You’ve probably heard of Manchin. Conservative Democratic Senator. With a 50/50 Senate and few Republican Senators willing to cross the aisle, Manchin has been having a field day: he’s been determining much of what can be done by Democrats, since without him they can’t get votes thru the Senate.
Manchin’s mostly using this for evil, but recently he decided to oppose Biden’s budget chief pick, Neera Tanden. Neera’s a famous twitter warrior, who was viciously anti-Bernie, but she also famously shut down Think Progress, a media site she ran, because the workers unionized. She punched a journalist in the chest, and outed a sexual assault survivor.
Now Machin isn’t opposing Tanden because of stuff like the union, but he is opposing her and there’s a good chance she won’t get in. What he’s really doing, though, is trying to stop Hillary Clinton’s primary proxy from being in the Biden administration, because that’s what she is.
Bernie, who chairs the committee she has to get by, has not opposed her even though she’s been his savage enemy, and he is opposed ideologically to her.
Manchin is using his power, and Sanders is not.
Let’s think back to when Nancy Pelosi was running for Speaker. It was a close run affair and AOC and the squad had the votes to stop her. Yes, the person who got in would have been very slightly worse, but the difference is marginal and Pelosi is almost done in politics anyway, given her age. The Squad voted for Pelosi and got nothing for it: they tried to claim that the organizing resolution not including Covid and the environment as requiring budget neutrality was their win, but that doesn’t pass the laugh test, because those are Biden’s priorities. Pelosi’s always been very willing to work with the priorities of Presidents: Democratic or Republican.
They had power, didn’t use it, got nothing. AOC didn’t even get the committee assignment she wanted. It wasn’t Pelosi who made sure she didn’t get it, but she didn’t lift a hand to help AOC either.
Let’s consider a third situation: the first Covid stimulus bill. Progressives could have stopped it. They didn’t. But that bill had the key bailouts for the rich. Once they were done, Progressives had no leverage. Future Covid relief bills, centrists and right wingers didn’t care: it wasn’t important to them if ordinary people got relief, so they’d just hold firm for really crazy stuff.
Sanders and AOC had a chance to hold what the rich needed in order to get something for the poor. They didn’t.
This is a pattern, and a nearly constant one. It is related to Sanders being unwilling to call out Biden on his record because “Biden was his friend.” (Gagging sounds. Their friendship isn’t worth millions of Americans in poverty because a Biden admin won’t help them.)
But what I want to examine now is the use of power.
Here’s a rule: power everyone knows you won’t use, you don’t have.
Left-wingers are not credible because they never use their power. We saw this with Corbyn in Britain when he repeatedly refused to throw out MPs who challenged him or allow MPs to be re-selected (primaried, in effect.) There was nothing they couldn’t do to his cause or him that would get him to retaliate.
If AOC had taken down Pelosi people would remember. Pelosi did not and does not want her last political memory and piece of history being defeated for the role of Speaker. AOC and the Squad had the ability to take something away from Pelosi that REALLY mattered to her, and everyone would have noticed that they did so and would take their threats seriously in the future. Including the guy who won the Speakership, who, if they controlled the margin next time would know they’d take HIM down if they didn’t get something important to them.
When Boris Johnson became Prime Minister of Britain some Conservative MPs voted against his most important project: Brexit. He immediately threw them out of the party, and went on to resoundingly win the election.
Voters don’t like wimps who won’t use their power and they are correct in this: if you won’t fight, it doesn’t matter what you believe. Corbyn was the man who could take any punch, but would never throw one, no matter what his opponents did.
Using power tells both your enemies and your friends that you are serious, and that your demands must be met or you will make them pay.
Progressives (not necessarily AOC/Sanders/Corbyn, but those who justify their behavior) are like bullying victims who have forgotten that you end bullying only by hurting the bully (win or lose) not by giving in to them. Progressives who support them are often similar, they’re scared “but if we oppose Tanden won’t Biden retaliate?”
