Search Results

Keyword: ‘obama presidency disaster democrats’

The Obama Presidency was a Disaster for Establishment Democrats: 3

October 26, 2017 2 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about why electoral success of Obama in 2008 and 2012 presidential elections did not translate into gains for the democratic party at either the national or state level in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016. To make a long story short, Obama’s electoral success was largely due to the fact that the republicans candidates in both elections had way more negative baggage than him. Also, Obama’s presidency was reasonably free of personal scandals and outright PR disasters, such as those which plagued the previous two presidents.

As I have documented in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, a number of things which were allowed to occur (legalized impoverishment of black families, greatly increased enforcement against undocumented hispanic immigrants, continued hollowing out of the 99% through more “free trade” treaties) or not allowed to occur (transition to single-payer health care system, any real reform of the banking and financial sector) show us that his presidency was about furthering the interests of neoliberal establishment types who financed his rise to power. As I have mentioned in a previous post of this series, Obama44 is best understood as the more media-savvy and black version of Reagan40.

Obama worked to further the interests of the neoliberal establishment and their “professional” flunkies while pretending to be in “touch with the common people”. While it was plainly obvious that he was a neoliberal shill as far back as 2004, many chose to believe otherwise. The especially disastrous second term of Bush43 and financial crisis of 2008 had left people desperately seeking a modern-day messiah who would finally ‘reset’ the system. It certainly helped that his main opponent in the democratic primary (Hillary Clinton) and presidential election (John McCain) simply did not look like they could effect change.

The decisions made by Obama mentioned in the first two parts of this series, from ignoring the needs and concerns of black and hispanic voters to blocking progress towards universal single-payer healthcare and promoting “free trade” policies, damaged the democratic party by reducing enthusiasm and turnout of predominantly democratic voters. However, there was another category of.. shall we call them.. “social trends” which occurred when Obama was president that may have further damaged the cause of establishment democrats. I have sorta talked about issue in a standalone post from a few months ago.

To recapitulate, the main point I made in that post was as follows: elite support for fringe cultural and identity based movements under the guise of promoting social justice is a way to distract the 99% from talking about systemic socio-economic exploitation while simultaneously feeling morally superior to them. But what does the rise of elite support for fake social justice have to do with the Obama presidency? Isn’t most of the rise of such pseudo-activism related to generational changes in the worldview of people? The answer to that is a bit complicated.

There is no doubt that some changes in social norms are generational. Examples include support for gay marriage, marijuana legalization, inter-racial dating and marriage, single payer healthcare etc. Readers might have noticed that these widely accepted generational changes are about greater fairness, equality and rationality. In other words, the most broadly popular generational changes in worldview are about more rights for more people and more humane treatment of other people. Their broad popularity is, therefore, hardly surprising.

Now contrast that with far less popular changes such as censoring idiots (campus activism against right-wing provocateurs), agitating on fringe issues few care about (ambiguous sexual identity in children) or empty political activism to become a paid spokesperson for some cause which most people do not care about (gamergate controversy and ‘woke’ feminism). The biggest difference between the very broadly popular generational changes and the largely unpopular ones is the later, rather than the former, have far more corporate and media support. But why?

Well.. as I mentioned in that standalone post, supporting attention grabbing fringe “social justice” causes allow corporations to feign social responsibility while providing cover for continued exploitation of everybody else. It just so happens that democratic establishment went full-bore in that direction after 2008. To be clear, Obama is not the only reason for establishment democrats supporting attention grabbing pseudo “social justice” causes. The neoliberal credentialed “professional” class being their second most important class of supporters was definitely an important contributing factor.

Having said that, there is no doubt that the peculiar public relation style of Obama was widely copied by other establishment democrats because it was seen as successful and respectable. And what was that style about.. Short answer, it was almost completely about perceived style and image management over substance and actions. Readers might have noticed that many positive media stories about Obama were about him meeting and acting nice towards people disadvantaged in a ridiculously uncommon but attention grabbing manner. You might also remember that Twitter, FaceBook and popular listicle sites used to have daily stories about Obama meeting some disadvantaged or ill person almost every single day since 2010.

It is my opinion that many establishment types in his party saw that type of fake behavior and subsequent positive MSM coverage as key to winning elections- especially after he won re-election in 2012. The fact that they had no real progressive socio-economic message for voters made them double down on that strategy. The net result was that establishment democrats put an inordinate amounts of effort in publicly supporting causes which bolstered their pseudo-enlightened image but were not popular. Doing so also allowed them to ignore truly popular causes such as raising the minimum wage, implementing single-payer healthcare, reigning in corporate monopolies etc.

They assumed that portraying themselves as more enlightened and credentialed republicans combined with inevitable demographic changes would help them become the permanent ruling party without having to support real progressive causes. They assumed that all those non-white voters would just vote for them in even larger numbers than previous elections- because they had no options. It turns out that many, if not all, their major assumptions were wrong and they lost the presidential election to a second-rate reality TV star, could not win back the house or senate and not win back almost any of the over 1,000 seats they have lost in state legislatures since 2009.

What do you think? Comments?

The Obama Presidency was a Disaster for Establishment Democrats: 2

September 9, 2017 19 comments

In the previous post of this series, I pointed out that Barack Obama’s two terms as president was one of major non-systemic reason for the repeated and sustained electoral losses suffered by the democratic party. While the general public disdain about decisions and policies during his term are often attributed to racism, it is also true that he won both the popular vote and electoral college in 2008 and 2012. So clearly, something else is at work. I mean.. he did win many mid-western states with a pretty high percentage of whites in both 2008 and 2012.

In my opinion, public disdain of Obama’s two terms was largely due to the fact that he turned out to be just another empty suit whose decisions and policies helped the rich and corporations at the expense of everybody else. In fact, he was reelected in 2012 only because Mitt Romney was a bigger corporate shill than him. Obama’s popular vote margin did decrease from 10 million in 2008 to 5 million in 2012, as did his margin in electoral college from 365-173 in 2008 to 332-206 in 2012. Having said that, he won fair and square on both occasions- which is what matters in the end.

But that still leaves us with the question as to how Obama got reelected in 2012, after the dismal performance of democrats in 2010 midterm. Also, why he remained somewhat “popular” even though the democratic party suffered further losses in 2012 and 2014. Part of his “popularity” might be due to the fact that few wanted to call out the first black president for being an empty suit shilling for corporations. But the other part of his “popularity” is largely due to the fact that he was not Bush43. As many of you know, Bush43’s second term was such an unmitigated disaster that Obama could look competent just by not repeating any of the large screw-ups of his predecessor.

Accordingly, he was able to restrain himself from overtly invading other countries in the middle-east and making extremely poor personel choices (remember “brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”) and being generally free of serious scandals and charges of overt corruption. Now you might say that this is a very low bar for somebody elected to the office of president. Then again, just look at the guy before him (Bush43) and the one after him (Trump45). Obama remained somewhat popular by simply following the neoliberal script- which is to appear erudite and competent, not make too many big short-term mistakes and cultivate rich elites and lapdog media types who will sing his praises.

The generic neoliberal script did not, however, work for the democratic party for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is much easier for one nominally powerful person at the national level like the president to cultivate his public image and elites. Presidential elections are usually about who is the lesser and more presentable crook to assume the post of chief executive of USA. Most people do not expect the president to be involved in the day-to-day running of the city, town or state of residence. Therefore, public expectations about him (or her) are very different from those of lower level elected representatives.

Elections at the level of representatives for national or state legislatures, in contrast, are often driven by partisan voters who believe that their choice will validate their beliefs. Since the majority of people correctly assume that electing democrats or republicans will not make their lives any better, it comes down to people who vote to validate their beliefs. That is why elections in USA tend to be driven by bullshit issues such as access to abortion, war on drugs, war on crime, welfare for non-white etc. That is also why “culture issues” dominated american politics and elections from mid-1980s to 2008.

But what does any of this have to with neoliberalism not working for democrats? Weren’t they able to win in states like West Virginia a couple of decades ago? Well.. they were able to win such “red” states as late as the early 2000s, but not because of espousing neoliberal ideas. Democrats, you see, were able to win all those so-called “red” states as long as their candidates promoted populist causes- specifically of the economic variety. As many of you know, establishment democrats became republican-lite by the early-1990s and their candidates either stopped being economic populists or were replaced by more corporate friendly figureheads.

It is therefore not surprising that those who voted in many parts of the country most hurt by all those “free trade” agreements and other neoliberal policies were increasingly of the type driven by “cultural issues”. To make a long story short, democrats abandoned people in ‘flyover’ states and those people then stopped supporting that party. At the same time, ranks of establishment democrats were increasingly filled with credentialed professional types who could care less about people who were not like them.

But what does any of this have to do with why the Obama presidency was so disastrous to democrats?

