Two views seem to be dominant among progressives regarding Donald Trump: Either protest all he does, people are holding "anti-Trump" rallies -- or "Give Him a Chance", let's see what he does, maybe it will be okay.
Both the demonizes and those urging a passive approach are wrong.
"Anti-Trump" is hollow. Trump is a human being who has said a lot of contradictory things. To protest a person is dubious. Too often, "progressives" have simply galvanized against a person -- remember "Anybody But Bush"? That's not a particularly uplifting way of approaching things and doesn't lead to genuinely positive outcomes.
You can certainly talk about rights for immigrants or women's rights or ensuring anti-Muslim policies do not escalate. But to say "anti-Trump" or to ignore good things that Trump has said is hollow. And, yes, there are good things he's said, for example, during the primaries, he attacked the regime change wars waged by George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
But it also doesn't make sense to say "let's see what he does". To stand aside is to allow Trump to be cutting deals with Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who will doubtlessly work to take away what populist, anti-interventionist and pro-working class instincts Trump may potentially otherwise follow.
We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now.
But it also doesn't make sense to say "let's see what he does". To stand aside is to allow Trump to be cutting deals with Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who will doubtlessly work to take away what populist, anti-interventionist and pro-working class instincts Trump may potentially otherwise follow.
Bernie Sanders has in recent days struck a reasonable tone at times. In this interview and in a statement just after the election, he said: “Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. ... To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”
Many media are reporting that Rudolph Giuliani is slated to be nominated as Secretary of State [New York Times: "Secretary of State Giuliani? He's the Leading Choice, Trump Aides Say"]. This would likely mean that he is being backed by Mike Pence, VP-elect, now head of the Trump transition. Pence of course is a major figure in the so-called Christian Right. In 2007, many were surprised that Pat Robertson backed Giuliani for president. At that time, I wrote the following piece arguing that it actually made a good deal of sense.
After I posted my piece on Friday, "Democracy Now" changed the transcript to read:
But this is also incorrect. As I noted in my piece, North Korea in fact voted for the proposal. There has apparently been no on-air correction or pseudo-correction -- the following program's headlines made no mention of the vote.
Dear Frank Newport --
I believe I have found a significant blind spot in the exclusion criteria used by the CPD. When some suggested alternative criteria for inclusion in presidential debates, like if a majority wanted another candidate to be in the debates, the heads of the CPD rejected the effort. Then-CPD Director and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson said: “The issue is who do you want to be president. It’s not who do you want to do a dress rehearsal and see who can be the cutest at the debate.” Similarly, Paul Kirk, the then-co-chair of the CPD (now co-chairman emeritus) and former head of the Democratic National Committee, said: “It’s a matter of entertainment vs. the serious question of who would you prefer to be president of the United States.” (Citation in google books, "No Debate" by George Farah.)
But none of the polls the CPD is relying on for its exclusion criteria actually ask the "serious question of who you would prefer to be president of the United State" -- nor do they ask "who do you want to be president."
TRUMP: We should have — wait one second. They had a cease-fire three weeks ago. A cease-fire, the United States, Russia, and Syria. And during the cease-fire, Russia took over vast swatches of land, and then they said we don’t want the cease-fire anymore.
FACT: Reuters reported on Sept 18: “U.S.-led coalition air strikes reportedly killed dozens of Syrian soldiers on Saturday, endangering a U.S.-Russian brokered ceasefire and prompting an emergency UN Security Council meeting as tensions between Moscow and Washington escalated.” See: "U.S. Violation of Syrian Ceasefire Prompts Emergency UN Meeting."
Its origins are in an agreement "Memorandum of Agreement on Presidential Candidate Joint Appearances"
from 1985 signed by Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., then Chairman of the
Republican National Committee, and Paul G. Kirk Jr., then Chairman of
the Democratic National Committee. The two would go on to head the CPD.
Holt's fabrication -- he can't possibly be ignorant of this -- is really a root problem of our politics. All the lies and spin from Clinton and Trump largely manifest themselves because each side excuses them because "the other" is worse. That is, the very "bipartisan" structure of our elections is in large part responsible for the dynamics we're seeing.
Normally decent people ignore all of Clinton's deceptions because they loathe Trump and normally decent people excuse Trump's fabrications because they detest Clinton. That's why candidates with incredibly high unfavorability ratings -- as Clinton and Trump famously have-- may still have millions voting for them, like two crumbling buildings help up by each other.
There are two ways out of this that I see:
"Giuliani, Robertson and Israel."