Let the fucker retaliate (though he probably wouldn’t much care, she’s Hillary’s servant, not his.) It’s a 50/50 Senate, and Bernie is a powerful committee chairman. He can make Biden’s life Hell AND, more to the point, Biden already isn’t doing most of what Bernie wants despite Bernie being super nice to him. Being nice doesn’t work. Threatening Biden’s legacy might. Sanders can have exactly the power Manchin wields, and more, the second he wants it: the second he decides that making them remember that if the poor people he represents don’t get something, neither do the rich.
A compromise is where you get something and so do I. What progressives do far too often is capitulate: they get nothing.
Use your power, or you don’t have it.
I’m going to return to this and the reasons, which go beyond a misunderstanding of how to use power or cowardice (Corbyn is not in any way a coward) , because it’s important. I like Bernie and AOC, and I admire Corbyn, but their refusal to use power is a betrayal, and I use that word deliberately, of the people they represent and who trust them.
All the content here is free, but subscriptions and donations do help, a lot.
different clue
What America needs is a Red Gingrich. Or at least a Pink one.
Mark Pontin
different clue: ‘What America needs is a Red Gingrich. Or at least a Pink one.’
No, it does NOT. I did a one-on-one brunch interview with Gingrich (around 2001, IIRC).
He’s just one more limited, tedious Washington scumbag — terminal narcissist or outright psychopath I was unable to distinguish.
Because he was a former history professor, he could talk on his feet somewhat better than most of them. Because I was a professional, he didn’t end on his fat ass on the floor of the motel restaurant.
anon
I like Bernie too but he has never had a backbone since joining the Democratic Party. A surrogate said in 2016 that Bernie did not want to end up like Nader. I assume he means Bernie wants a seat at the popular kids’ table rather than to be an outcast who stands up for what he believes in. That means sucking up to bullies who push him around, disrespect, and betray him any chance they get.
AOC is a more annoying woke Twitter celebrity Millennial version of Bernie. She will be just like Bernie if not worse for the rest of her career, and she is playing nice with Mama Bear and other neoliberals to ensure she has a place at the popular kids’ table for decades to come.
Bernie and the Squad will never use their power to go against their corporatist neoliberal “friends.” Anyone who believes otherwise will have to live in denial or be disappointed time and again.
Ian Welsh
Thanks for pointing out errors in grammar and spelling.
different clue
@Mark Pontin,
I was thinking about Gingrich’s willingness to fight mean and dirty and nasty, and his extreme skill at doing so.
So perhaps I should say we need a Sanders-figure who is ready , willing and able to ” do it the Scanner way”.
Chiron
I agree with anon, but definitely is gonna be interesting to see what is gonna to the Democrat when the Boomers finally retire by the end of this decade (I hope) and AOC, Rashida, and the rest try to gain control of the DNC. I suspect that Party is gonna be imploded by the donor class and Liberal insiders like it happened to the Parti Socialiste in France after Macron and Labour with Corbyn.
Joan
@Chiron,
I too am ready for the Silent generation and the Boomers to retire. Unfortunately, Pete Buttigeg is only in his thirties! He is already proof that Millennials can be purchased and corrupted just like the rest. Maybe I’m being too cynical. Hopefully my generation isn’t just a repeat of the garbage that’s been going on, but human nature being what it is…
Nancy Pelosi has proven that with access to high quality healthcare, even a reanimated corpse can run Congress. I just hope that doesn’t prove true with Mayor Pete, or we’ll have another hundred years of him.
Astrid
Not excusing their betrayals at all, but I suspect that if Sanders and AOC did effectively wield their power, they would be primaried or dead or in prison on trumped up charges. It is precisely because they are weak and useless, that they are kept around.
The US is an oligarchy and has been for a long time. Right wing assholes are catered to because they align with what their masters and the deep state wants. Left wingers who effectively wield their power end up dead, in prison, or marginalized. Look at what they did to Nader. Despite being right, highly visible, and clean, and being effective (albeit it turned out the slightly worse choice was exponentially worse for very specific reasons) he is now so marginalized that MSM doesn’t publish him and self proclaimed progressives sneer at him.
1960s killings has largely given way to character assassinations and denial of funding. I don’t know if there’s a way to reform such a corrupted system. A revolution or total system breakdown may be the only way out of this mess.