The short answer is that it was similar to the captain of the Titanic not altering course or reducing speed in a known iceberg field. The somewhat longer answer is that the ability of Obama to get elected, and the reelected, convinced establishment democrats that identity-driven neoliberal politics was sufficient to win against republican candidates. The two terms of Obama convinced them that they could sell a neoliberal turd covered by a thin layer of social justice issues and identity politics.

It is therefore not surprising that a lot of the so-called rising stars of the democratic party (Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Joaquim Castro, Gavin Newsom etc) are poor clones of Obama. They are all “properly educated”, photogenic, “properly pedigreed”, “media-savvy” people with handlers who feed them the right sound and media bites and who can deliver empty carefully-lawyered speeches with lots of fake conviction. While that strategy sorta worked for Obama in 2008 and even 2012, it is doubtful if it would work today.

You see, until 2008 many people in USA believed that their economic situation would keep on getting better, regardless of occasional and temporary setbacks. A number of events and structural shifts within the previous 8-9 years have totally changed that, especially for people under the age of 40-45. Today, most people (especially young) in USA simply do not believe in the system and its various “credentialed experts”. That is why somebody like Bernie Sanders got so much support among younger voters. Obama and his poor clones belong to the pre-2008 era.

Now this does not mean that they cannot win election in any state. Indeed, Obama clones can (and do win) elections in certain coastal states like California, Massachusetts and New York. However, it is also clear that such creatures are incapable of winning elections against even mediocre republican candidates in non-coastal states. But why? Well.. it comes down to the fact that Obama clones are unable to motivate voters who sit out elections because they correctly believe that democrats are basically republican-lite. In contrast, republican candidates can motivate their core ideology-based voters by spouting nonsense about “cultural issues”.

But what does any of this have to do with Obama’s position on “illegal immigration” and “free trade”? As it turns out, a lot..

While establishment democrats are busy expressing outrage about Trump’s plans to deport millions of “illegal immigrants” and “build that wall” between Mexico and USA, they forget that the policies of the Obama administration were responsible for more deportations (often under pretty atrocious circumstances) than Trump has manged to in an equivalent period of time. That is correct, Barack Obama’s administration started the current mass deportation machine with its private prisons, arbitrary powers and flagrant abuses of power. Is it any wonder that many citizens of Hispanic descent were not particularly enthusiastic about voting for a third Obama term under HRC?

Some of you might wonder why ivy-league educated “policy wonks”, such as those employed by the HRC campaign, could not figure out that many “illegal immigrants” frequently had relatives in USA who had become citizens- through naturalization or birth. Did they not realize that pissing upon voter groups who might otherwise be very sympathetic to your cause was a bad idea. Did they not realize that Obama’s deportation crusades had already put the democratic party on pretty shaky ground with Hispanics in USA- most of whom are Mexicans. Here is what I think.. establishment democrats did not care about what Hispanic voters thought because they believed that they had no option. While it is true that most Hispanics who voted still voted for democrats- a large number who could have simply chose not to vote for either party.

Let us now turn our attention to how the Obama administration’s support for various “free trade” policies and treaties as well as increased levels of job outsourcing hurt the democratic party. While Obama was not the first american president to pimp “free trade” and outsourcing, it is notable that a majority of job losses in sectors of economy with previously well-paying and stable jobs occurred during the 2nd term of Bush43 and two terms of Obama44. While the events which started that process occurred in the 1990s and early-2000s, it is noteworthy that Obama was far more vocal about his support for “free trade” agreements and outsourcing. Perhaps more problematically, many democratic candidates for national and state legislatures kept on repeating official party positions about “free trade”, education, skills, retraining and other assorted neoliberal lies even after it was obvious that most voters could see their bullshit.

It is therefore not surprising that many working-class people did not bother voting for them- as evidenced by low turnout levels in the 2010 and 2014 (and to a lesser extent in 2012) elections. In 2016, more than a few of them voted for Trump. It is important to realize that the democratic establishment willfully ignored the needs of the working class just like it did for Black and Hispanic voters. I should also point out that most Black and Hispanic voters are part of the working class. To make a long story short, establishment democrats took the support of their core voter constituencies for granted and then proceeded to ignore and humiliate them. While this behavior has been part of establishment democrat behavior for over two decades now- the two terms of Obama in combination their hubris led them to greatly speed up the process of alienating their key voter constituencies.

In the upcoming part of this series, I will talk about how the rise of “identity politics”, “culture wars 2.0” and SJW-ism during the two terms of Obama44 further doomed electoral prospects of the democratic party.

What do you think? Comments?

The Obama Presidency was a Disaster for Establishment Democrats: 1

September 6, 2017 28 comments

One of the more peculiar fact about contemporary american politics is that approval numbers for the democratic party are still slightly worse than for Trump. Let me rephrase that.. one of the two main political parties in USA has lower approval ratings than a rich asshole turned reality star who has flipped on almost every single electoral promise he made to this supporters. To be fair, the other political party (aka the republicans) is not doing any better and we seem to living in a very partisan era. But that still does not help explain why the democratic party has not been able to capitalize on the insane levels of incompetence and corruption displayed by the Trump administration since it took office in late January 2017.

So, how can the main (and only) opposition party in USA not gain any extra public support at a time when the ruling party and its titular leader are busy screwing themselves in public? Why is widespread public disgust towards Trump and republicans not translating into increased support for the democratic party? Why are so many voters, especially those from non-white communities, just not that enthusiastic about the democratic party? And why is the only generally popular national level politician a 75-year-old Jewish guy from Vermont who joined the democratic party about two years ago?

I have explored some of the many interconnected reasons for this failure in a previous series of posts. The main points I made in that series were as follows: a] democratic party establishment has become too incestuous, sclerotic and generally resistant to any type of change. b] It is almost completely funded, controlled and run by neoliberal corporate interests who try to hide their economically regressive policies behind token identity politics. c] The party bureaucracy and primary system is almost completely dominated by a bunch of corrupt assholes and hyperpartisan idiots. Also, there is no accountability for repeated failures. d] The major financiers, supporters and top-level cadre of the democratic party is almost exclusively derived from the rich and professional class- two groups with little, if any, real connection to the rest of the population.

There are of course other related reasons for the shockingly low approval ratings of democrats. The desire of coastal elite within that party to push gun control has not helped its cause in non-coastal states. Similarly, ad nauseam repeating of the “russian interference in our elections” trope since Trump got elected in Nov 2016 has not helped their overall public credibility. The point I am trying to make the democratic party establishment has done an incredibly good job of sabotaging its own electoral prospects. It is almost as if they are intentionally and systematically trying to lose public relevance. Even their new crop of leaders are full of photogenic, insipid and obvious fakes such as Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Joaquim Castro. I can go on about the many other structural reasons that the democratic party, in its current form, is doomed- but that is best left for future posts.

Instead I will focus of one of non-systematic reasons behind the failure of democrats as a party. I am certainly not the first to point out that Barack Obama’s two terms as president have seen a considerable diminution of the power of the democratic party on both the national and state level. His tenure as president has seen the democratic party lose control of the house, senate, over 1000 seats in state legislatures, multiple state governorships to the point where republican are the ruling party in almost 2/3rd of the states. The establishment democrat response to these massive electoral setbacks have mostly consisted of them saying that all those setbacks occurred happened because majority of the american electorate is irremediably racist. Of course, that does not explain how Obama got elected in 2008 and then re-elected in 2012.

I have a better theory to explain why the rise of Obama and his two terms as president have contributed to the ongoing collapse of the democratic party. My theory is largely based in how that rise shaped the democratic party- specifically its institutions and strategy. This is not to say that other factors such as increasing use of internet and social media by general public were without effect in that process. However, the more we look at all the facts over a longer time span, the more it becomes obvious that the rise of Obama and his style of politics was extremely damaging to the electoral prospects of the democratic party. But before we do that, we have to first understand Obama’s style of politics and its ideological underpinnings.

Barack Obama, for the lack of a better description, is a Reagan-era Republican. There.. I said it and you knew it too! The problem with his politics and its ideological underpinnings is that it is basically 1980-1990 era republican with a veneer of coolness and “inclusivity”. Also, since he is black, few people dare to say it aloud on any corporate mainstream media outlet- even Fox news. While he may not talk and act like a republican, almost every single policy decision (domestic and foreign) made by him is almost identical to what your average 1980s-1990s era republican would make. But don’t just believe my assertion without considering the evidence..

1] For a person who made his pre-political career as a “community organizer” in the black community of Chicago, it is remarkable how little Obama did to combat racism (overt or systemic) when he became president. As I pointed out in a previous post, it was smartphones with HD cameras and social media platforms which created public awareness about murders by police and other legalized atrocities against black people. Even the two biggest achievements of the Obama administration in that area (overview of some police departments and stopping police from getting military grade equipment) were insipid and in response to massive public outcry and demonstrations against murders by police and other flagrant violations of laws. To put it bluntly, Barack Obama did not care about black people.

