[What we’re seeing with the Trump/Miller regime’s actions in Los Angeles] is a stark illustration of the imperial boomerang in motion: the tools of empire – surveillance, militarized policing, psychological control – returning home. What was once deployed to suppress resistance abroad is now turned inward. But rather than subdue, this backlash is catalyzing a broader awakening. The brutality in Los Angeles has illuminated the deeper architecture of repression, drawing new political lines that unite across race, status, and geography. From L.A. to Gaza, the common thread is clear: state violence serves elite power, and the response from below is no longer fragmented. It is building into a global resistance that sees through the old divisions and names its adversary plainly – oligarchy.
. . . This uprising is forcing a reckoning within the Democratic Party. For too long, party leaders have paid lip service to justice while quietly enabling enforcement budgets and border expansion. Now, protestors are demanding clarity: who are you with? Those who remain silent risk political irrelevance. The bipartisan oligarchy is cracking, and a new political line is emerging – between those who serve concentrated power and those who challenge it.
In the past few months I've come to appreciate the political perspective of Peter Bloom, a Professor of Management at the University of Essex in the U.K.
Bloom regularly contributes to Common Dreams, a reader-supported independent news outlet. His most recent article, “Far-Right Endorsements Unmask Democratic Charade,” provides an excellent overview and analysis of the current state of U.S. politics. Following (with added links) is an excerpt.
In recent months, a curious phenomenon has emerged in American politics – the endorsement of Democratic candidates by figures traditionally associated with the Republican far right. Most notably, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney made headlines by throwing their support behind Kamala Harris’ presidential bid. This unexpected alliance has been framed by centrist media outlets as a heartening example of cross-party unity in the face of former President Donald Trump’s purported threat to democracy. However, a more critical examination reveals that these endorsements are less a triumph of democratic values and more a damning indictment of the current political status quo.
Defenders of this unlikely alliance argue that it represents a necessary “popular front” against the authoritarian threat posed by Trump and his supporters. They contend that in times of crisis, we must set aside ideological differences and unite to preserve the foundations of our democracy. But this framing relies on a fundamentally flawed premise—that the system these centrists and right-wingers are rallying to protect is itself truly democratic.
The political establishment that the Cheneys and their Democratic allies seek to preserve is one that perpetuates endless wars and military interventions across the globe, from Iraq to Libya to the ongoing support for Israel’s assault on Gaza. It allows for and exacerbates grotesque levels of economic inequality, with wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite. This system routinely supports and arms authoritarian regimes when it aligns with U.S. corporate interests, from Saudi Arabia to Thailand. It oversees a mass incarceration system that disproportionately targets communities of color and fails to take meaningful action on existential threats like climate change due to the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists.
This is the system that the so-called “popular front” is mobilizing to defend. Not a beacon of democracy, but a corrupt oligarchy that masquerades as one. The fight against Trump’s authoritarianism, while certainly necessary, is being used as cover to shore up support for a status quo that is itself profoundly anti-democratic in its functioning.
The embrace of figures like the Cheneys also reveals a deeply troubling moral relativism at the heart of the Democratic establishment. Dick Cheney, after all, was one of the primary architects of the Iraq War – a conflict built on lies that resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and destabilized an entire region. He has been an unapologetic defender of torture and a champion of unchecked executive power.
That Democrats would welcome such a figure into their tent speaks volumes about their own moral compass and political priorities. It suggests that in their calculus, the taint of association with war criminals and corporate oligarchs is outweighed by the potential electoral benefits. This is not principled politics – it is cynical maneuvering that betrays any claim to real progressive values.
Central to understanding this phenomenon is recognizing the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of political centrism as it exists in the United States today. Centrists pride themselves on their supposed pragmatism and willingness to reach across the aisle. But in practice, this “pragmatism” almost always skews rightward, dragging the entire political spectrum in a more conservative direction.
We see this in the way that ideas once considered radical right-wing positions have become normalized as “centrist” compromises. We see it in the adoption of Republican framing on issues like crime, fracking, welfare, and national security. And we see it now in the lionization of figures like Dick Cheney as principled defenders of democracy, memory-holing their long records of supporting deeply anti-democratic policies.
The Democratic Party’s willingness to embrace far-right endorsements puts the lie to their posturing as champions of the working class and foes of elite power. Their rhetoric may occasionally nod to populist themes, but their actions reveal a party that is fundamentally comfortable with the current distribution of power and wealth in society. By welcoming figures like the Cheneys into their coalition, Democrats are sending a clear message – they are not opposed to elites per se, only to those particular elites who threaten their own place in the established order.