Many from across the political spectrum seemed surprised when Pat Robertson recently endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president, but this was only the most recent manifestation one of the worst aspects of the relationship between Christianity and the state. As Blase Bonpane, whose books include Liberation Theology and the Central American Revolution has written:
“Back in the fourth century when the Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea on the Turkish coast … imperial theology was born. The sword and the cross came together in building empires, in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquistadors and most recently among the ‘Christian’ war mongers who are cheerleaders for the war in Iraq.”
Bill Berkowitz has noted the most pertinent statements from Giuliani and Robertson:
"We had a lot of time coming back from Israel to talk about our understanding of how important Israel is to the United States, how important they are in this whole vast effort that we’re involved in this terrorist war against us," Giuliani recently told Radio Iowa. "We realized that we agreed on far many more things than we disagreed on."
For Robertson, Election 2008 is not about the bread and butter social issues that have fueled the conservative Christian movement for more than two decades. Rather, it is about the "defense of our population against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists," Robertson told the National Press Club audience. "Our world faces deadly peril…and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead."
All this is notable, but it only touches on some of the deeper reasons why you see an alliance between the likes of Robertson and Giuliani and what that says about the nature of how religion is used in the political sphere today and for centuries — going back to the oldest books of the Bible.
“Back in the fourth century when the Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea on the Turkish coast … imperial theology was born. The sword and the cross came together in building empires, in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquistadors and most recently among the ‘Christian’ war mongers who are cheerleaders for the war in Iraq.”
Bill Berkowitz has noted the most pertinent statements from Giuliani and Robertson:
"We had a lot of time coming back from Israel to talk about our understanding of how important Israel is to the United States, how important they are in this whole vast effort that we’re involved in this terrorist war against us," Giuliani recently told Radio Iowa. "We realized that we agreed on far many more things than we disagreed on."
For Robertson, Election 2008 is not about the bread and butter social issues that have fueled the conservative Christian movement for more than two decades. Rather, it is about the "defense of our population against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists," Robertson told the National Press Club audience. "Our world faces deadly peril…and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead."
All this is notable, but it only touches on some of the deeper reasons why you see an alliance between the likes of Robertson and Giuliani and what that says about the nature of how religion is used in the political sphere today and for centuries — going back to the oldest books of the Bible.
I just posted this on the American Association for Public Opinion Research listserve.
While I certainly agree that framing etc huge problem, doesn't seem to me that this gets at critical issues made evident from what happened.
There of course is a spiral of silence with regard to "third party" candidates. Stein and Johnson supporters concluded that voting was futile, as was the framing in media and polling reports throughout.
What I think is happening is the public is lurching for real change and the political system doesn't want to give it to them. Pollsters role in this is that the "prediction" of election has totally outweighed actually understanding the public's views. No poll asked who people WANT or PREFER to be president. Why?
No scientific poll asked the preference question in RCV or Range Voting form. A wealth of information could be gotten this way. A huge part of this is that this is just no on agenda of major media. But if polling is to be anything other than an accessory for media framing of whatever corporate media want to frame, then something very real has to give here.
There's a volatility in the polls because of the hunger for change and the sense that the choice (apparently feasible choices) are probably phony. There could be a plurality for a "third party" and we'd never know it because the right question isn't being asked, much less reported prominently, understood.
Sam Husseini
VotePact.org
While I certainly agree that framing etc huge problem, doesn't seem to me that this gets at critical issues made evident from what happened.
There of course is a spiral of silence with regard to "third party" candidates. Stein and Johnson supporters concluded that voting was futile, as was the framing in media and polling reports throughout.
What I think is happening is the public is lurching for real change and the political system doesn't want to give it to them. Pollsters role in this is that the "prediction" of election has totally outweighed actually understanding the public's views. No poll asked who people WANT or PREFER to be president. Why?
No scientific poll asked the preference question in RCV or Range Voting form. A wealth of information could be gotten this way. A huge part of this is that this is just no on agenda of major media. But if polling is to be anything other than an accessory for media framing of whatever corporate media want to frame, then something very real has to give here.
There's a volatility in the polls because of the hunger for change and the sense that the choice (apparently feasible choices) are probably phony. There could be a plurality for a "third party" and we'd never know it because the right question isn't being asked, much less reported prominently, understood.
Sam Husseini
VotePact.org
Follow up to my piece "'Democracy Now' Gets Nuclear Ban Vote Totally Wrong":
The United Nations on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to start talks aimed at abolishing all nuclear weapons. The landmark resolution will see the U.N. convene a conference next year to negotiate a legally binding instrument for worldwide nuclear prohibition. The vote was 123-38, with 16 countries abstaining. [Not supporting the measure] were all nine known nuclear states: China, Russia, France, the U.K., India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and the United States.