We cannot also forget the harmful effect of deliberately rigged foreclosure assistance programs, created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, on the black community. While these banker-friendly programs hurt homeowners of many ethnicities, the black community was (as often is the case) disproportionately hurt by them. We can only imagine the effect that this had on the lives of many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of black people who were the subject for sneaky and unfairly foreclosure on their homes. It is no wonder that HRC, running for the 3rd term of Obama, had such a lukewarm response among the younger members of the black community. Simply put, Obama’s two terms were quite disappointing for the black community and has affected their enthusiasm for the democratic party.

2] The supposedly most important legacy of the Obama administration, aka “Obamacare”, was a massive public disappointment. While it did provide some improvement over the previous patchwork of rules and laws, it has not been able to tackle the issue of rising costs or provide universal health coverage. We can spend hours discussing how Obama killed the ‘public option’ in Obamacare and basically rejected universal healthcare coverage for a frankenstein which appealed to all the corporate interest donating to his election and re-election campaigns. Obama’s greatest achievement, then, is pushing out a ‘healthcare’ program modeled on the beliefs of some conservative think tank from 1993. If you call that an achievement, well.. perhaps your standards are really low.

It also did not help that the rollout of “Obamacare” was an epic public relations disaster. While the law is popular enough for republicans to be unable to repeal it today, its appeal mainly lies in being not as shitty as the alternatives- which is a very low bar. The point I am trying to make is that “Obamacare” is a microcosm of what is unpopular with the Obama school of neoliberal policies and its ideological underpinnings. It contains, within it, an example of every problematic aspect of his policies- from supporting corporate oligopolies and monopolies over public interest, unnecessarily complicated regulations meant to confuse and rob its users, broken promises about something as important as health care coverage, “credentialed experts” and other assorted conmen (and conwomen) padding their already fat paychecks to neglecting public concerns about the system.

In the upcoming part of this series, I will talk about how the Obama administration policies of immigration and deportation dis not help democrats increase enthusiasm among Hispanics for their party. I will also talk about the enthusiastic promotion of various “free trade” agreements and other secret corporate backed “trade agreements” by Obama over his two terms hurt the democratic party.

What do you think? Comments?

Barack Obama is the Political Equivalent of Bill Cosby

March 3, 2019 9 comments

Let me start this post by making one seemingly outrageous prediction- a couple of decades from now, the legacy of Barack Obama will be widely seen as similar to that of Bill Cosby today. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Obama is going to be tried and sentenced in court for drugging and raping women as Bill Cosby was in 2018. Rather, Obama and his specific brand of neoliberal black respectability politics will elicit the same degree of revulsion and pity as the mention of Bill Cosby and his older brand of that same viewpoint do today. Some readers might remember my previous series on why the Obama presidency was a disaster for establishment democrats.

The parts relevant to this post are that Obama was, politically speaking, a Reagan-era republican whose policies either preferentially hurt the interests of black people (e.g during the foreclosure crisis after 2008) or did very little to help them (e.g. police brutality, drug decriminalization and criminal justice reform). But more importantly, he did all of this while claiming the mantle of black leadership- which is a fancy way of saying that he was a conman who advanced his career as the ‘great black hope’ while at the same time stepping over a large number of innocent black people. And he still received over 95% of votes by black people during his re-election in 2012.

But how does any of this make him similar to Bill Cosby? Well.. for beginners, Barack Obama and Bill Cosby, in addition to many currently serving black political leaders, are part of what is best defined as black respectability politics. In fact, the black backlash against Obama has already started to build as we can see in the NYT piece which correctly points out how Obama used the white fear of young black men to advance his career and make himself rich. I would go so far as to say that Obama is now seem more positively by white people than black people (except maybe older black women). But how does this make him the political equivalent of Bill Cosby?

To understand this, we have to go back to an era decades before most of us (including me) were born. Bill Cosby, you see, was one of the first black entertainers in USA who was both widely successful and considered respectable. His standup comic career started in the early 1960s, an era when many states in USA still had separate drinking fountains for white and black people and Jim Crow laws are still in vogue in the retarded.. I mean southern.. states. More relevantly, this was an era when every black person in showbusiness was either portrayed as either a slave, servant, stupid, subhuman or otherwise flawed. If you do not believe this, just check out any movie On YouTube with black characters from the pre-1960 era.

So how was Cosby able to succeed in that era? Well.. for two reasons. Firstly, he was able to put forth the image of an articulate, intelligent and harmless black man telling good but inoffensive jokes for his white audience. Secondly, his success with white audiences at a time when there were few universally famous black entertainers resulted in him receiving unconditional support from his black audience. Barack Obama was the first black politician with a national reach who successfully appealed to white voters tired of idiots such as Bush43. His popularity among the black community increased only after it became obvious he could beat HRC in 2008 primaries.

And this brings us to the question as to why Obama had a large white following before getting a similar black one. Well.. in case it is not obvious enough, the appeal of Obama to white voters was almost exclusively based in the fact that he portrayed himself as an articulate, intelligent and harmless black man who shared many of the beliefs about themselves and those ‘other undesirable’ people. Sure.. he changed his speaking style in front of predominantly black audiences and pretended to care about the issues affecting them- but let us face it, he never cared about them. While his pre-2004 political career in Chicago is rarely talked about nowadays, it is a well-known fact that he built it by colluding with all sorts of shady people and causes, including urban “gentrification”.

In other words, Obama was always willing to walk over multitudes of poor black people to further his own career. Ironically, he would then turn around and try to get them to vote for him because of his skin color. This is also why his rise in local Chicago politics was slow until a set of unusual circumstances allowed him to win a Senate seat in 2004, thereby giving him a national stage. Yes.. that is correct- if Jerri Ryan (of Star Trek fame) had not sued her then husband for divorce and revealed lurid details about their sex life, Barack Obama would not have been elected to the Senate in 2004. To make a long story short, he used his new-found visibility to position himself as a national-level black leader who just happened to more popular with whites.

But why did Obama’s popularity take off so quickly among white voters? Well.. for starters, he studiously avoided talking about the legacy of racial discrimination in USA- and when he did broach that topic, Obama tried to make it sound that most of it was in the past (at least when talking to whites). He was also clever enough to not support the Iraq War and generally take positions which looked good on paper but entailed no real sacrifice on his part. He portrayed himself as the political equivalent of Cliff Huxtable, and that does make Michelle Obama his Clair Huxtable. The LIEbral class in USA ate all that shit up because they could finally support a token black politician and tell themselves and others that they were not racist.

There is a reason why writers on SNL and rich white LIEbral actors still sing the praises of Barack Obama, in spite of the sheer mediocrity of his presidency- not unlike how Bill Cosby’s career took off in 1970s and 1980s, despite the mediocrity of his family friendly acts and shows. A lot of white people just wanted to make themselves and others around them believe that they were good people and not really racist. And there is one more major similarity between Barack Obama and Bill Cosby. Both were, and are, big proponents of the scam of black respectability politics. See.. according to proponents of black respectability politics, racial discrimination against blacks in USA was their own fault and could be totally corrected by embracing CONservative beliefs.

As it turns out, that bullshit does not work and racism against black people in USA is due to the perception of their skin color by white people- most of whom are incredibly mediocre. Sure.. black respectability politics can help a few black people (Bill Cosby, Barack Obama, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris etc) succeed, but they can do so only by screwing over many scores of people who look like them in order appease a few rich white people who might throw them some crumbs. Some might describe this behavior as treacherous, but that is what still passes for black misleadership (political and cultural) in USA. Hopefully this will change..

To summarize, both Barack Obama and Bill Cosby are street-smart, but mediocre, men who built their careers by pandering to white liberals while simultaneously screwing over tons of black people and then demanded fealty from the very people they abused to make their benjamins.

what do you think? Comments?

Interesting YouTube Clips about how Democrats will Screw Up in 2018

May 5, 2018 1 comment

Here are two interesting and recent clips from the Jimmy Dore Show channel on YT. While each is about a seemingly different topic, both address the issue of how Democrats are likely to screw up and lose the 2018 election- inspite of the golden opportunity provided to them by Trump’s record unpopularity. Of course, this has been the case for at least a couple of decades. Also, check out some of the other recent video clips on his channel.

The first clip is about how disenchantment with Obama, in the black community, is now too strong for democrats to confidently expect the kind of voter turnout they enjoyed among that electoral group in 2008 and 2012. As some of you might remember, I wrote a three-part series on that very topic a few months ago. While democrats could certainly motivate potential voters by promising and implementing populist policies to help their most loyal voters, you can bet that they won’t do anything like that.

The second clip is part of a long interview with Glenn Greenwald, in which he talks about how establishment democrat obsession with “Russia” and “Putin” has attained the level of a sacrament within that party. He also talks about how this establishment obsession is blocking their ability to talk about issues which most voters actually care about, thus alienating them even further. As many of you might also recall, I have written more than a few posts on this topic (link 1, link 2, link 3 and link 4).

