Liberals Unprepared for White Supremacist Backlash

by William Skink

Unsatisfied with selling out the Democratic Party last century, the Democratic establishment appears hellbent on driving the last nail into the coffin by nominating Hillary Clinton. Doing so will deliver the White House to Donald Trump.

With Trump will come a resurgence of organized racism unseen in this country since the civil rights movement. I don’t think Democrats are prepared, or even care to understand, why this is happening.

Locally, I understand the inclination to attack Ryan Zinke for chumming around with bigots and to wonder how beholden Sheriff Rummel is to the sovereign citizen movement in Sanders County. These alarming developments make easy fodder for political attacks, but do those attacks actually change people’s minds?

When David Duke goes on his radio show, he says audacious stuff that’s easy to spot as racist, like this:

Yesterday on his radio show, former KKK leader David Duke reiterated his praise for Donald Trump, saying that critics’ attempts to compare the GOP presidential frontrunner to Adolf Hitler will backfire and end up “rehabilitating that fellow with the mustache back there in Germany.”

He also urged listeners to continue to support Trump before the government wipes out “the European-American majority.”

There’s no way young people or working class white people could be swayed by this supremacist stuff, right?

While Democrats watch the right slide into more overt interactions with white supremacists, what they seem to missing is labor gravitating toward Trump and the possibility that young people aren’t the loyal demographic Democrats assume them to be.

For insight into that latter notion, check this piece out. From the link:

Over the past decade, liberals, along with some dogmatic centrists, have found a new dream. Instead of a socialist utopia or a free market paradise, they fantasize about a benevolent, center-left political order. Under this new order, same-sex marriages, medicinal pot, and IUDs will all be easily accessible anywhere in the country; institutional racism will wither away in the face of enlightened attitudes; and common-sense economic policies will protect both working-class living standards and economic growth.

The midwives of this new order, we’re told, will be the so-called “millennials.” As the baby boomers expire and my age cohort becomes the dominant force in American public life, they will “save politics” and end the culture wars, according to Democratic strategist Carrie Wofford. The older, whiter, more conservative base of the Republican Party will fade away. And best of all, it will all happen without a fight. We are the most diverse, tolerant, and liberal generation in American history, they say; all progressives need to do is sit tight and wait for them to become a majority of the electorate.

It’s a nice story. And like all good myths, it has an element of truth to it. We are, indeed, the most racially diverse generation in American history. We also lean further to the left than any prior generation on issues like LGBT equality, immigration, and environmental regulation. Looking at the trend lines across generations—from boomers to X-ers to the current crop of youngsters—it’s easy to understand why so many observers have convinced themselves that the arc of history bends toward progressivism.

But that optimistic gloss on the data elides a darker possibility. The same demographic shifts that would lead to a new progressive golden age could just as easily foment a right-wing populist reaction. A more racially diverse population might lean further to the left overall, but a shrinking white majority is fertile territory for a supremacist backlash.

What will happen when this generation’s overwhelming support of Bernie Sanders gets crushed by the political slime that circulates around the Clintons? Don’t assume young people will just do what you want them to do, Democrat establishment.

Regarding labor, Matt Taibbi wrote something in his Rolling Stone piece last month that should be read by every Democrat and taken seriously:

Every four years, some Democrat who’s been a lifelong friend of labor runs for president. And every four years, that Democrat gets thrown over by national labor bosses in favor of some party lifer with his signature on a half-dozen job-exporting free-trade agreements.

It’s called “transactional politics,” and the operating idea is that workers should back the winner, rather than the most union-friendly candidate.

This year, national leaders of several prominent unions went with Hillary Clinton – who, among other things, supported her husband’s efforts to pass NAFTA – over Bernie Sanders. Pissed, the rank and file in many locals revolted. In New Hampshire, for instance, a Service Employees International Union local backed Sanders despite the national union’s endorsement of Clinton, as did an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers chapter.

Trump is already positioning himself to take advantage of the political opportunity afforded him by “transactional politics.” He regularly hammers the NAFTA deal in his speeches, applying to it his favorite word, “disaster.” And he just as regularly drags Hillary Clinton into his hypothetical tales of job-saving, talking about how she could never convince Detroit carmakers out of moving a factory to Mexico.

Unions have been abused so much by both parties in the past decades that even mentioning themes union members care about instantly grabs the attention of workers. That’s true even when it comes from Donald Trump, a man who kicked off the fourth GOP debate saying “wages [are] too high” and who had the guts to tell the Detroit News that Michigan autoworkers make too much money.

You will find union members scattered at almost all of Trump’s speeches. And there have been rumors of unions nationally considering endorsing Trump. SEIU president Mary Kay Henry even admitted in January that Trump appeals to members because of the “terrible anxiety” they feel about jobs.