This elite consensus is evident in the policy priorities of Democratic administrations. Whether under former President Barack Obama or current President Joe Biden, we see a consistent pattern of bailing out banks and major corporations while offering only crumbs to struggling workers. We see promises of a new direction in foreign policy coupled with a continuation of the same interventionist approach.
The result is a democracy where the differences between the two parties, while real, are far narrower than their rhetoric would suggest. Both ultimately serve the interests of corporate power and the military-industrial complex, merely disagreeing on the details of implementation. This narrowing of the political spectrum has profound consequences for American democracy, effectively disenfranchising millions of citizens whose views and interests are not represented by either major party.
. . . There is a need for a more forceful and unapologetic progressive movement within electoral politics. This movement must be willing to challenge the Democratic establishment, to reject compromises that betray core values, and to articulate a vision of change that goes beyond incremental reforms. It must be willing to call out the hypocrisy of embracing far-right figures in the name of “unity” while marginalizing progressive voices. Ultimately, the spectacle of Democrats embracing far-right endorsements should serve not as cause for despair, but as a clarion call for genuine, transformative change. It exposes the hollowness at the core of centrist politics and underscores the need for a political movement that truly represents the interests of the many rather than the elite few.
To read Peter Bloom's article, “Far-Right Endorsements Unmask Democratic Charade,” in its entirety, click here.
If you want to save democracy, you’ll vote for the candidate whom we, the party elites, have just installed. We first tried to shoehorn the incumbent into the nomination, but after years of lying to you about his health, we finally had to admit he was a liability and let him go. So now we’re shoehorning another candidate of our choice into the nomination, and it’s being done in such a way that we can completely dispense with an actual fair and democratic primary – along with an open convention. Also, the fact that this new candidate we’ve selected for you was polling in the single digits when she tried to become president in a fairer primary four years ago, is just another reason why we had to rig the primary for her this time around. But don’t think about any of this. Just do as we say, line-up where we tell you to, and then get out there on November 5 and save democracy!
– Unknown August 5, 2024
[The] Democrats’ recent and rapid shift from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris was a brilliant move not just for her party but for the U.S. capitalist ruling class and system. The dreadful 2024 presidential contest between two narcissistic and decrepit white male brutes was symbolically instructive. It evoked mass dread over the dystopian denouement of a viciously racist, classist, sexist, imperialist, and ecocidal social and political system that had vomited up the sick choice between jelly-brained “Genocide Joe” and the malignant fascist Dona’ “Poisoning Our Blood” Trump. On the “left,” among the more decent and non-fascist parts of the U.S. population, Biden had a way of turning folks beyond that great “coffin of class consciousness” (the late left historian Alan Dawley) that is the Minority Rule, right-tilted U.S. elections system.
When I recently wore a t-shirt bearing the revolutionary slogan “No Fascist Trump, No Genocide Joe, the Whole Damn System’s Gotta Go!” in bright blue Iowa City, numerous folks gave me a thumbs up and engaged with me on . . . well, the system.
The Kamala coronation has changed the situation. It’s not just that the slogan has lost much of its luster with Biden’s stand down. We’ll find new slogans. The real problem is that the Harris candidacy has juiced up the seductive power of the American bourgeois-electoral sirens in ways that are pulling untold masses away from thinking about radical system change and back into the paralyzing quicksand of Howard Zinn’s “election madness” with big notes of spurious identitarian (race, gender, and age) harmony.
. . . Never mind that the former prosecutor Harris is a full-on imperial neoliberal in the ruling class Clinton-Obama-Citigroup mode who rose to power based on a curious California combination: liberal identity politics and the advance of racist mass incarceration in the name of “law and order.” (I will never forget how Harris came to a 2015 “Chicago ideas conference” to openly mock progressives as childish protesters who foolishly wanted to move tax dollars from mass imprisonment to public education – imagine? She chided “the left” for not empathizing with her and her millionaire white husband for having to “put three locks on our door.”) It’s not for nothing that the Bay Area Black Lives movement nicknamed her “Kopmala.”
. . . Besides breathing new life into “the election frenzy,” Harris is an alluring double identitarian (race ala Obama and gender ala Hillary) shame card to deploy against those who dare to oppose the deadly American System. Her race and gender will be used by the bourgeois-democratic wing of the U.S. ruling class and its allies to tar as racist and/or sexist those of us who accurately point out that Harris is herself an agent of imperial genocide and eco-exterminism as well as a longtime leader in racist mass incarceration. Radicals who get it that the “real issue to be faced” beyond “superficial matters” (e.g. the race and/or gender and/or sexual identity/orientation of a political candidate or television personality or women’s basketball star) is “the radical reconstruction of society itself” – to quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr in his final essay – were accused by Democrats of racism for having the basic decency to point out that Barack “The Empire’s New Clothes” Obama was a ruling class imperialist candidate and president. Radicals who got King’s point were accused by Democrats of sexism for having the decency to point out that Hillary Clinton was a ruling class imperialist candidate. With “Kopmala” Harris at the top of the Democratic ticket, radicals speaking and acting in the spirit of Dr. King’s final essay will be accused by Democrats of racism AND sexism at one and the same time for pointing out that the Democrats’ presidential candidate is a ruling class imperialist candidate.