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts on the Likely Trajectory of a Trump Presidency: 3

January 28, 2017 23 comments

I had written the previous two post of this series (link 1, link 2) in the 2-3 weeks after Trump’s election on November 8. While it was tempting to write more parts of this series at that time, observing his actions immediately after assuming the presidency before writing the next part seemed to be a better idea. As many of you know, Trump has taken multiple and often conflicting positions on a variety of important issues over the years. Perhaps even more unusually for a politician, he has often done a 180 on his previous position on some issues- without even acknowledging that he took conflicting positions in the past.

For example- he is on record as supporting the right to abortion, being agnostic about it and opposing it depending on the personal benefit of taking one of those three position at a given time. Similarly, he is on record as supporting single-payer healthcare systems, supporting mixed private-public healthcare systems or defending complete privatization of the healthcare system- depending on the personal benefits of taking one of those three positions. In other words, it appears that Trump has few (if any) fixed beliefs about a large number of issues. More worryingly, especially since he is now the president, Trump seems to believe that his public perceptions about his past position on issues have no effect on his current position on them.

And all of this brings us to what Trump has been doing since he was formerly sworn in as the president on Jan 20, 2016. As many of you must have heard by now, Trump has been signing a shitload of controversial executive orders since he assumed office last week. They range from the hilarious (national day of patriotism), somewhat populist (withdrawing from the TPP), expected (mexico city policy on funding NGOs, approving new oil pipelines), plutocrat enriching (eliminating some rebates on mortgage payments), dangerous (starting repeal of ACA without an alternative plan, OK-ing the construction of a wall between Mexico and USA) to the batshit insane (banning entry of people from some Muslim countries, even legal permanent residents, into the USA).

Now, it is certainly possible to imagine that his executive orders are more theater than substance and might not survive legal challenges. However a lot of the concomitant rhetoric coming out of Trump’s mouth and tweets suggest that he is more than a bit serious about actually implementing those orders- especially the dangerous and batshit insane ones. I had briefly mentioned (in a previous post) that his positions on Mexican .. well.. actually all non-white immigrants and citizens has special potential to cause severe disruptions and unrest in the country. Events of the previous two days have added another issue to the list of those which have similar or even higher potential for disruption and unrest- albeit for different reasons than the “mexican” issue.

You might have heard that Trump has signed an executive order banning people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries from entering the USA- even if they happen to permanent legal residents. Curiously, people from these seven countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) have never ever been implicated in a terrorist act within USA. Furthermore, people from the two Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) whose residents have been implicated in almost every single Islam-inspired terrorist attack in USA are still free to enter USA.

To be fair, establishment democrats and their supporters had no problems in the past when Obama tried to overthrow the government in two of these countries + expanded “war on terror in the other five on that list. It is also no secret that the rise of organisations such as ISIL was aided and abetted by the overt and indirect policies of the Obama administration. In other words, there is more than a bit of hypocrisy when establishment democrats who were perfectly OK with bombing people in these countries and funding organisations bent on overthrowing their governments pretend to be shocked and angry at Trump taking their stupid policies to the next level.

Having said that, this latest move by the Trump administration is especially problematic- and not just in the immediate and widespread popular response against its implementation. As many of you realize, such executive orders and their implementation creates a new set of bad precedents. If you can ban the entry of people from countries accused of terrorism by the government, in spite of evidence to contrary, what is there to stop this (or a future) president from banning people of other religious, ethnic or racial groups from entering the country legally? Now some old and decaying american racists.. I mean jingoists.. might think that such actions have no consequence in international relations with other important and supposedly white countries.

As it turn out.. a lot! many of the supposedly important and white countries are no longer as white or important as they used to be in the past. Consider, for example that many west-european countries such as the UK, France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland have a fairly significant minority that is not white or christian. Do you really think that Trump won’t sign future executive orders to ban Muslims (often second or third generation) from west-European countries from entering USA? Do you really think that implementing such orders would not cause serious problems in those countries? Do you really think that many countries in that position would not reevaluate their relationship with USA? Do you really think that there would no financial consequences (for both sides) of such actions?

The problem with Trump and people who think like him is that they live in world which does not and cannot exist now. There was a brief period (between 1945-1949.. perhaps until the early 1960s) when the relative power differential between the USA and the rest of the world (especially non-white countries) was large enough for the USA to get away with some stupid shit. But that was a long time ago and things have changed a lot since the early 1960s. In 2016, the USA simply lacks the power differential to pull that type of shit without screwing itself in the process. Today everyone knows that the USA is not an exceptional country. Today everyone has seen the USA lose against insurgencies in even poor medium-sized nations and lacks the ability to win a war against any other nuclear power of consequence.

I think it is likely that this particular move by Trump will turn into his first real public relations disaster, very likely to due to internal protests and legal challenges. However, this “Muslim ban” also provides an interesting window into how Trump and people around him see the world. It is now fairly certain that Trump and his advisers inhabit a mental world where the USA is far more powerful than it is in reality. Therefore, I expect Trump (and his associates) to make similar moves in a number of other areas- from trade and immigration to internal issues such as “law enforcement”. Needless to say, it won’t end well for Trump, his associates, the republican party, average Americans and to a far lesser extent- the rest of the world.

In the next post of this series, I shall try to write about the panoply of problems (both obvious and not so obvious) consequent to Trump’s policies wrt to people of Mexican descent in USA- citizens, immigrants and undocumented. That is.. unless his recent Muslim ban causes even more unrest and problems which I then have to write about.

What do you think? Comments?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Latest Incarnation of Political Grifterism

September 11, 2019 16 comments

Ok.. the title is a bit clickbaity, however the main point it makes still holds. But before we go any further, let me be clear about a couple of things. Firstly.. this post is not a criticism of all policies (allegedly) supported and promoted by AOC. In fact, many of them such as establishing universal single-payer healthcare or taxpayer funded post-secondary education are perfectly reasonable . Similarly, raising the minimum wage to 15 $/hr, building new multi-family housing units in cities, spending money on building better public transport systems and infrastructure rather than expensive and unwinnable “wars” on the other side of globe are reasonable and populist ideas. Sure.. I don’t care about the “New Green Deal”, “gun control” and other similar bullshit. But my point is, the policies she supports are not what make her a grifter.

Secondly, I am not implying that she is somehow a bigger or more pernicious grifter than people such Reagan40, Bush41, Clinton42, Bush43, Obama44 or Trump45. One could easily make the argument that vast majority of people who have been elected to office in every single democracy are grifters. Nor am I suggesting that she is any more corrupt and power-hungry than the generic establishment politician of your choice who has been elected to office. The point I am trying to make is as follows: AOC is simply the latest incarnation of political grifterism in american political system. Also, I do not have an issue with elected politicians being grifters. My real problem with her brand of grifterism is that it is will likely damage residual voter trust in system far more than the outright corny bullshit spouted by people such Reagan, Bush or Clinton.

In other words, her grifterism is more problematic than that displayed by your run-of-mill politico because too many people still see her as a genuine person. In contrast, only the brain-damaged or senile idiots ever believed a single word that came out of the mouths of scammers such as Reagan, Bush or Clinton. To understand what I am talking about, let us go back about a decade or so to a then rising presidential candidate known as Barack Obama. As some of you might remember, I wrote a short series about why the Obama presidency was a disaster for democrats. The very brief version is as follows: Obama pioneered a new form of political grifterism which combined great-sounding but completely empty electoral promises, appeals to identity politics, and the media-abetted scam of being somehow relatable.

While that grift got him elected, once with a commanding mandate and subsequently a barely adequate one, it destroyed most of the residual voter trust in system. As you might remember, Obama44 came after Bush43, a person whose administration was infamous for losing a massive amount of voter trust in aftermath of failed occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, mismanagement after hurricane Katrina, Housing Bubble of 2003-2007 and Global Financial Crisis of 2008. Which is another way of saying that public confidence in the system was already on a steep downturn when Obama came into the picture. While Obama ran an entire campaign centered around “Hope and Change”, he did not deliver on those promises- at least as far as the 99% were concerned.

His administration largely doubled and tripled down on the neoliberal policies of previous ones and immiserated the majority while rescuing the 1% and to some extent, another 9% aka the flunkies of the 1%. It is no accident that the opioid epidemic began under Obama. While his 2008 campaign was about “hope and change”, his policies led to the destruction of most residual hope left in USA. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the anger and betray felt by most people during two terms of Obama led to a ridiculous orange troll beating HRC in the 2016 presidential election. Just as deliberate failures by Bush43 administration led to election of Obama44 in 2008, engineered failures of his administration led to the election of Trump45 in 2016.