“I know guys, union guys, who talk about Trump,” says Rand Wilson, an activist from the Labor for Bernie organization. “I try to tell them about Sanders, and they don’t know who he is. Or they’ve just heard he’s a socialist. Trump they’ve heard of.”

For decades now Democrats have been taking the labor vote and the youth vote for granted while selling out the party to Wall Street and billionaire meddlers like George Soros. Hillary Clinton embodies this corrupt filth, and the kids and working stiffs know it.

People also know that no matter who we elect in this country, it doesn’t much matter anymore when it comes to influencing actual policy:

Asking “[w]ho really rules?” researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argues that over the past few decades America’s political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” they write, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

This country is at the precipice of taking a nasty plunge into overt fascism. While it might emerge from within the GOP, it wasn’t just the Republicans that got us here.

If Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton they should get their fair share of the blame for accelerating this transformation of America into a fascist idiocracy led by a raving Trump with his finger on the nuke button.

Have a nice Easter weekend.

Advertisements

About William Skink

I'm a poet and political cynic living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Liberals Unprepared for White Supremacist Backlash

  1. Greg Strandberg says:

    You’ve been putting out some good stuff recently.

    Even if Hillary came out for tons of issues I support, I don’t think I’d support her. I know she’d just be lying.

    How many times do I have to say if it’s Hillary and Trump I’ll vote for Trump? Why can’t Democrats understand that?

    I voted for Nader in 2000. I’ll happily vote third party this year. I will not vote for Hillary. I think many people my age (early-30s) feel the same. We are so sick of business as usual with the Dems, both nationally and here in Montana.

    We’re sick of it. We’re sick of them. It’s time to clean house, and if they won’t do it, we’ll do it for ’em.

    Like

    • JC says:

      Bernie was asked the other day under what conditions he would support Clinton if he lost the nomination. He basically said if she and the democrats adopted his policy planks. Which ain’t gonna ever happen. And even if they did, as you said, she’d be lying — she’ll say anything to get elected.

      Another person at Consortium News today talked about supporting Bernie because of the substantial policy differences in many areas. And then when he is denied the nomination to then switch to a third party vote for Jill Stein in the Green Party, or write in another third party choice.

      Like

      • Greg Strandberg says:

        Aside from that there’s been talk for nearly a year now, ever since Bernie said he’d accept whoever the nominee is. Where’s the revolution he’s talking about if he just rolls over?

        I wish he could have done better, but he just didn’t seem capable of it. The corporate media ignoring him for so long in the beginning certainly didn’t help.

        I just got my second survey from the Democratic National Committee today. I made a point to fill in the blanks by saying, “hey, lots of people are not going to go over to Hillary.”

        I doubt my comments will register.

        Like

  2. JC says:

    The more I look at Intelligent Discontent, with images of Zinke/Gianforte and kids with guns plastered all over it, the more I think that he is just doing the republicans’ dirty work by raising awareness and name/face recognition for Zinke around the state, and tragically treating the issue of kids with guns as a comedic or satiric image.

    Sad, so sad…

    Like

    • Greg Strandberg says:

      Personally, I think the downward spiral for that site started around the time their main writer announced his sabbatical last fall. I’m still of the opinion that the anonymous writers from MT Cowturd have simply meandered over there now that they’ve been getting a bit more flak for their anonymous status.

      Slinging attacks anonymously just doesn’t work that well anymore, for the obvious reason that you have no idea who’s attacking you. Using an existing site and ghostwriting under the main writer’s name is a good way to deflect that criticism while still getting your message out.

      As you say, however, it may be doing more harm than good. Democrats often say they’ll take the high road but they usually end up treading the low.

      Like

      • petetalbot says:

        I can assure you, there are basically two writers at Intelligent Discontent. Don, and to a lesser extent, me. And very occasionally, Calamity Jan. I have no idea who she is. That’s it, end of story.

        I’m curious, Strandberg, about the above quote from you: “We are so sick of business as usual with the Dems, both nationally and here in Montana.” And yet you’re running as a Democrat for the Montana House of Representatives. What do you expect to accomplish, if elected? Will you be working with the Democratic caucus or the Republicans to affect change? How about your choice for governor, Gianforte? Will you be helping with his anti-public schools, anti-LGBT, anti-environment agenda? I imagine voters in your district would like to know.

        Like

        • Greg Strandberg says:

          If I’m elected we’ll get a lot more of a populist, working class, pro-worker message, one sprinkled with plenty of 5 and 10 o’clock sound bits that will rankle the opposition and fire up supporters. People will actually want to listen to House floor debates again. It’ll be wonderful.

          As to your other questions:

          I’ll be working with whomever I can to affect change.

          I like a lot of what Gianforte says. Will I vote for him? I’m not sure yet.