So Harris isn’t the best orator? Surely that’s surmountable. Besides, the lack of distinguishing actions during her vice presidency could even be to her advantage. She’s basically a blank slate, at least if you don’t look back too far.
It was impossible in that campaign to ascertain what Harris stood for. This wasn’t just a case of national campaigning jitters. One major thread in Harris’ career – including during her days as district attorney of San Francisco and attorney general of California – has beenflip-flopping on issues to suit the audience or the political moment.
This may have worked as a short-term strategy. But it left a long-term impression of her as rudderless and ruthless – a phony.
If Democratic leaders unite and pretend that someone, likely Kamala Harris, is now the anointed leader, then [. . .] the Democratic Party would march backward. They would be doing precisely what got them in trouble in the first place, saying, "We’re going to pick the leader and make you vote for them!"
How can anyone not see the value of having the delegates [at an open convention] pick the strongest candidate in front of our own eyes.
What if it’s a mess, you ask? So what? What kind of mess? The kind where we disagree with each other about some policies? And how is that a bad thing? That sounds like democracy to me. In the meanwhile, the whole country is talking about Democratic policies – and young, up and coming, Democratic politicians. Billions in free media for those, too.
Are we really going to give all this up so that someone else can be anointed? Have we learned nothing form this debacle? Blindly following authority figures in the Democratic Party doesn’t have a great track record of success. They haven’t been able to solve Donald Trump, for Christ’s sake. These are not the rocket scientists you thought they were.
Time for a fuller democracy, where the voters weigh in through a primary, has unfortunately passed. So, the delegates selecting the new candidate is the most democratic option we have left. At this point, if we are going to make the case for democracy in the general election, it’s about time we prove we believe in it.
At first glance, Kamala Harris may seem an unlikely savior of democracy. As a career prosecutor, including stints as the district attorney of San Francisco and the attorney general of California, she specialized in sending people to jail and prison, adding to the nation’s crisis of mass incarceration. As a senator and failed 2020 presidential candidate, she was often accused of opportunism. As vice president, she operated largely out of public view for three years, and was saddled with disapproval ratings that rivaled and sometimes exceeded those of President Joe Biden. But if the study of the past teaches us anything, it is that history is often driven by unlikely heroes who rose to the occasion in an hour of dire need. . . . To win, Harris will have to do more than highlight Trump’s negatives or promote herself as a seasoned prosecutor capable of standing up to her opponent. The “cop versus con” slogan that has emerged in the early going is catchy but insufficient. A successful campaign will require the formulation of a forward-looking positive agenda.
From the toxicity of our food supply to the dangerousness of our agricultural methods, from rising hunger to diminished opportunities among our young, from corporate capture of our government to the militarism and economic imperialism of our foreign policy, every candidate should feel the need to respond to the list of moral crises in our midst.
Anything someone gets away with not talking about as a candidate, they’ll feel no need to act on when they are president.
[Potential Vice President pick] Josh Shapiro challenges democratic practices. He doesn’t believe in free speech. He has warned state employees here in Pennsylvania about how they respond to the genocide in Gaza, questioning their behavior, policing their behavior. He very clearly supports Zionism – political Zionism. He very clearly supports the genocidal war in Gaza. He’s been actively and vocally supportive of Israel’s war on Gaza since October 7th and prior.
We can also get into school vouchers. We can get into climate justice. In every conceivable way, Josh Shapiro is not a progressive candidate. And it would be very frustrating to see [Kamala Harris] make that choice.
But in some ways, it would make our political reality much more clear. People right now are trying to project a green screen onto Kamala Harris, the same way they did to Barack Obama, meaning they want to project their radical ideologies and their progressive ideologies and imagination onto her. That’s not who she is. She very clearly supports AIPAC. She very clearly is a liberal, but certainly not a progressive or a radical. So, what Josh Shapiro as a choice would do is it will remind us of what we’re dealing with. If you’re voting for Kamala Harris, it’s not because you’re getting a radical or even a progressive. You’re voting for her because you want to keep Trump out of the White House. You can make your own political decisions about what that means, but we need to be very clear about what we’re getting and about what we’re not getting. But if you were somebody who was not voting for Biden because of him underwriting this vicious war in Gaza, then there’s absolutely no way you could justify voting for Kamala Harris if she chooses Josh Shapiro. And the two of them – it’s not just Shapiro – the two of them are just as supportive of this war machine as every other mainstream corporate Democrat.