This isn’t to excuse Sanders or AOC or Corbyn for betraying their base. If you promise them a better world, you should actually try to deliver it. But I don’t think anyone would be allowed to actually try.
edmondo
AOC = Obama in a dress.
Run like hell.
Ché Pasa
I hear tell Steve Bannon claims to be a “Leninist.” Not because he’s a Bolshevik, but because he has studied and admires how Lenin and the Bolsheviks triumphed over almost impossible odds to create the Soviet Union, something utterly new to history.
Ideology doesn’t matter so much, success does. As it happens Bannon is a rightist dominionist whose success in getting Trump elected gives him cold chills. Trump mostly followed the rightist dominionist line, but could not maintain a coherent perspective and action and destroyed the Republican party in the process — which meant he was not going to be elected again. His “storming of the Winter Palace” on January 6 was an abject failure, but I’m sure Bannon sees it as another step forward to ultimate Victory.
There’s nothing like that on the pretend “Left” and adhering to “leftist” politicians because they say something you like to hear can be deadly both to movements and to groups.
The rightist dominionists are the core of the radical reactionary revolutionists at play in the US (and much of the rest of the world) these days, and they are determined to win total power. They’re getting very close to it. The “left” such as it is simply wants to maintain a presence, not wield power, in the face of the rightist juggernaut. This is what we’re stuck with until/unless there is a successful example of radical leftism in action.
Instead, we get to watch China succeed beyond Mao’s and Jiang Qing’s wildest imaginings.
Jason
The response to one of Ilhan Omar’s innumerable public messages from an unknown black girl on twitter sums these feeble politicians up best:
“All y’all do is tweet.”
BobbyK
Check that orange satan website (dailykos) and ALL they do is excuse what ever any execrable democrat does. Also, tired of AOC. She’s really good at issuing sternly worded tweets, accomplishing something? Not so much.
Jason
Steve Bannon channeling George Bernard Shaw, among many others. That’s how these guys think, though a sane person would understand if you don’t think much of their particular thought process.
Perhaps there’s absolutely no line between genius and insanity (Shaw was genius, Bannon’s just an intelligent idiot).
Jason
Geniuses with idiotic ideas. How often do you hear that so and so is brilliant or a genius? It’s the go-to default that saves a lot of bad ideas.
I mean, Ted Kaczynski was a genius. His policies?
Astrid
Kaczynski’s policy ideas are looking pretty good and sustainable compared to what currently on offer.
bruce wilder
there is a subtle connection I cannot articulate properly but want to point to, between exercising power (ethically) and telling the truth (or thinking the factual, objective truth properly dominates wishes).
a classic case illustrating what I am getting at is when a person is accused of an horrific crime, and many people in anger about the nature of the crime, cannot or will not understand why the accused is afforded procedural rights that inhibit the exercise of power in punishing him. it is not uncommon enough scenario that police and prosecutors go beyond building a case to hiding or distorting inconvenient evidence
the exercise of power is inherently about persuading people to cooperate and its most common form is domination that demands a degree of disciplined followership. the political organizing the left is constantly babbling about needing to do, but rarely doing, consists of creating the social and emotional conditions for disciplined followership
the thing is, letting truth be persuasive is an ethical committment, one lots of people are not clear about and are not sure how to make. there is no necessity or imperative to make it or make it somehow universal to all aspects of one’s life — I would not recommend getting carried away with a committment to factual truth; there is more to life and arrogantly thinking yourself a brave truth-teller is a formula for becoming a bore.
my point, rather, is that truth is not inherently persuasive, partly because people generally have only weak commitments to living in reality (and there are some good reasons for that as well as bad).
in context, telling the truth feels like giving away power, and often is. where power is manipulating, truth is not, almost by defnition. little broken bits of factual truth can be used by a manipulator to build in the imagination a false story — truth is used in manipulation that way. but, the full truth is not manipulative; it gives away power.
telling truth to power is an attack on power.
paradoxically, real power in an organization is enhanced by a culture of reality-based truth-telling, of underlings communicating accurately upward
i feel Sanders, AOC and Corbyn each in their own way have lost something of their commitment to truth-telling.