          I wouldn’t be working on anti-public schools, anti-LGBT, or anti-environment agendas. I also don’t think the state will enter the Dark Ages should he be elected, as you mentioned on Logicosity the other day.

          I don’t think the majority of voters in my district care about this legislative race, to be honest, and I would go further and say that the majority are totally unaware of it.

          The Montana Democratic Party ignoring my emails to their MDLCC director about my accessing the VAN so I can go out and make voters aware of the race is alarming, in my opinion.

          Do I expect it to change? No.

          Like

        • petetalbot says:

          Let’s parse your comment, Strandberg. First, “If I’m elected we’ll get a lot more of a populist, working class, pro-worker message, one sprinkled with plenty of 5 and 10 o’clock sound bits that will rankle the opposition and fire up supporters. People will actually want to listen to House floor debates again. It’ll be wonderful.”

          You’re going to “rankle the opposition” with, I think you mean, sound bites. But who’s your opposition? I sure as hell can’t figure that out. Republicans, Democrats, Bullock, Gianforte? I took a look at the 20 bills you’d like to introduce: knife laws, speed limit signs, a Shield Act for our energy grid … A real populist message you’ve got there. “It will be wonderful.” I see you got 9% of the vote in the 2014 primary. That’s a surprisingly high number.

          And you’re shocked that the Democratic Party won’t send you its voter list? First, you think you might vote for the Republican candidate for governor because you hate current Gov. Steve Bullock (D) and then there’s the quote above, “We are so sick of business as usual with the Dems, both nationally and here in Montana.” Finally, I saw you were dissing U.S. House candidate Juneau at your site. In my mind, one of the best candidates the Dems have run in quite awhile.

          And they won’t send you the list? So, how is everything there in Fantasyland?

          Finally, you say, “I don’t think the majority of voters in my district care about this legislative race … ” I think they just don’t care about you, Greg.

          Like

        • Note that unless Pete is actually sitting there when Pogreba is writing, he has no way of knowing who writes those posts. One thing we know for sure, Pete does his own writing. And Don writes his own comments. The writer’s voice is apparent.

          He has no idea who “Calamity Jane” is? Why doesn’t Don just tell him? (Don does not know either. H’s not in charge of the site?)

          Like

    • petetalbot says:

      Not sure how you can interpret the kids with guns graphic or other gun posts at ID as “comedic,” JC.

      Like

  3. Bob Williams says:

    And if we had an instant recall type Presidential Election, I’d vote for Jill Stein on the first Ballot, and Senator Sanders on the second Ballot.

    Like

  4. petetalbot says:

    I’m curious, Skink. In your lede, you say, “nominating Hillary Clinton … will deliver the White House to Donald Trump.” I’m certainly not lobbying for Clinton, far from it, but every poll I’ve seen has Clinton up by double digits over Trump in the general election.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
    Do you know that the pollsters don’t?

    Like

    • petetalbot says:

      Should read: Do you know something the pollsters don’t?

      Like

    • JC says:

      Well, the pollsters have missed the mark quite widely with Clinton’s primary contests with Bernie. What that showed me is that they don’t have much a clue about who likely voters are. And if they can’t identify who actually is going to turn out in a primary, what confidence does that give you in polls for the general? What percent of Bernie supporters do they think are actually going to turn out and vote for Hillary? Dems and pollsters seem to think that percent is a whole lot higher than I or many other folks think.

      Of course, the same could be true about how many Hillary supporters will turn out and vote for Bernie. RCP has the average of polls showing Clinton 11% up over Trump, but has Bernie 17% up over Trump. That tells me that maybe a lot of Bernie supporters aren’t going to show up for Clinton, or are going to vote third party if Clinton gets the nom. But if the pollsters are off by 5-10% (or more) like they were in Michigan, then the election is a tossup at this point. And if Clinton is seen using dirty tricks to get the nom (likely, because, well she is using dirty tricks, ala super delegates), then the percent of Bernie supporters who stay away from Clinton can only increase. If you were to take the super delegate count and reverse it between Clinton and Sanders, Sanders would be ahead, and the primary race would take on a whole different tone.

      Dems only have themselves to blame for this mess.

      Like

      • Greg Strandberg says:

        Thanks for your thoughts, Pete.

        Like

      • It helps to understand that we have no way of knowing if the votes counts are accurate, or if the votes are even counted! What happened in Michigan, pollsters missing by that much, cannot be real. It simply does not happen. It points to fraud, the garks wanting to keep the Bernie flame alive until Philadephia, keeping the youth vote in camp for Hillary. No one seems able to embrace that notion. Is it too much to bear, to think that along with everything else, our elections are fake too?

        It was not real in 1948, 1960 was a contest between thieves – who had the best mobsters stuffing the boxes and dead supporters casting final votes. It was not real in 2000, 04, probably not since ’96, when voting reached a low point.

