
In case you were envisioning that post-president Obama would follow Jimmy Carter’s lead, perhaps return to the city that launched his political career, and lend his former chief-of-staff his vaunted community organizing skills to stem the suffering of Chicago’s inner-city neighborhoods, that’s not on his public schedule. Rather, as the NY Times reports,
After he is out of the White House, President Obama has said that he wants to become a venture capitalist, own part of an N.B.A. franchise and avoid taking off his shoes during security screenings at commercial airports.
All of those goals, serious or not, might soon be achievable if Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, sign post-presidency book contracts for what literary agents and major publishers say could amount to $20 million to $45 million — more than enough to pay the estimated $22,000 monthly rent for the nine-bedroom home they will occupy in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington and foot the bill for flights on private jets. (Mr. Obama has said he would like to avoid commercial flights once he surrenders Air Force One.)
Additionally, the Obamas have signed on with the Harry Walker Agency to arrange their speaking engagements. Can you guess where this is leading?
After personally eviscerating his party’s bench, seemingly to give shade for Hillary’s turn, and economic policies that caused him to hand the baton to Trump, one would think he’d retreat from the pubic eye for a while. But no. Despite his record, Barack Obama remains very popular. Why? Because he’s very cute, speaks well, and has a nice family.
(Why is he laughing?)
— Steep TV (@tv_steep) February 8, 2017
But there’s more. Despite demands from the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, according to a story in Politico, Hillary will be back in 2020,
Clinton is not going to want to spend the rest of her life haunted by the question of “What if?” What if I could run again—and win? Besides, seeking the White House has been her aspiration for decades. What else is there for her to do?
The sad and unfortunate truth, now evident to many resisters, is that our government has turned against us. In my view, this happened with the election of Ronald Reagan, in 1980. Thirty-plus years hence, the gutting of many government institutions is complete to the degree they do little to serve the public. I’m old enough to remember a time when the economy served the people. Now we serve the economy. And it’s time to resist in any way we can. While there are many efforts of protest afoot, I’m calling for an easy one: a boycott of corporate media by disconnecting your television. The establishment still depends on television to frame and deliver its nefarious mix of fear, entertainment and consumerism to ensure that the public is hypnotized enough to keep the nightmare rolling. By unplugging the tube, you can do your part to ensure that the show does not go on.
On and on, does anybody know what we are looking for
Another hero, another mindless crime
Behind the curtain, in the pantomime
– Brian May / Freddie Mercury / John Deacon / Roger Taylor