Kamala Harris is dangerous in the exact same way that Barack Obama was dangerous, in so far as he put a Black face on a fundamentally corporate agenda. The Democratic Party’s strategy for so many years has become increasingly anti-labor and aligned with the same interest groups that have historically funded the Republican Party. And the way [the Democratic Party] distinguishes itself [in all of this] is through identity politics.
The stakes of the 2024 election cannot be overstated. Trump’s potential return to the White House is widely viewed as an existential threat to liberal democracy. His previous term was marked by attempts to undermine democratic institutions, a disregard for the rule of law, and the emboldening of far-right extremism. The prospect of a second Trump term, potentially unconstrained by reelection concerns, sends shivers down the spines of many Americans, regardless of their position on the political spectrum.
Given these high stakes, the impulse to rally behind any Democratic nominee might seem natural. However, such unconditional support could prove counterproductive and potentially damaging to the long-term promotion of a genuine progressive agenda. To understand this perspective, it’s essential to examine the delicate balance of power within the Democratic Party and the role that progressive pressure has played in recent years.
The Biden administration’s most celebrated achievements – from ambitious climate initiatives to student debt relief to massive infrastructure investment – owe much to the persistent pressure exerted by progressive forces both inside and outside the government. The creation of a strong progressive voting bloc, coupled with grassroots movements and the strategic positioning of left-wing officials in key roles, has been instrumental in pushing the Democratic agenda leftward. These victories were not gifts bestowed by a benevolent party establishment but hard-won concessions extracted through sustained activism and political maneuvering.
The obvious fear among progressives is that without this constant pressure, the Democratic Party will inevitably gravitate back toward its corporate-friendly, centrist tendencies. Historically, the Democratic Party has maintained close ties with corporate interests and the military-industrial complex. While the party has made strides in recent years to address issues like income inequality and universal healthcare, these efforts often fall far short of the transformative changes needed to address systemic problems.
The influence of wealthy donors and corporate lobbyists remains a significant concern for progressives. As Sen. Bernie Sanders has long pointed out, the replacement of Biden as the nominee could potentially open the floodgates for even greater donor influence over the party’s agenda. This fear is not unfounded, as evidenced by growing pressures from certain donors to replace Lina Khan, the current head of the Federal Trade Commission, who has been a leading figure in challenging big tech monopolies.
Vice President Harris’ political evolution provides a case study in the tensions between progressive ideals and mainstream Democratic politics. As a presidential candidate in 2020, Harris embraced several progressive positions, including banning fracking and significant police reform. However, as she transitions into her role as the presumptive nominee, there are signs of a shift toward more centrist stances. Harris has begun to distance herself from some of her previous progressive positions in order to “bolster a more moderate image.” This rightward drift is seen by many as an attempt to court moderate voters and assuage the concerns of corporate donors.
The reluctance of some progressives to offer immediate, unconditional endorsement to Harris is not merely about ideological purity. It’s a calculated strategy aimed at shaping the Democratic platform and ensuring that progressive priorities remain at the forefront of the party’s agenda. By making their support conditional on commitments to key progressive policies, leftist leaders hope to prevent a wholesale abandonment of the transformative vision that has energized millions of voters, particularly young people.
This approach serves several strategic purposes. By withholding immediate endorsement, progressives retain bargaining power to influence the party platform and Harris’ campaign promises. A vigorous debate within the party can actually serve to engage and motivate progressive voters, rather than suppressing turnout through a perception that their concerns are being ignored. Conditional support encourages specific, measurable policy commitments rather than vague platitudes. Moreover, by clearly articulating their expectations now, progressives lay the groundwork for holding a potential Harris administration accountable after the election.
While the threat posed by a potential Trump presidency is real and significant, offering unconditional support to any Democratic nominee carries its own set of risks. Without pressure from the left, there’s a danger that the Democratic platform could shift even further to the center, abandoning key progressive priorities. Young and progressive voters, who have been crucial to recent Democratic victories, may become disillusioned if they perceive that their concerns are being sidelined. The transition period presents a unique opportunity to push for party reforms and policy commitments, and immediate, unconditional endorsement would squander this chance. Once full endorsement is given, progressives lose much of their leverage to influence the direction of the campaign and potential administration.
As the United States barrels towards another presidential election pitting Joe Biden against Donald Trump, a somber reality is setting in for many observers: despite the stark differences between the two men and their visions for America, their rematch represents a broader shift in how democracy functions in the 21st century. Increasingly, elections have become competitions between the ambitions and personalities of individual “great men” rather than contests of ideas or visions for society.