Sanders only had to take one long objective look at Biden and he would have known the importance of telling the truth about Biden’s candidacy. Instead we got bs about “the most progressive . . .”
Trump Derangement Syndrome was one long assault — from both sides! — on respect for factual truth. Russiagate . . .
Corbyn was surprisingly (to me) willing to lie. When he got caught staging a photo opportunity over crowded trains when he was on one that was not in fact all that crowded, it revealed a weakness of character, one that was exploited ruthlessly in the cynical accusations of anti-semitisms.
Taibbi has been great on how doctrinaire the mainstream pseudo-left has become.
AOC and “the Squad” are themselves a kind of fiction used in the mainstream Media to cover how the Democratic Party has shifted decisively to the right and allied itself with a decadent military-intelligence community, with many young congress people drawn from that background and having authoritarian tendencies. (Yes, Hugh the fascist boogeyman in inside the House!)
Feral Finster
Compare Sanders to Huey P. Long, for an example of a populist leftist who actually got things done. A man who marshalled resources and allies, prioritized his goals, and set about achieving what he promised to.
Not only that, but Long faced an entrenched and established political opposition that was not shy about using blackmail, corruption, bribery, and when necessary, outright violence to get what it wanted. He didn’t respond with excuses, the way so many Team R cultists and Team D groupies do. Say what you want about Long’s goals, and his methods were often unsavory, but Huey P. Long delivered results. Not hope and change, not triggering the libs, but results in the form of concrete material benefits (roads, bridges, schools, literacy classes, voting rights, jobs, bank regulation, etc.) for the average frustrated Louisianan.
Once that average frustrated Louisianan saw the concrete material benefits that were on offer, he could not care less the methods Long used to get them, or nor did he care that Long did not race-bait enough to keep some troglodytes happy.
Long not only got things done, he got so much done, he transformed Louisiana in only a few years. For generations after his death, people named their children after Huey Long, and the Long name was enough to get a politician elected in Louisiana.
Jason
Astrid, I knew Thomas Mosser’s daughter. I’d love for you to say that to her face.
Astrid
Feral Finister,
I was thinking of Huey Long when I wrote my post. Notice how quickly he got assassinated. Notice how quickly Eliot Spritzer’s harmless sexual shenanigans came to light, once he threatened to prosecute Wall Street. Meanwhile, we know Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Feinstein, etc to know far more, and prosecutably corrupt but not a peep. Look at how fast Gabbard went from rising star to Hindu chauvinist nothing, when she went off message.
I’m not excusing worthless leftists like AOC and Sanders. But I think they’re only allowed to exist because they are worthless. If effective left politicians are able to survive, they better haven’t very very good body guards.
Astrid
My apologies for terrible autocorrect. I meant ” Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Feinstein, etc to be far more, and prosecutably corrupt” and “effective left politicians are able to survive, they better have very very good body guards”
Astrid
Jason,
I said Kaczynski’s policy ideas, not his methods. He should have started at the top rather than target mid level scientists. But modern civilization had proven itself to be a death cult.
Jason
Astrid, after I wrote that (I was obviously upset) it occurred to me that my use of “policy” may have been a problem. I’ll argue semantics a bit here: the definition of “policy” does include methods. From Merriam’s:
– a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions
– a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body
Merriam’s first definition of policy is “prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs.” We could certainly debate whether old Ted was prudent or wise in the management of his affairs. Obviously he thought he was.
I haven’t seen Abbie Mosser in years. She was at once both vulnerable yet strong in the face of all this when we used to speak at friends’ parties in the mid 90’s. I hope she’s okay.
Mary Bennett
Rep Katie Porter was effective and we all saw what has happened to her. With the cooperation of Maxine Waters, from whom one might have expected better. Cortez’s job is representing her district, not assuming national leadership. The (orchestrated IMHO) criticisms of her, which began, please note, right around the time long time Zionist Rep. Engels lost his seat to a Jr HS principal recruited by Justice Democrats are intended to discourage her from primarying Chuckie Schemer in 2022. That there will be such a challenge I don’t doubt, possibly from Atty Gen Letitia James, who has already shown she can win statewide elections.