So where does AOC fit in this picture? Well.. her grifterism is distinct from the one pioneered by Obama- though many of you might not be be able to tell them apart. Obama’s grifterism was formulated in the last days of neoliberalism before its image was permanently damaged in mind of voters. It relied heavily on being credentialed, appearing “cool”, talking like a CEO, projecting predictability and acceptance by rich white people. It also relied on identity politics and careful triangulation to make sure that he appeared promising to black voters while doing nothing to actually improve their lot. AOC’s grifterism is based on projecting fake “authenticity”, which is not surprising since we live in the era of YouTube, FakeBook, Twitter and Podcasts. It is also based on her being a woman, which is different from Obama’s identity politics of race.

Interestingly, AOC uses her Hispanic ancestry as a way to make herself look authentic than for race-based appeals. She has certainly learnt from the ultimate failure of Obama’s grifterism. But why do I keep saying that she is a grifter, just like almost every other politician? It has to with an observation about what she supports and what she does not. See.. the very few non-grifters in politics distinguish themselves by taking public positions which subject them a lot of ridicule by establishment. In other words, they frequently stand up for ideas that are unpopular with those in power. In contrast to that, AOC stands up for ideas that are either already popular (healthcare, education, housing) or are supported by a large part of the establishment (“gun control”).

The few somewhat unpopular ideas she stands for (new green deal” etc) are the ones that she knows have no real chance of becoming law. Compare her milquetoast positions to somebody like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib who are actually willing to confront the establishment on some pretty controversial stuff such as the special relationship to Israel. Whether you agree with their positions or not, it had to deny that they actually stand for something. It is also not surprising that the dying MSM chooses to promote AOC in a far more positive light than somebody like Omar or Tlaib. And this brings us to why AOC’s grifterism is problematic.

See.. its main audience is made up of those who have not comprehended the enormity of Obama’s letdown or are naive enough to believe that “it will be different”. The letdown this time around is going to be as bad as that after Obama got reelected in 2012 and will destroy most residual trust in system. But at least somebody will get rich and powerful till that occurs.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 2

September 4, 2019 11 comments

In the previous part of this series, I pointed out that the biggest difference between democratic and republican party comes down to how they perceive their voters. While both are beholden to their corporate owners and incapable of doing anything other than fucking over their voters, democrats treat most of theirs with far more derision, disdain and contempt than republicans. It is this factor, more than any other, which explains the decline of the democratic party in most states since the early-1990s. Things have gotten so bad that it took the failed occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, gross incompetence in aftermath of hurricane Katrina, Bush43’s failed attempt at privatizing social security and global financial crisis by republicans for democrats to finally win the trifecta of house, senate and presidency in 2008. It also helped that Obama and Biden were running against loser such as McCain and Palin.

In other words, democrats have shown themselves to be incapable of winning national elections unless their opponents literally screwed the pooch and then some more. Let us now talk about a couple of issues which have repeatedly hurt the ability of democrats to consistently win elections at the national and state level in past two decades. As many of you know, pundits on the payroll of democratic party have repeatedly floated a hilarious wet-dream which centered around how the so-called “coalition of the ascendant” would inevitably deliver them lasting electoral victories at the national level. The only problem with this theory is that it sorta worked just once- in 2008. At least two large states in USA (Florida and Texas) should have been democratic strongholds by now, if the theory held any water. Also, a few more such as Georgia, Virginia and Arizona would be consistently “blue” nor “purple” or “red” on the electoral map.

Some of you (MikeCA?) will try to tell me that this is all because of those dastardly republicans suppressing democratic leaning voters. Ok.. let us assume that this is the case. Now tell me what have the democrats done to fix this issue for the past twenty years? How about fuck all? That is right.. the democratic party has done little, let alone anything serious and sustained, to combat voter suppression. I would go further and say that neither party wants a high electoral turnout because then voters might actually demand their elected representatives start delivering on their electoral promises. Liberal “democracies”, you see, love low electoral turnouts since it lets them pretend that the system is democratic even thought it is (for all practical purposes) an oligarchy or kleptocracy, in all but name. Now you know why things are the way they are in this country.

And this brings us to the real reason why all these “social” issues (abortion, “gun control”, “tough on crime” etc) came to dominate american electoral politics since the 1980s. Some of you might, once again, attribute this to the racially charged politics pioneered by Nixon or Reagan- and there is a bit of truth to that view. However, democratic politicians were frequently as hawkish on these issues as their republican counterparts. If you don’t believe me, search the internet for speeches, campaign platforms and interviews of most democratic politicians from between 1982 to 2008. The idea that democrats were somehow less center-right than republicans is a self-delusion that only hardcore partisan democrats believe. Perhaps the only difference between the two was that republicans were openly racist while democrats tried to cover it with by using “proper language” and maintaining a few token colored faces within their ranks.

There is a reason why the largest increase in mass incarceration occurred under a democratic president known as Bill Clinton, who also made sure that voters knew he was in favor of treating all black men like animals and criminals. A lot of the other fun stuff such as almost complete deregulation of financial sector, gutting of anti-trust rules and laws, implementation of NAFTA and many other “free trade” agreements, the gutting of social safety net aka “welfare reform” and many other similar and ultimately disastrous decisions were made under multiple democratic administrations. Did I mention the part where large cities run by democratic party were among the most aggressive and punitive in their failed war on drugs? My point is, let us not pretend that the democratic party was any more progressive in its policies than the republican party.

Which brings us to how “cultural issues” became so important in contemporary electoral politics. The thing is.. by now, both parties have demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that they are totally incapable of effecting any real improvement in the lives of most voters. Consequently, a majority of people in many states no longer participate or even care about the electoral process. The only people voting with any regularity are those who benefited from the neoliberalization of system (professional class, petit bourgeoisie etc), believe they are dependent on continued political patronage (older black people) and those driven by single issues (abortion, gun, LGBT rights etc). Are you starting to see the problem? And it gets worse..

A few months ago, I wrote a series of posts about why the Obama presidency was a disaster for democratic party. Yet, even today nobody in the current clown car of democratic presidential candidates had dared to even acknowledge the obvious fact that Obama’s presidency created the socio-economic conditions which led to rise of the orange buffoon aka Trump. There is a reason why HRC lost states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and almost lost Minnesota, in addition to losing Florida and Ohio. And ya.. black turnout was low, even in states without any worthwhile attempts by republicans at suppressing votes. But there is something even more peculiar that most pundits do not talk about.. a rather high percentage of working class people (whites, blacks etc) did not vote. But why not?

Let me put it this way.. why should people who have repeatedly seen elected politicians from both parties renege on their major electoral promises maintain faith in the electoral process and system? The vast majority of people are not retarded. Why would you expect people to have faith in a “bipartisan” system which has not delivered for them in over 40 years. Why would you trust politicians who spend hours talking about gun control but don’t give a shit about far more pressing problems such as the absurd and still rising cost of “healthcare”? Almost everyone of you knows somebody who was immiserated or bankrupted by the “healthcare” system in america, but very few know a victim of “gun violence” especially mass shootings. Almost everybody knows somebody stuck with tens of thousands in nondischargeable student debt but few know (or care about) a “trans person” inconvenienced by public bathroom policy.

However, democratic politicians cannot seem to stop talking about how they want to ban and confiscate “assault weapons”, try to outdo each other at being “woke” and do meaningless token bullshit such as banning plastic straws and passing stupid car emission laws which simply shift the market share of automobiles from cars towards crossovers. Almost nobody (except Bernie Sanders) is credibly talking about solving real problems such as implementing a truly universal healthcare system, discharging student loans, lowering cost of post-secondary education, making housing more affordable etc. You know.. stuff that most voters actually care about. And no.. Elizabeth Warren is not a credible progressive politician.

In the next part, I will go into more detail about why certain democratic party fetishes such as “gun control” , LGBT related “wokeness” and harping on the bullshit of “man-made climate change” actively reduces number of people willing to vote for them in real life aka elections.

What do you think? Comments?

Democrat Attempts to Impeach Trump Will Help Him Get Re-Elected

June 18, 2019 4 comments

Today, I came across a couple of news items that increase the likelihood of Trump winning the 2020 presidential election. The first was a ‘leaked’ poll which allegedly showed that more than a few democrats could defeat Trump. The second was a speech by Biden in which he used this poll to promise that he would beat Trump, not only in mid-western states which Hillary lost in 2016 but also, in others such as Georgia, Texas and South Carolina. So why do I think that these two apparently positive bits of news for democrats are harbingers of a likely Trump victory in 2020? Well.. because I remember 2016, or more precisely how polls done as late at October of that year strongly suggested Hillary would won states such as Georgia and South Carolina. We all know how that turned out. But why do I think 2020 could be like 2016?