This phenomenon reflects a contemporary belief in the outsized power of elite individuals – whether CEOs, celebrities, or political leaders – to drive change and shape the world around them. It’s a worldview that has its roots in neoliberal ideology but has morphed into something more extreme: a “cult of personality” that justifies massive inequality and the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of a small oligarchic class.
The recent Trump-Biden debate served as a grotesque apotheosis of “great man” politics, laying bare the dangerous fallacy of entrusting democracy to the outsized personalities of flawed individuals. What viewers witnessed was not a substantive exchange of ideas, but a sad spectacle of two men desperately clinging to the illusion of their own indispensability.
Trump, the self-styled political outsider, once again displayed his mastery of demagoguery. His performance was a masterclass in manipulative rhetoric, weaving lies and exaggerations to inflame passions and sow doubt. This wasn’t leadership, but a naked display of ego – a man willing to risk democratic norms and institutions to maintain his grip on power and protect his wealth.
Opposite him, Biden struggled to articulate coherent responses, his words often faltering and confused. The toll of age was unmistakable, raising uncomfortable questions about his fitness for office. Yet Biden’s insistence on seeking reelection, despite these obvious challenges, betrays the same hubris that drives Trump – a belief that he alone can guide the nation through troubled waters.
This debate didn’t showcase great men rising to meet history’s challenges. Instead, it revealed the bankruptcy of personality-driven politics. Here were two deeply flawed individuals, propped up by cults of personality, vying for the right to single-handedly shape America’s future.
In its most degenerate form, as we’re witnessing now, this results in the sad spectacle of a democratic election devolving into little more than the narcissistic desire of two powerful old men to cling to power and relevance, even as they and the system they represent show clear signs of terminal decline.
We warned about most of this in 2020 but we were told to shut up and fall in line so we could get the “lesser” evil elected. Many of us did that. In fact, much of the left has made that compromise time after time. We’ve compromised our way to fascism.
– Dana White via Instagram
July 10, 2024
In the system of government envisioned by America’s founding fathers, political leaders exist to represent and serve the people. This can be a fragile ideal. George Washington could have shattered it right from the get go had he wanted to hang onto power. But instead he relinquished his position and retired with honor when the time was right, a choice that – more than any other – made him a foundational hero of American democracy.
Though this principle has survived many crises since then, today it faces arguably its greatest threat yet. Donald Trump has already tried to roll back our democracy once. Now he’s running with an explicit plan to do so, and with the twisted authority of the Supreme Court to back him up.
Of course, to realize his dark vision, Trump needs to win in November. So the most terrifying thing about our current moment is that the presumptive Democratic nominee, President Joe Biden, is by every objective measure, on track to lose reelection. His 37% approval rating makes him historically unpopular, three quarters of Americans do not believe he has the cognitive health to be president, he is consistently losing in swing state polls (where he is polling far behind other Democrats), and his disastrous debate and interview performances show that he is not up to the task of effectively prosecuting the case against Donald Trump.
In this context, it’s easy to understand the anger many Americans have felt at the Democrats – some at high levels within the party but also worryingly large numbers at the grassroots – who’ve been insisting that President Biden deserves our unconditional support.
This is a dangerous claim to make on behalf of any political leader. In a democracy, no individual politician deserves unconditional support. That’s the whole idea behind a government “deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed.” Our leaders serve us, not the other way around.
. . . Being president is not a sacrifice. Certainly it’s a tough job, one that requires a lot of energy and endurance. But it’s also the most plushy, prestigious, privileged thing someone could ever do. That’s why Trump wanted the position in the first place, and I understand why Biden, his family, and his team would want four more years with all that power and prominence.
But they aren’t entitled to it. We have a hell of a lot more on the line in this election than one man’s ambitions and ego. The minority of Democrats insisting otherwise resemble nothing so much as a blue-shaded MAGA, not just in their conspiracies and increasingly unhinged perspective on the race, but also because they, too, are trying to drag us down a path that will very likely end in a second Trump presidency.
A large percentage of this country didn’t want either [Trump or Biden]. And now, a little miraculously, they might get what they want after all. If the Democrats have an open convention and pick a new candidate, that person might win easily because he [or she] isn’t one of these two.
Just think: if the DNC had facilitated actual democracy via a robust primary season, including debates, we may well have determined a year ago President Biden’s cognitive limitations and decline. That would have allowed plenty of time for a better-equipped candidate to have emerged and be nominated by “the people” (registered Democratic voters, in this case). But, no, the DNC did what it believes it has the (undemocratic) right to do: anoint a candidate for us and rig the process to ensure his/her victory. That strategy failed in 2016 with Hillary Clinton, and it looks as though it’s going to fail in 2024 with Joe Biden.