But this is also incorrect. As I noted in my piece, North Korea in fact voted for the proposal. There has apparently been no on-air correction or pseudo-correction -- the following program's headlines made no mention of the vote.
This is no minor matter. What's needed is a basic acknowledgement and understanding of the role the U.S. government and NATO play in ensuring the continuation of the nuclear weapons threat. "Democracy Now" is unwilling to make that acknowledgement.
"Democracy Now" sadly continues its descent, which I've alluded to occasionally on twitter. To fully tell this story would require a very long and detailed piece, but the latest chapter of this is worth noting in more than a tweet as it happens. On this morning's headlines, Amy Goodman claimed:
In fact, China, India and Pakistan abstained. North Korea actually voted for the resolution. As even the AP correctly reported: "The United States, Russia, Israel, France and the United Kingdom were among the countries voting against the measure." See country by country breakdown results from International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. See excellent map from ILPI. If you're still skeptical, see actual pic of vote board.The United Nations on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to start talks aimed at abolishing all nuclear weapons. The landmark resolution will see the U.N. convene a conference next year to negotiate a legally binding instrument for worldwide nuclear prohibition. The vote was 123-38, with 16 countries abstaining. Voting against were all nine known nuclear states: China, Russia, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea as well as the United States. [Note, this is wording as broadcast, the transcript is minorly different.]
This letter was sent on Sept. 24 -- via an intermediary who knows him well -- to Frank Newport of Gallup, the pollster adviser to the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. I've received no response. Ironically, Newport is author of Polling Matters: Why Leaders Must Listen to the Wisdom of the People. I think a close reading of the letter shows that Newport has hardly taken his own advice.
-- Sam Husseini
But none of the polls the CPD is relying on for its exclusion criteria actually ask the "serious question of who you would prefer to be president of the United State" -- nor do they ask "who do you want to be president."
They all ask some minor variation of "if the election were held today which of the following would you vote for". I hope that it's apparent to you that for many people who they "want" to be president among the choices given (Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein) is different than who they would vote for. Voting is a tactical choice based largely (especially in this election) on wanting to ensure the candidate you least like does not become president. Thus, millions intend to vote for Trump because they don't want Clinton and millions more will vote the opposite. But many of those people prefer or actually want Johnson or Stein. Those who "want" or "prefer" Johnson or Stein could even constitute a plurality and we'd never know it because the question that would gauge that is never asked.
[This wording, "if the election were held today] -- which David Moore has described as starting as a "gimmick" may well ironically now be a serious impediment to understanding the affirmative preference of the public, since it has displaced other measurements of public opinion and preference in this critical regard.
As the pollster adviser to the CPD, it's my view that it's incumbent upon you to ensure that the polls the CPD relies upon actually gauge the "serious" question the CPD officials publicly claim the CPD is concerned with: Who do you prefer/want to be president.
I hope you will concur, but in either case, I would most welcome your thoughts on this important matter. As I've talked to pollsters since submitting a legal brief on this matter in June, it's become apparent that many pollsters are not free to ask the questions they want to ask, they are frequently at the mercy of the media outlets they work for. I hope that your intellectual honesty will compel you to address this potentially fatal blind spot immediately. (See "How Presidential 'Non-Opinion' Polls Drive Down Third Party Numbers and Facilitate Debate Exclusion")
Look forward to your positive and enlightened response.
best regards,
Sam Husseini
The scam between Clinton and Trump is that (other than an occasional decent statement from Trump that I began noting last year), Trump portrays the problem with U.S. policy as pacifistic or naive, when it's actually Machiavellian. As Clinton noted in her emails: She has public and private positions.
An example from last night's "debate":
FACT: Reuters reported on Sept 18: “U.S.-led coalition air strikes reportedly killed dozens of Syrian soldiers on Saturday, endangering a U.S.-Russian brokered ceasefire and prompting an emergency UN Security Council meeting as tensions between Moscow and Washington escalated.” See: "U.S. Violation of Syrian Ceasefire Prompts Emergency UN Meeting."
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was at the Press Club yesterday (Oct. 17). A couple of questions I submitted got asked:
MR. BURR: Another question from the audience. You apparently passed on going to Israel several years ago. Desmond Tutu has called Israeli’s treatment of Palestinians apartheid. Do you think the U. S. needs to stop arming Israel and do you support the boycott investment sanctions movement against Israel by the South African anti-apartheid?MR. ABDUL-JABBAR: I would just say that the occupation stinks. That's the only thing that stinks over there. The Israeli state is a model of democracy and transparency. But, I think the occupation stinks. It's got to end, I hope it ends soon.MR. BURR: Another question in foreign affairs. Do you condemn the Saudi bombing of Yemen? Should the U. S. cut off weapons going to Saudi Arabia?MR. ABDUL-JABBAR: I don't know enough about that to have an accurate opinion. So I'm not going to answer that question.