Let me start by restating the obvious. Establishment democrats haven’t learnt anything from their defeat in the 2016 election. Even worse, they seem to to have interpreted their meager gains in the 2018 election as evidence of an electorate which now hates Trump, rather than a reaction to his comically inept attempts at destroying Obamacare in addition to being unable to deliver on his election promises about reversing outsourcing etc. They seem to believe that promising a return to “norms”, throwing a bit more money at Obamacare and making some noises about education and job training will guarantee a win in 2020. In other words, they are still desperately clinging to the idea that Trump is an aberration and things will magically go back to the way ‘they used to be’ before the fateful midnight of November 8, 2016.

As many of you know, I do not think Trump is an aberration (link 1, link 2). In fact, I blame the deliberate failure of the previous neoliberal grifter-in-chief aka Obama to deliver real substantive reform in aftermath of 2008 global financial crisis as the most important reason for rise of Trump. Think about it.. would a character like that orange buffoon have gotten any traction in national politics, let alone won the presidency against all odds, if the majority of people still had any faith in the establishment and institutions of this country? Trump is therefore best understood as the crazy clown who appeared viable to a majority only because the vision and choices offered by the establishment were rotten. Some of you might remember that Hillary’s unfavorability ratings during the 2016 electoral season were often higher than Trump.

Now let us talk about how the establishment democrat obsession with Trump getting impeached will likely help him to win the 2020 election. As many of you know, establishment democrats and their supporters in media, hollywood etc spent about two years hallucinating about a future where the “Mueller Report” would magically implicate Trump in some high crime that would lead to his immediate impeachment and arrest. Well.. the report has been out for almost two months and it was unable to find evidence that Trump or his gang of idiots colluded with Russia or indeed “obstructed” justice in a manner which would stand in a court of law. The report, on which establishment democrats and public LIEbrals put so much hope, turned out to be damp squib. Of course, this did not change the narrative of establishment democrats and their MSM cronies.

To make matters worse, partisan democrat voters (who are over-represented in primaries) have become even more convinced and vocal about the need to impeach Trump despite the lack of evidence that he is anything more than a greedy and lecherous troll who used to be real-estate developer. We are now seeing a rapidly increasing amount of pressure on Pelosi and other democrat leaders to ‘do something’ and impeach Trump, or at least start the pre-impeachment investigation. While the wheels on that shitshow have not started moving yet, it is becoming increasingly likely that we will see some action on that front by the end of this year. But why is demanding the impeachment of Trump, or even starting the pre-impeachment farce.. I mean ‘investigation’.. such a bad idea? What could go wrong?

Well.. how about the fact that a non-stop barrage of intentional negative reporting by MSM on Trump has not moved his poll numbers much- either way. Such reporting has, if anything, destroyed whatever residual credibility they used to have prior to his election. It is telling that the MSM has remained focused on “collusion”. “Putin” and “Russia” (and now “obstruction of justice”) while ignoring all the other shady and outright illegal stuff which Trump had done- and it is one long list. From making up false valuations for his properties to either get loans or dodge taxes, promoting his DC hotel to earn extra income from foreign countries, having a son-in-law with really shady business dealings, being bought off by MBS and that guy who currently rules UAE to bend all sorts of rules for them and a whole lot more.

My point is that Trump has done enough shady and illegal things to get himself impeached and locked up- but colluding with Russia and Putin is not one of them. It is therefore incredibly stupid for democrats to focus on the one crime of which he is not guilty. Then again, they may be doing so because they are out of ideas and live in a “ivy-league” bubble full of other disconnected and incompetent elites. Either way, these dumbfucks don’t seem to understand or care that the vast majority of voters are far more concerned about whether they can afford whatever passes for healthcare in USA, have a job that pays and is stable enough to keep them going for the next year, whether they can ever afford a half-decent house or car etc. Only a section of primary voters (mostly baby-boomers) give a fuck about the whole Russia-Putin fairytale.

Unfortunately, these accursed boomers are over-represented in democratic primaries. We can therefore expect all the presidential candidates to make increasingly shrill and comic promises about impeaching Trump for “collusion” and “obstruction of justice”- in spite of there being no legally sound evidence for either. This stupid competition to out-hawk each other on this issue is going to eclipse the discussion of other more relevant issues. Eventually, we will reach a point when the public platform for most democratic candidates is centered around Trump- whether it is impeaching him, repeatedly telling us that “he is a bad bad man” and invoking the “norms fairy” aka how things will go back to normal once he is gone. While this might win somebody the primary, it is unlikely to ensure a high turnout in the general election.. like 2016.

More problematically, accusing Trump of the one or two crimes he did not commit (while ignoring the many others he did) makes him look like the victim of an establishment conspiracy. It is not secret than the MSM has no credibility beyond partisan democrats and a few affluent republicans. Harping on fictional crimes, without strong corroborative evidence, is going to further alienate their non-partisan audience and allow Trump to successfully spin his persecution by the MSM as martyrdom. Between this and selecting an establishment hack with little popular support beyond partisan democrats (Biden, McKinsey Buttboy, Harris, Warren), it seems increasingly likely that 2020 will be a replay of the 2016 shitshow- albeit on a much bigger scale.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on Mueller Report and Trump Derangement Syndrome

April 21, 2019 7 comments

Over past couple of days, I managed to read some more of the Mueller Report and to be honest.. it isn’t that exciting, otherwise would have finished it by now. Having said that, it doesn’t contain any evidence of “collusion” or conspiracy between the Orange Buffoon or members of his 2016 campaign team with ‘Russia’ or Putin’. The contents of that report, if anything, further validates my belief of Trump being the real-life version of the George Bluth Sr. character from Arrested Development. Similarities between many members of fictional Bluth family and Trump clan have been pointed out by others in the past. Also, building a wall between Mexico and USA was one of the central story arcs in the 4th season of that show in 2013.

The report merely confirms Trump being somebody with street-smarts but otherwise incapable of thinking strategically or systematically. And this makes him like almost every other rich guy who got there through some combination of having rich parents and being at the right place at right time. The very idea that such an intellectually mediocre but egotistical lecher could participate in any complex conspiracy is as absurd as somebody with serious brain damage caused by playing american football going on to become a famous mathematician. That he actually took the Mueller investigation and RussiaGate seriously enough to utter “This is the end of my presidency, I’m fucked” to people around him (in spite of being innocent) tells you far more about his state of mind than his ability to do anything beyond pay hush money to his mistresses.

Some of you might say that Trump is too stupid to understand that he is being manipulated by ‘Putin’ or ‘Russia’. Fair enough.. now tell me which of his actions towards Russia are irrefutable proof of him being a ‘Puppet of Putin’? In case you can find a few minor ones, do also tell me how you reconcile all those other major hostile actions taken by his administration against Russia with Trump being a ‘Russian Stooge’. While you are at it, also tell me how Trump’s behavior towards Kim Jong-un is a sign of the later having “kompromat” on the former. My point is that there is no evidence for Trump’s policy towards Russia being any less hawkish than that of his predecessor. To put it another way, Trump is basically a boilerplate republican president with poor impulse control and especially brazen, stupid and incompetent advisers.

Which brings me to the topic of Trump Derangement Syndrome, also know as Orange Man Bad. As I have noted in a few previous posts, hating Trump is a very popular form of performance art among celebrities, corporate media types, establishment democrats, other deep state types and basically anyone who wants to be recognized as “woke”. Of course, they will never explain why they used to be super chummy with Trump before he ran for the presidency in 2015. Or.. why exactly Trump’s policies are so much worse than those of Obama44 or Bush43? Then again, I do not expect such delusional and incompetent losers to have the mental ability to answer such introspective questions. So let me help you understand the real reason behind their irrational hatred for Trump aka Trump Derangement Syndrome aka Orange Man Bad.

In an older post, I pointed out that Trump’s approval numbers (which were always low) have not suffered from the 24/7 barrage of negative news against him unleashed by the corporate media and establishment. Why not and what does it have to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Even the gain of legislative seats in the 2018 elections by democrats was largely due to popular anger directed at Trump’s missteps on healthcare and inability to stop outsourcing rather than his persona. So what is happening? Why has the near constant assault by establishment types and their media flunkies on his personality had basically no effect on his approval ratings? part of the answer to that question lies in the nature of contemporary american elites and how they are perceived by the rest of society- especially after 2008.

As I have mentioned in numerous prior posts, the elites of most societies throughout human history have risen to power via some combination of blind luck and parasitism. In other words, they are not actually competent at fulfilling the duties of the societal positions they occupy. Under conditions of economic growth and general societal well-being, it is possible for cover their gross inadequacies, largely because they don’t have to do anything beyond acting competent- the key word being ‘acting’. That is why a lot of the declared 2020 democratic candidates resemble used-car salesmen and D-list actors. This however stops working and becomes counterproductive when the society in question goes into prolonged or terminal socio-economic decline. USA as a nation has been in obvious terminal decline since 2008- at least for the 99%.