– Michael Bayly via Facebook
July 5, 2024
The same people who said we couldn’t consider anyone but Biden because we all had to stand in line, are now saying we can’t consider an open convention because we all have to stand in line. No deviation from the official line of thinking or we’ll lose, ya’ll!! In fact, once you have people convinced that we all have to stand in line, then we’ve lost already.
The moral flaw in all this from the beginning has been the idea that saving democracy is sooo important that we can’t possibly trust democracy to fight off its attackers. But the actual practice of democracy – really letting people have their say, giving everyone a fair shot in the media, allowing the people and not an elite few to determine the upshot of elections – is the ONLY way to fight off attacks on democracy, and those who don’t get that are subconsciously complicit in the attacks.
Almost everyone in Democratic politics and mainstream media owes Rep. Dean Phillips an apology. They claimed he was trying to hurt the Democratic Party by running against Joe Biden when he was doing the opposite. And to Marianne Williamson, who had the courage to say the truth first.
Almost as appalling as President Biden’s debate performance are the efforts of his loyalists to pretend that what 50 million viewers saw and heard didn’t happen or didn’t really matter. What has unfolded in the last few days amounts to a political gaslighting operation by the Biden campaign and supportive pretenders who’ve been trying to erase history as soon as it happened.
Apparently, Biden’s ego has proven to be much more resilient than his cognition, while loved ones and sycophants in concentric inner and outer circles cling desperately to talking points that are patently dishonest, often preposterous, and virulently dangerous for prospects of preventing a second Trump presidency.
By whistling past the graveyard of Biden’s credibility as a viable candidate in 2024, the pretenders are doing a huge disservice to all who want to avert a full takeover of the U.S. government by the fascistic Republican Party.
A new poll shows that 72% of Americans think Biden should drop out. If 7 out of 10 Americans think your candidate shouldn’t even be in the race, can anyone really be so deluded as to think that you have the right candidate? This is a slow-motion suicide of the Democratic Party.
– Cenk Uygur via Instagram
June 30, 2024
Refusing to quit is not always heroic resilience. It’s often stubborn rigidity.
Walking away from a losing battle is not a failure of grit. It’s a triumph of wisdom.
Service is not only about stepping up to lead. It’s also about having the courage to step aside.
We have become, by the tens and tens of millions, deeply removed from nominal reality. Trump can say virtually anything and we will not flinch. If he came out with an executive order (after being installed to power) criminalizing public statements affirming the theory of evolution few would be startled. If he denies voting rights to the unemployed, or gives two votes to gun owners there might be a muffled response of dismay, but no sustained outrage.
The issue most confronting the U.S. is not Biden’s senility, but the fact that we live in a rhinoceros infested land. All that stands between the US and a consolidated fascist state is a senile, morally defective man who never had more than average talent to begin with. Are we okay with that?
The whole point should not be Biden’s cognitive capacity (he is fucking senile and was barely capable in his mediocre prime), but the lost ability of self-scrutiny. Why do we sleepily gaze at herds of fascist rhinoceros and pretend that we see nothing? [Note: In Eugène Ionesco’s 1959 play Rhinoceros, a staple of the post-war absurdist repertoire, the rhinoceros symbolize fascists.] The members of a sane society would be thundering angrily through the streets given the choice between a smoldering ghost and an aspiring Nazi monster.
Who chose these two? Why are 50 million people curled up on couches, wrapped around plastic bowls of popcorn while these terrible, inept, and heartless fools cough up lies and trivial asides? We reflect upon levels of dementia and Nazi wannabe evil as if they were existential givens. Of course we all must decide on November 5th which genocidaire we prefer, the one who bombed the children of Gaza or the one vowing to deport up to 20 million innocent people. Do we pick the one who can barely remember his own name or the guy with a swirling vortex of hatred orbiting his eyeballs?
Who in the press watched the debate and screamed “What the fuck?!” Which pundits ask the public to take to the streets and demand a do-over? This election is a farce – the dying throes of a criminal society, the death spasms of a plundering oligarchy that once devoured most of the world and now cannibalizes its own.
A new survey released Wednesday found that with days to go until former U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to be formally nominated as the GOP presidential candidate, a majority of Americans believe the far-right Project 2025 agenda represents what Trump stands for – and shows how a victory by the Republican would endanger people across the country.
The progressive messaging firm Navigator Research conducted the survey of 1,000 registered voters from June 20-24, with the goal of learning how Democrats and rights advocates should frame Project 2025 ahead of the November election.
The group found that opponents of the right-wing project, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, may have an uphill battle to ensure American voters are aware of the policy blueprint, which calls for a nationwide abortion ban, mass deportation of immigrants, the repeal of climate safety regulations, elimination of the Department of Educations and shrinking of other agencies, and consolidation of power within the presidency.