As for challenging Pelosi for the Speaker’s position, why, please? So we can have Steny Hoyer instead?
If I were to presume to advise newly elected congresspersons, I might suggest, stay away from the big name committees, and get yourself into some more obscure place where you might actually be able to write and maybe even get into law some effective legislation.
There is a reason Stacy Abrams, who does want to be president some day, is avoiding Congress.
Hugh
Well, on that logic, why is Pelosi Speaker instead of representing her district?
Astrid
Jason,
I openly admitted numerous times that I am a coward and one who does not act on her convictions. I convinced that if i did, I would be ostracized from my friends, family, and means of sustenance. My participation would not make a difference in the overall trajectory and as my idea of effective action require the sort of violence that I abhor, I will remain… very small.
I will say that life is unfair, people who are largely good and ethical are more likely suffer than those who are bad and indifferent. I look at what 2 decades of pointless “war on terror” (and previously, drug war, cold war, terror against non-whites, colonialism) and total up the body counts. I look at the mass deaths and suffering ahead of us. That makes me a little numb to individual suffering even though it shouldn’t, since suffering is suffering and so much of it is completely unnecessary. At the same time, every oppressive regime inspires violent opposition, and it can only be suppressed for so long.
I do apologize for my callous remarks, they were glib and overlook the human tolls of violence. I will say that if my father was a bit more prominent, he might have feared the Unabomber as well. I would also not be surprised if I and my friends become targets in the near future due to our PMC status. This is the bargain with the devil that we all knowingly or unknowingly made.
Feral Finster
Astrid: if the Establishment is good at nothing else, it is very good at determining whom to co-opt, whom to buy off, whom to ignore, and whom to neutralize.
Note how the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, genuinely heroic people who faced down Bull Connor and his goons and dogs, were transformed into harmless machine politicians and Team D apparatchiks.
Note how fire eating Sixties Radicals were neutered and became mild-mannered academics and advocates of “working for change within the system”.
anonone
To the AOC critics:
She raised just $4.7 million to help Texans hurt by the deregulated power companies in the great failed-state of Texas.
How much did you raise?
Jason
Astrid, thank you. No apology is or was necessary, but I recognize and appreciate your recognition.
I am also largely a coward who doesn’t act on my own convictions. In the interest of civility, of course. I included “largely” to at least give myself a little credit. I speak out on occasion. Pick my spots, so to speak.
Hugh
I could not resist. To Mr. Finster:
“How inevitably people are limited by the terms in which they think! A generation of men has been consumed by the shibboleth “reform within the party,” —a generation of educated and right-minded men, who accomplished in their day much good, and left the country better than they found it, but are floating to-day like hulks in the trough of the sea of politics, because all their mind and all their energy were exhausted in discovering certain superficial evils and in fighting them. Their analysis of political elements left the deeper causes mysterious. They did not see mere human nature. They still treated Republicanism and Democracy—empty superstitions—as ideas, and they handled with reverence the bones of bogus saints, and the whole apparatus of clap-trap by which they had been governed.”
From John Jay Chapman’s “Practical Agitation” that someone pointed me to a long time ago. It was first published in 1900 but much of it still remains as fresh and true as ever.
different clue
@edmondo,
AOC Obama in a dress?
No.
It is Kamala Harris who is the Obama in a dress. Actually, Obama and Harris are male and female versions of the same person.
Count Draculabama and the Countess Draculamala.
different clue
If ten million people each had one laser pointer apiece, and all those ten million separate little people pointed their ten million separate little laser pointers onto the one exact same tiny little spot-target, could they burn a hole through it?
Mark Pontin
I agree with Ian’s general argument in his original post.
But in the specific case he used to frame it — Sanders’s failure to vote against Neera Tanden — Sanders _did_ just vote against Tom Vilsack, Biden’s pick to head the Dept. of Agriculture. So he’s quite capable of voting against a Biden administration nominee if he chooses.
Meanwhile, Tanden’s nomination anyway looks to be descending in flames without Sanders needing to help it do that.
It also turns out that Vilsack’s confirmation was confirmed by a majority, so Sanders’s vote against it was purely symbolic. But so, too, would his vote against Tanden have been, it now appears.