Trump winning the presidency is a very visible reminder to the establishment elite that the old status quo is fragile and likely over. Sure.. the guy is a piece of shit, but let us not pretend that he is a bigger disaster than his predecessors such as Bush43 and Obama44. If you don’t believe me, just look at how easily establishment democarts were to forgive Bush43 for his role in the failed and incredibly expensive occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan- not to mention all the other shit that went on during his presidency. Or look at how they celebrate Obama44 for everything he promised voters but did not deliver- from ending foreign wars, passing something approaching universal healthcare, holding financial institutions accountable, slowing down job outsourcing, improving racial relations and a whole host of other things he could have done.

Those who display Trump Derangement Syndrome are like those idiots who want to return to some mythical golden era or period- you know, the one which never existed. To make maters worse, condemning Trump and publicly wanting his presidency to end in some shameful way has become part of the sacrament for anybody who wants to maintain their relevance among the elites or hope to join their ranks. That is why people as diverse as Rachel Maddow, Laurence Tribe, almost every Hollywood or Music celebrity, rich voters living in certain coastal zip codes and establishment Democrats (and Republicans) in addition to many “national security officials” were (and still are) so invested in the Mueller Report. It is also why they are now busy spinning the lackluster findings and moving the goal posts- with almost every single passing hour.

See.. the thing is, western elites lack the reality-based ruling mandate of their Chinese or Russian counterparts. For the past 30-40 years, their claim to rule has been largely based on looking good, competent, intelligent, sophisticated and clever. This is why establishment democrats still worship Clinton42 and Obama44 and their republican counterparts have made a cult out of professing reverence for Reagan40. That is why they push candidates such as Kamala Harris, Beta O’Rourke and that Pete Buttguy. Trump’s election in 2016 was a massive public relation disaster for them because it showed that even an egotistical lecher with the attentions span of a mildly-retarded dog could still perform the “most important job in the world”. The Trump Derangement Syndrome is therefore largely driven by their hate for him after he inadvertently exposed their incompetence, impotency and rapidly declining relevance.

What do you think? Comments?

Some More Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 27, 2019 2 comments

In the previous post of this hopefully short series, I wrote about how the release of an executive summary of Mueller’s report has sunk the hopes of many partisan democrat voters. Apparently, many of these retards were fully expecting the report to be some sort of deus-ex-machina which would magically end the Trump presidency and then “everything would just go back to normal”. As I have written in many previous posts, the election of Trump in 2016 is just another symptom of an ongoing slow-motion implosion of neoliberal status quo and imperial pretensions of USA. In other words, removing Trump from office via some sort of legal coup will have zero effect on the constellation of factors which enabled his rise in the first place. But try telling that to the hordes of partisan democrat voters clamoring for Trump’s impeachment for “collusion” with Russia.

Which brings us to an issue that I hinted in the previous post on this topic. Why were so many partisan democrat voters animated by the possibility of Trump being impeached through proof of him “colluding” with Russia? Let me rephrase that question to better explain what I am getting at. Why were they fixated on the “collusion with Russia and Putin” bullshit story when there are tons of far more legitimate reasons for legal prosecution? I mean.. we all know that the orange buffoon is a walking disaster, in addition to having a highly shady past and serious conflict on interest issues between his business empire and office since he was elected in 2016. So why did partisan democrat voters and affluent Reagan democrats (such as MikeCA?) focus on the most ridiculous accusations against this real life version of George Bluth Sr.?

On Sunday, Matt Stoller made an insightful tweet: What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate. Let me now unpack what he was talking about. See.. the peculiar obsession of partisan democrat types with the bullshit “collusion with Russia” narrative, to the exclusion of far better ways to nail the orange buffoon, make sense only if you consider the possibility that it is about validating their belief that HRC was the better candidate and destined to defeat Trump in 2016. Yep.. they desperately want validation for their comic belief that Hillary was meant to win in 2016 and the victory of Trump was due to some mysterious and nefarious actions by “Russia” and “Putin”. But why would they want to believe such tripe, especially given how democrats lost in mid-western states which were considered democrat strongholds during presidential elections for over two decades. Well.. it is both easy and complicated.

As I have written in more than one previous post (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5 and two short series- link 6 and link 7) the democratic party is increasingly led and organised by “credentialed” white liberal professionals who believe in the religion of neoliberalism. But what does this have to do with their obsession about HRC being the “better candidate” who was “destined to win” in 2016. As it turn out.. everything. HRC, you see, is an embodiment of the ultimate neoliberal political candidate. She checked all the right “diversity” boxes, employed advisers and interns from “elite” universities, constantly talked in empty platitudes and gave false hope through carefully chosen words, indulged in constant triangulation on contentious issues, pretended to care about “social justice” issues and generally embodied everything which people in 2019 find repulsive and loathsome about CEOs and other corporate critters.

But it was not always like that and between 1980 and 2009, many in USA (especially middle-class baby boomers and older Gen-Xers) actually believed in neoliberalism. That is why people born before 1970 (like MikeCA?) were far more supportive, if not downright enthusiastic, about HRC’s candidacy in 2016. To be more precise, people above a certain age, income level and living in coastal states saw HRC as their perfect candidate. That is why support for the “Trump colluding with Russia and Putin” bullshit narrative was so high in coastal democrat strongholds but almost absent in parts of the country which have been devastated by decades of neoliberalism. But how does this translate into a singular focus on the bullshit “collusion” narrative while ignoring all the other shitty things Trump has done in the past and is doing right now.

Well.. it comes down to what particular narrative promises and covers up, at the same time. In comparison, blaming the rise of Trump on the effects of neoliberal policies pursued by republicans and democrats since 1980 (or earlier) implicates politicians and presidents from both parties. The “collusion” bullshit narrative allows establishment types to present the victory of Trump in 2016 as an anomaly, one which they can recover from and restore the old status quo. The alternative explanation, namely that Trump’s victory in 2016 as a sign of the old order collapsing, seems to be too frightening and depressing for them to contemplate in public. Blaming Trump’s victory in 2016 on “Russia” and “Putin” allowed establishment democrats to pretend that there is no need for fundamental change while covering up the complete lack of sustained public enthusiasm for their corporate-approved candidates. And they believe they can get away with it.

So why were many coastal partisan democrat voters eager to drink the koolaid of “collusion”? To better answer that question, let talk about the other political figure who is also disliked (if not outright hated) by the biggest lay supporters of the bullshit “collusion” narrative. Does the name, Bernie Sanders, ring a bell? Yes.. there is a very strong overlap between partisan democrats who believe in the bullshit “Trump-Russia-Putin collusion” narrative and those who proudly voted for HRC in the 2016 primaries. And guess which states Bernie had many upset victories during the 2016 primaries? Yep.. many mid-western states which voted for Trump in the general election. Also remember that Bernie won far more votes from people below 40, than those past 50. The thing is, lay supporters of the “collusion” narrative are (in many ways) similar to the last generation who worship a dying religion- which in this case is neoliberalism.

Might write another post in this short series.. but not sure.

What do you think? Comments?

Could Oprah Winfrey Win Against Donald Trump in 2020 Election: 1

January 10, 2018 11 comments

By now, everyone on the internet must have read about rumors that the famous talk-show host and billionaire, Oprah Winfrey, is considering a run for the presidency in 2020. The public and media reaction thus far be divided into broad categories. Some see it as a bad idea and yet another sign at continued american decline into becoming an internationally irrelevant country. Others see it a good thing and believe she has a high chance of success. Here is my take on it..

1] First, let us start by looking at a list of democrats who might run for the party presidential ticket in 2020. With the notable exception of Bernie Sanders, other democratic candidates are simply incapable of inspiring enough non-voters and independents to go out and vote for them on election day. Even worse, many supposed rising “stars” such as Corey Booker, Joe Biden, Deval Patrick, Kamala Harris, Martin O’Malley, Kirsten Gillibrand etc are neoliberal clones who simply do not have the appeal such candidates used to have in the pre-2008 era.

In other words, with the exception of Bernie Sanders the democratic party simply does not have a possible 2020 presidential candidate who can inspire non-partisan voters to vote for him or her. As we saw in the 2016 election, the ability to inspire your own voters to come out and vote for you made all the difference between victory and defeat. Furthermore, the almost certain lack of improvement in condition for most people between now the 2020 election makes it highly likely that candidates who try to run as the harbingers of the old status quo will not win that election.

2] The democratic party’s pathetic and sad obsession with Trump’s alleged “collusion with Putin” and his mental health is unlikely to make any difference in the end. As I have said in previous posts, the obsession of establishment democrats and corporate media with the “russia collusion story” is increasingly seen by average people as signs of their desperation and frustration, rather than evidence of any real crime. I mean.. if democrats they had evidence for anything close to what they claim, Trump would have been impeached or jailed by now.

Most people outside of partisan democratic voters see all investigations into, and leaks about, “Trump-Russia” and “Trump-Putin” connections as little more than an attempt at witch-hunting by deep-state and establishment types. Most relevantly for 2020, almost a year of investigations and leaks have not improved the ratings of the democratic party and its electoral candidates beyond a level of statistical significance. Remember that the vaguely centrist democratic candidate for the recent Alabama senate election won by less than 2% even though the republican candidate was an alleged child molester and batshit crazy.