        As they say, if voting mattered, it would be illegal.

        Like

        • Steve W says:

          At a caucus everyone votes with paper ballots and most are in person. You can see what the support is for each candidate. You can watch the ballots being counted.

          You can see how full the room is and you can see what the capacity of the room is. Notice how Bernie wins caucuses where people come and stay for an hour or three? Hillary win primaries where no one knows how many voted or for who.

          Like

        • Michigan was an open primary, as you know. We are told that a last minute voter swing (due to trade issues) caused a surge of Bernie votes. I doubt it. I tend to think that polls are more generally accurate than elections, especially in our age of Black Box voting.

          It was not for no reason that the country of Ireland took all of their electronic machines and scrapped them, returning tot eh paper ballot.

          Like

  5. Bob Williams says:

    On the other hand, a lot of Democrats, Republicans and the 40% who are Independents, probably think PAC’s, Dark Money, Citizens (dis)United, even 501c4s have re-constructed both Political Parties in the USA duopoly franchise, causing two big partisan messes.
    Probably re-constructed the Republican Party more than the Democrat Party, before came Donald Trumps trump of everybody from Paul Ryan to Jeb Bush, to Rubio, but at cost of Republicans loosing control of the US Senate.
    Perhaps Greg and/or Donald would rather campaign, than serve as head of an Executive Branch of Government!

    Like

  6. Doug says:

    This is some top shelf concern trolling.

    Like

  7. Bo Flex says:

    I am a 65 yo WM politically an Independent. I voted for Reagan (1st term only), H. W., and W. (1st term only). However, I will not vote Republican again until the party stops pandering to the religious fanatics and anti-government extremists. I realize that my vote for Reagan, H.W. & W helped to usher in the party extremists which is why I will continue to vote Dem as penance and until the damage to the Republican party is undone. On the state level, I personally think Bullock has done a good job as Governor, however, even if I thought he hadn’t I could not in good conscience vote for Gianforte to run my state when he believes the world is only 6K years old. IMO his personal beliefs do/will effect his professional actions.

    My concerns boil down to: Economy, equal rights for all & 2nd Amend. The economy is going pretty good now after the disaster of W. Equal rights will continue to struggle under today’s Repub party and the Dems cannot do any harm to my 2nd Amend rights after the US Sup Ct affirmed in 2010 that those rights are individual rights.

    Part of me would like to see a Trump presidency. He could be the catalyst that breaks the Republican party and lets it be built back into the GOP it was, or as William muses bring us fascist idiocracy. I am not that willing to risk our future so my vote will go to either Hillary or Bernie. However, if the Republican convention gets behind Kasich so would I.

    Like

  8. Big Swede says:

    Just who’s promoting fascism?

    Like

    • Big Swede says:

      AMERICAN FASCISTS
      Tweet
      By Bill Whittle
      Well, this election year is getting ugly, and it’s going to get uglier. There have been several massive disruptions both inside and outside of Donald Trump rallies, and more are promised.

      Let’s just get one thing out of the way right at the top: This isn’t about Donald Trump. I find some of his rhetoric alarming to say the least, but the left – which means the Iron Triangle of Cry-Bully Revolutionary wannabes, billionaire agitators, and socialism-loving politicians, formerly called community organizers, formerly called race-baiting agitators – you know, like Obama’s terrorist buddy Billy Ayers.

      The upsurge of American Fascism we are observing has nothing to do with Donald Trump, because this is what the left ALWAYS does: they block, with coercion, intimidation or physical violence, any viewpoint not in line with their murderous policies of total political mind control and inevitable economic ruin. What, after all, are Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter but a little street muscle?

      Like

      • petetalbot says:

        This is satire, right? Fascist leftists disrupting peace-loving, diversity-driven Trump supporters. If your copied comment wasn’t so pathetic, I’d be cracking up, Swede.

        Like

        • Big Swede says:

          Chicago wasn’t peaceful Pete. There was “intimidation”, “coercion”, and “violence”.

          I’ll resist showing you the video evidence.

          Like

        • Swede, I am agreeing with you more and more of late … on some stuff. That should scare us both! My sources, which are just things I tend to grant credibility to until I don’t, tell me that MoveOn.org, the Soros false front group, is behind disruption of Trump rallies.

          Like

  9. Big Swede says:

    Let’s play the race card.

    Like

  10. Bob Williams says:

    Skink has produced one of the most provocative overview pieces, i know of on current Montana blogs. Especially provocative from the Taibbi paragraphs to the end.
    For me, Mark’s comment provokes yet more thought; will Sanders supporters get long gamed into voting for HRC?
    JC looks at a bigger picture and a poll with Bernie up 17% over Trump. All provocative material. Then again comes puerile phantasmagoria from the big impede. What a non-treat!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s