The survey described Project 2025 as “a series of conservative policy proposals aimed at reshaping the executive branch of the federal government if a Republican is elected president in 2024,” and found that 77% of respondents had heard “little” or “nothing” about the agenda.
But after hearing two one-sentence descriptions of the plan – one in support and one opposing – the respondents opposed Project 2025 by an 18-point margin, with 49% in opposition.
Sixty-three percent of Americans surveyed said the agenda represents Trump’s policy priorities, even though the former president has taken pains to distance himself from Project 2025 in recent days, saying last week that he knows “nothing about” the plan and has “no idea who is behind it.” Nearly 90% of Democrats said they believe Project 2025 reflects the top priorities of Trump, who said late last year that he plans to be a dictator only on “Day One” of his second term, should he win the election. Sixty-two percent of independents and 42% of Republicans who do not identify with the MAGA movement led by the former president said Project 2025 represents Trump’s agenda.
The top concern expressed by respondents from across the political spectrum was that Project 2025 is “an unprecedented, extreme Republican plan that will fundamentally alter the American government, making Trump even more dangerous in a second term by granting him presidential powers like no president before him has ever had.”
Ian Smith, director of polling and analytics for Navigator Research, said the poll reflects that Americans were “concerned by the conservative push to consolidate presidential power around Trump” even before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that presidents have “absolute immunity” for actions they take in relation to their “official” duties.
“What’s behind the fears of how Project 2025 would change the presidency is what Trump would do with that power,” said Smith. “As Americans learn about the extreme anti-abortion, economic, and administrative policies proposed by Project 2025, independents almost universally oppose it, and even Republicans are divided on whether they support this vision for the country.”
Sixty-two percent of Americans said Project 2025 would have a negative effect on their family, including 70% of independents and nearly half of non-MAGA Republicans.
Just stop with the “But Trump is worse so shut up” nonsense. Everyone, and I mean everyone calling for Biden to step down thinks Trump is worse. That’s WHY they want someone with a fighting chance of beating him. They are actually taking the threat of Trump MORE seriously.
– S.E. Cupp via Instagram
July 10, 2024
Authoritarianism and Donald Trump aren’t the only threats our democracy faces. An arthritic status quo, unable or unwilling to respond to in any way to the concerns of voters, who just received new and urgent information about their candidate, also erodes confidence and faith in the system of government.
“Get on board or shut the fuck up” is not a particularly compelling pro-democracy bumper sticker.
“Look at Project 2025, pay no attention to our zombie candidate” isn’t gonna fly. If the Dems actually wanna stop Project 2025, they need to find a new candidate. Immediately.
[Biden’s] doubling down is really frustrating Democrats on Capitol Hill and in his campaign. . . . There’s an overwhelming frustration at the fact that he has decided that, no matter what, he is not going to get out [of the race]. It’s almost Trumpian in the way Biden has decided it’s either him or the party is going to go down.
. . . [Biden has] almost taken the path of Republicans – [saying] no matter what, I’m not going to change; I’m not going to course-correct; I’m just going to double down. It’s worked for Republicans, and I think Biden’s taken a blueprint from it.
[The voices calling for Biden to step aside] are only going to grow. . . . And if Biden doesn’t do well then down-ticket [Democrats] don’t do well. And so democracy’s on the line. And this idea that it’s Biden or nothing risks everything – from a national abortion ban to the implementation of Project 2025.
At the end of the day we’re going to have to take responsibility for this thing. We’ve got to stop out-sourcing the future of our country, the future of our democracy to politicians.
We’re going to have to take responsibility. And we have to understand that the choice may be between an “old” feeble man and a convicted felon, a crook, a fascist. We have to understand that and we have to do all the work that’s possible, all the work that is available to us to keep him out of office. And that is our responsibility. . . . At the end of the day it is our responsibility at the voting booth to save this country.
And finally, here’s the interview that ABC News Live did last night (7/9/24) with progressive Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson. As a supporter of Marianne’s candidacy, I’m elated to finally see her being interviewed by a mainstream media outlet. It’s a solid 10-minute interview, one in which Marianne’s on fire! I hope it’s the first of many more appearances by this Cassandra of U.S. politics, as we sorely need her wisdom and clarity.
I conclude this post by sharing the following YouTube comments on Marianne’s interview.
• Just compare this with Joe Biden’s ABC interview. There’s no question who’s more qualified for President.
• This is the single most succinct and well-articulated reasoning behind why Biden should not run that I’ve heard yet. Props to Marianne!
• Marrianne has eloquently conveyed everything I think majority of us Americans are feeling. Democrats stop gaslighting your base.
• Thanks ABC for finally acting like the 4th estate and allowing Marianne Williamson on. Bring her back often and watch your ratings climb.