Full PDF.
A couple of others I submitted didn't get asked:
In your DNC address, you quote the words etched atop the Jefferson Memorial: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man". Doesn't Clinton's backing of wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere, as well as NSA surveillance, and other policies, constitute a threat of such tyranny -- as Trump's bigotry and misogyny do?Prof As'ad AbuKhalil (who runs the "Angry Arab" blog) has criticized U.S. Muslim groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations for, among other things, parroting Saudi sectarianism. Do you think Muslim American groups can do a better job of ensuring they are independent of influence from authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia?
Steve: Why Jason, will you be my votebuddy?
Jason: What ever are you proposing?
Steve: You've been a rightwinger for as long as I've known you. I dare say you've not ever voted Democratic?
Jason: I avoid doing things that would lead me upon reflection to blow my brains out.
Steve: Well, I should admit to you I've voted Democratic at times. Why just this election, I voted for Bernie Sanders.
Jason: Yet you seemed so reasonable.
Steve: Too kind. Now, it's fair to say we've agreed and disagreed on things, yes?
Jason: Well, you're kind of a pinko, aren't you?
Steve: Ayn Rand cultist! -- err -- Let's avoid the name calling, shall we?
Jason: Only in jest.
Steve: Excellent.
Jason: I'm looking at this website here, VotePact.org -- I think I see where you're going --
Steve: Yes, well, succinctly, I say neither of us vote either for Clinton or Trump.
Jason: You know, I do agree with some of the things Trump says, but he's so horribly unreliable, you don't know what he's going to do.
Jason: What ever are you proposing?
Steve: You've been a rightwinger for as long as I've known you. I dare say you've not ever voted Democratic?
Jason: I avoid doing things that would lead me upon reflection to blow my brains out.
Steve: Well, I should admit to you I've voted Democratic at times. Why just this election, I voted for Bernie Sanders.
Jason: Yet you seemed so reasonable.
Steve: Too kind. Now, it's fair to say we've agreed and disagreed on things, yes?
Jason: Well, you're kind of a pinko, aren't you?
Steve: Ayn Rand cultist! -- err -- Let's avoid the name calling, shall we?
Jason: Only in jest.
Steve: Excellent.
Jason: I'm looking at this website here, VotePact.org -- I think I see where you're going --
Steve: Yes, well, succinctly, I say neither of us vote either for Clinton or Trump.
Jason: You know, I do agree with some of the things Trump says, but he's so horribly unreliable, you don't know what he's going to do.
Before the faceoff between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, many were pleading that Lester Holt, the NBC anchor and moderator Monday night, be a "fact checker."
Any
delusions in that regard should have been dashed right away as he
perpetrated a root falsehood at the very start of the event.
Holt
claimed that the event was "sponsored by the Commission on Presidential
Debates, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The commission drafted tonight’s format, and the rules have been agreed to by the campaigns."
While the CPD certainly controls much of the event, it's not a "nonpartisan" organization at all. It's about as far
from nonpartisan as you can get. It's totally bipartisan. It's a
creation of the Democratic and Republican parties designed to solidify
their dominance over the public.
But that
original agreement didn't even have the word "debates" in it. This
Commission is the mechanism by which the Democratic and Republican
parties came together to push aside the League of Women Voters, which
had organized presidential debates before 1988. It was to make sure that
the campaigns, not some independent entity, would decide on moderators,
on formats -- and to critically exclude other participants unless both
sides agreed. They simply wanted to ensure "televised joint appearances"
-- which became emblematic of a pretense of democratic discourse.
Holt's fabrication -- he can't possibly be ignorant of this -- is really a root problem of our politics. All the lies and spin from Clinton and Trump largely manifest themselves because each side excuses them because "the other" is worse. That is, the very "bipartisan" structure of our elections is in large part responsible for the dynamics we're seeing.
And
the voters have "no where else to go" because they are in effect held
prisoners by fear. Millions of people who might agree with other
candidates -- Jill Stein of the Green Party or Libertarian candidate
Gary Johnson or the Constitution party or socialist parties -- do
not actually coalesce around those candidates because they fear helping
Trump or Clinton. This mindset probably prevents stronger challengers to
the duopoly from ever coming forward in the first place.