3] The election of Trump in 2016 has made every public figure of some fame and wealth start considering a run for some sort of electoral office. Why bribe.. I mean ‘lobby’ elected officials when you can just become one and pass laws and rules to benefit yourself? That is why people such as the rich aspie known as Mark Zuckerberg have demonstrated interest in running for public office- in his case, by pretending to act like a human being. And he is not alone. More than a few famous actors, rich public loudmouths and other assorted insufferables will seriously consider running for the 2020 democratic ticket, a seat in the house or governorship.

But why is this happening now? Why did it not occur in the past? Well.. the short answer is that most people have lost faith in experts or professionals, largely because they have been exposed as posturing incompetents and two-faced liars. In the case of democratic party, the two presidential terms of Obama were nothing more than an 8-year long neoliberal disaster for the 99%. That is why the democrats lost so many governorships and seats in state legislatures to republicans during that period. To put it another way, trying to win elections by invoking your ivy-league education, credentials or soaring rhetoric is no longer a viable strategy outside a few coastal states.

But what does any of this have to do with Oprah’s chances of winning as a democratic party candidate in 2020? What makes her more or less likely to win against Trump or any other republican candidate than your generic establishment democratic politician.

4] Oprah, in my opinion, is a far better presidential candidate for democrats than their stable of generic neoliberal types for the following reasons. a] She has massive name recognition and is seen as a political outsider, both of which helped Trump win the presidency in 2016. b] Having a connection with the democratic party but no strong positions on most major issues allows her to craft her positions on them in ways that are not possible for most other democratic candidates, and that again is similar to what helped Trump in 2016. c] She has very good media presence and the ability to play the media far better than so-called “professional” politicians, which is once again like Trump in 2016. d] She is a far smarter self-promoter and has a much better grasp of audience dynamics than “professional” politicians and Trump.

Now that I have told you how Oprah is like Trump, let me tell you about areas in which she is much better than him- starting with her life story. Unlike Trump, she can make the claim that she her success and wealth came from her own abilities, rather than inherited wealth. Also, she does not appear to have career-ending skeletons in her closet of the kind which might sink her presidential campaign. Furthermore, it would be very hard to successfully level personal criticism at her because she is a woman and black, both of which matter far more now and in 2020 than they did a decade or two ago. Now combine this with a way of disgust and dismay among democratic voters and independents towards Trump and republican politicians by 2020, and it is easy to see why somebody like Oprah could win a presidential election against Trump, or pretty much any establishment republican candidate, in 2020.

Will write the next part of this short series based on further developments in this area and reader comments to this post.

What do you think? Comments?

Hillary Clinton Will Lose Against the Republican Nominee in Nov 2016

February 20, 2016 25 comments

As many of you have heard by now- Hillary Clinton has “won” the democratic caucuses in Nevada by 5% of the vote. The results seem to largely validate most pre-election polls which showed that Hillary Clinton had about 2-3 % more supporters than Sanders. However many aspects of this supposed “victory” and previous democratic primaries have convinced me that Hillary Clinton has little, to no, chance of winning against a populist (or even moderately competent) republican opponent in the presidential election of Nov 2016.

Here is why..

Let us start with some history. As, once again, many of you know- Hillary Clinton (henceforward referred to as Shrillary) was the unopposed candidate of the democratic party establishment. It is also widely known that the democratic party establishment actively discouraged other viable democratic candidates from running against her in the primaries. They did so because they, rightly, felt that Shrillary could not win the democratic nomination against an even moderately competent competitor. Now.. there are many reasons for her innate lack of appeal to democratic and general voters. While she is widely seen as an extremely corrupt and untrustworthy corporate stooge, those attributes by themselves are not the real deal-breaker.

The biggest roadblock in Shrillary’s path to winning the general election is first and foremost- her “personality” (if you can call it that). I am sure that many of you have also noticed that there is something about her persona that just feels highly unnatural, artificial, deceptive and unrelatable. It does not help that every attempt made by her to appear more ‘human’ always ends up making her look more artificial and deceptive. While this would not be a big issue if we still lived in an era before the internet and when part bosses controlled who got the presidential nomination- we don’t. The reality is that people with Shrillary’s “personality” are just not viable presidential candidates in the post-1980 world.

However the democratic party establishment is desperately in need of a presidential candidate who can bring them tens of billions of dollars and other favors from wall street and other corporations. To make a long story short, Shrillary was and is the best bet for funneling all that money and corporate favors into the democratic party establishment. It is also therefore not surprising that the party establishment has invested so heavily in her candidacy. Under “normal” conditions, they might have even succeeded in pulling off that crap- but then a series of events in the real world upset their calculations.

The first two (or three) events that upset their calculations first manifested themselves about 7-8 years ago. The candidacy and eventual victory of Barack Obama was a disaster for Shrillary in many ways that were not fully appreciated in 2008 or even 2012. You see, Obama ran as a more relatable and eloquent version of Shrillary. While the immediate consequence (loss of the 2008 democratic nomination) was a big downer for Shrillary- the second and third order consequences were even worse. The inability and unwillingness of Obama to keep even a fraction of the promises he made to ordinary voters during his campaign have made it much harder for any further democratic candidate to make the case that acceptability by the establishment matters.

To put it another way, very few democratic voters now believe that a presidential candidate who accepts billions from corporations and wall street will keep any of the promises made to them. While this would not have been a major liability as late as the mid-2000s when the general mood in USA was still upbeat- events since 2008 have made it very clear to many voters that the old way of doing things is just not workable. It is therefore amusing to watch Shrillary trying to wrap herself in Obama’s legacy to win black votes in the democratic primaries. My point is that the black votes she might win in the primaries with her embrace of his legacy pale in comparison to the numbers she will lose for doing so in the presidential election.

Another big problem for Shrillary is that her potential republican opponent in 2016 is unlikely to be an establishment politician- at least nobody with as awful a “personality” as hers (except Ted Cruz). Donald Trump, for his many faults and shortcomings, is a far more relatable person than Shrillary. His willingness to play the nativist-populist cards and constantly attack his opponents make him a far more formidable candidate than most greedy and effeminate public “intellectuals” and talking/blogging heads are willing to acknowledge. Look.. Trump handily won the republican primary in South Carolina after calling Bush43 an idiot and liar. In other words, Shrillary can win the general election in 2016 only if her republican opponent was either Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz.

And this brings us to the issue of Bernie Sanders, or more specifically why he has been so successful against Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries.

In the three democratic primaries hat have taken place so far- Bernie has won one with a large margin (around 20% in New Hampshire) and lost two by very narrow margins (0.2% in Iowa and 5% in Nevada). Perhaps more worryingly, Shrillary is losing to Bernie in demographic categories that she was expected to utterly dominate. It is no secret that she is losing to Bernie among white women (especially those younger than 40-45) and the younger voters (18-40). More problematically, she is now losing to Bernie in the Hispanic voter category. While some of this might be due to the fact the Hispanic voters are younger than the median- it does not bode well for Shrillary’s presidential aspirations.

But there is a much bigger problem.. she is losing all those categories to a guy who is openly socialist secular jew- a grouping of characteristics that is supposedly to make you unelectable in the presidential election. Even more humiliatingly- he was almost unknown on the national stage until a few months ago. So how did a guy who was almost unknown on the national stage 6-8 months ago suck way so many voters from her. I am not sure if you remember that even 3 months ago- Shrillary was leading Bernie in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada by 30-40% in opinion polls. The fact that he could close and reverse those odds tells you two things. Firstly, Bernie is a pretty good candidate. Secondly, Shrillary is a piss poor candidate who could not win unless the electoral process was heavily rigged in her favor.

I think we have to accept that there are far fervent Shrillary supporters than the media and “experts” want us to believe. While this might not have been an issue if she was running against equally or more unlikable candidates such as Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz- the lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy among democratic and democratic-leaning voters will be a big problem if she runs against a populist like Trump or a non-repulsive empty suit like Rubio. This will be especially problematic if she gets nominated through overwhelming support by unelected ‘super-delegates’ at the democratic convention in mid-2016.

To summarize- Shrillary will very likely lose the 2016 presidential election even if she gets the democratic nomination because her nomination will result in low turnout of democratic and democratic-leaning voters. Additionally, some potential democratic voters might just end up voting for Trump. Also, Trump or Rubio might increase turnout among republican or republican-leaning voters. The net result of these voting patterns is that democrats will end up losing one or more of the so-called ‘swing’ states, and thereby the presidency, to republicans. Since the biggest deal-breaker about Shrillary, namely her “personality”, cannot be fixed- it might be better to nominate Bernie Sanders. Alternatively they can Hubert Humphrey themselves into electoral oblivion.

What do you think? Comments?