• The powerful distinction Marianne made here about people voting for false hope over no hope gave me chills. The depth, clarity, and implications of that statement are profound. Thank you, Marianne, for all that you bring to the table. Every single time. You are certainly offering hope in these unbelievable times.
• I appreciate the knowledge of history Marianne shares with us. I also applaud how she separates the Soul of the Democratic Party from the Machine of the Democratic Party.
• There’s a reason why the corporate political machine despises this lady.
• This woman has an impeccable understanding of PR and politics.
• Wow! A major network just remembered that Marianne exists. Better late than never.
• Marianne nails it, and she is a running candidate. She has my vote. This is what we the world needs: a strong and well-spoken candidate that can take Trump down in a minute.
• Thank you, Marianne, for continuing to tell it like it is, with compassion, conviction, and integrity – everything we need in a leader!
• Her ability to maintain control and concisely convey her message is a crucial leadership trait.
• Damn, that was impressive, Marianne!
• This may be the best response I’ve read or heard to this crisis over the last 10+ days! Speaking the truth of how so many of us are feeling right now. Bravo!
• In a perfect world, Biden would step down, and Williamson would take his place as the nominee.
• As a disillusioned Democrat appalled by the White House and the president’s lies and behavior, I can’t believe I’m actually sitting here considering voting for (writing-in) Marianna Williamson. Guess I’m going to become an independent now.
• I am an Independent who leans right in my beliefs so I will be voting for Donald Trump. But I can always appreciate someone from the opposing party at least being sensible in what they are saying, and that is what this woman is doing in this interview, so she at least has my respect.
• I’m a Trump supporter but if she’s on the ballot, I’d consider it.
• Marianne, you can defeat Trump! You will motivate, inspire, and bring hope to our country when we need it most. You are a serious candidate and the only one who speaks to the needs of the American people. I want to hear you at an open convention in August. We have time!
• Please give me the chance to vote for this person.
I established The Wild Reed in 2006 as a sign of solidarity with all who are dedicated to living lives of integrity – though, in particular, with gay people seeking to be true to both the gift of their sexuality and their Catholic faith. The Wild Reed's original by-line read, “Thoughts and reflections from a progressive, gay, Catholic perspective.” As you can see, it reads differently now. This is because my journey has, in many ways, taken me beyond, or perhaps better still, deeper into the realities that the words “progressive,” “gay,” and “Catholic” seek to describe.
Even though reeds can symbolize frailty, they may also represent the strength found in flexibility. Popular wisdom says that the green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm. Tall green reeds are associated with water, fertility, abundance, wealth, and rebirth. The sound of a reed pipe is often considered the voice of a soul pining for God or a lost love.
On September 24, 2012,Michael BaylyofCatholics for Marriage Equality MNwas interviewed by Suzanne Linton of Our World Today about same-sex relationships and why Catholics can vote 'no' on the proposed Minnesota anti-marriage equality amendment.
"I believe your blog to be of utmost importance for all people regardless of their orientation. . . . Thank you for your blog and the care and dedication that you give in bringing the TRUTH to everyone."– William
"Michael, if there is ever a moment in your day or in your life when you feel low and despondent and wonder whether what you are doing is anything worthwhile, think of this: thanks to your writing on the internet, a young man miles away is now willing to embrace life completely and use his talents and passions unashamedly to celebrate God and his creation. Any success I face in the future and any lives I touch would have been made possible thanks to you and your honesty and wisdom."– AB
"Since I discovered your blog I have felt so much more encouraged and inspired knowing that I'm not the only gay guy in the Catholic Church trying to balance my Faith and my sexuality. Continue being a beacon of hope and a guide to the future within our Church!"– Phillip
"Your posts about Catholic issues are always informative and well researched, and I especially appreciate your photography and the personal posts about your own experience. I'm very glad I found your blog and that I've had the chance to get to know you."– Crystal
"Thank you for taking the time to create this fantastic blog. It is so inspiring!"– George
"I cannot claim to be an expert on Catholic blogs, but from what I've seen, The Wild Reed ranks among the very best."– Kevin
"Reading your blog leaves me with the consolation of knowing that the words Catholic, gay and progressive are not mutually exclusive.."– Patrick
"I grieve for the Roman institution’s betrayal of God’s invitation to change. I fear that somewhere in the midst of this denial is a great sin that rests on the shoulders of those who lead and those who passively follow. But knowing that there are voices, voices of the prophets out there gives me hope. Please keep up the good work."– Peter
"I ran across your blog the other day looking for something else. I stopped to look at it and then bookmarked it because you have written some excellent articles that I want to read. I find your writing to be insightful and interesting and I'm looking forward to reading more of it. Keep up the good work. We really, really need sane people with a voice these days."– Jane Gael
"Michael, your site is like water in the desert."– Jayden