So it seems Sanders made a practical tactical calculation about which fight he went on the record as picking.
This gets into the larger question of how more or less radical politicians get domesticated once elected — how Sanders, Corbyn, or AOC fail to live up to expectations that they lead. Because it’s precisely through this process of accommodating political realities and making ‘practical’ political choices. ‘I can’t win unless I’m at the table,’ is what every one of them has to figure.
And so they become just another interchangeable player in the system. Here what Astrid wrote is relevant: “I am a coward and one who does not act on her convictions. I convinced that if i did, I would be ostracized from my friends, family, and means of sustenance. My participation would not make a difference in the overall trajectory and as my idea of effective action require the sort of violence that I abhor, I will remain… very small. ”
As below, so above. The pols make the same calculations.
Should they show more oppositional courage and damn the calculations? The argument against that is oppositional courage is clearly useless on its own. The system cuts down the Huey Longs and the Trumps and even the likes of the Kennedys if they oppose it.
Mark Gisleson
I think your criticism of Sanders on this issue is a bit premature. I’ve never had any sense that Tanden was going to be confirmed.
Manchin’s just stealing credit for stopping something that wasn’t going to happen. Joe’s already got Neera’s replacement queued up. She was never going anywhere, no reason for any of our allies to take the point on this. Just the opposite: the longer Tanden has twisted in the wind, the more average folks have been exposed to the stories of just how rotten she was which will make it harder to slip her into government somewhere else that doesn’t require confirmation.
It should also be noted that Hillary hasn’t said a damned thing about this (or much of anything lately). Would that be the case if Bernie had spearheaded the opposition? If he had I suspect this would have stopped being about Tanden and it would have been about Bernie.
Plenty to criticize Bernie for but I don’t think this is one of them.
Willy
In all my years of public school, I never heard of a nice guy shaking down rich kids for their lunch money so they could give it all to the poor little crippled kids.
All the bullies I knew usually kept somebody else’s lunch money for themselves. Personally, I might’ve supported the nice guy bully who took rich kids money and gave it to the poor little crippled kids. Even called him a hero. But nobody ever wanted to step up.
There was once a blog which tried to elaborate on the dynamics behind the Columbine shootings. The owner had been serially bullied himself and was mystified that no witnesses ever wanted to help him. So he “projected” those feelings onto the Columbine shooters, who’d experienced and witnessed all the bullying going on at Columbine, and that the PTB there did nothing to stop it and even enabled it, so the shooters figured that this is how the world works and decided they didn’t want to live in a world where bullies rule and enablers do nothing and that they’d go out with a bang by targeting otherwise innocent enablers instead of the bullies. At least that was his premise.
This seems so common, mass shooters going after innocent bystanders instead of whatever bullies actually caused them pain, that it almost seems human nature.
I think that on some unconscious psychological level, Bernie, AOC and Corbyn… have real fear about going directly after the bullies who they know will retaliate, and who can be utterly fearless and incorrigible. It’s easier to attack enablers and innocents or try for alliances or compromises instead. Still, we have had martyrs from time to time such as Midway’s Torpedo 8 Squadron or the Kamikazes. I’m unfamiliar with the psychology behind that. Seems a group thing.
That’s just a thought. There are certainly others who will believe that Bernie, AOC and Corbyn have been corrupted by bribes from the bullies, or suffer from some other sort of moral failing.
Mel
I had written some ad copy for Harris:
New Improved Trudobamacron 2.0 Now with Double the X-Chromosomes
but she didn’t get the votes. Trudobamacron units are terrific at getting votes, with their patent pending Electract technology.
metamars
This is mostly O/T, but I can think of a decent segue. The following are NOT using their power to get at the truth of the Capitol Hill riot, with the possible or probable exception of General Honore
I have previously come to the conclusion that the Gateway Pundit is a right wing gatekeeper rag, not unlike the leftgatekeeper entities pointed to at leftgatekeepers.com (now extinct, but old copies at archive.org).
They are carrying an article excerpt, titled “Former Capitol Police Chief Contradicts Pelosi’s Top Investigator, Says Officers Were Not ‘Complicit’ in Riot”. After 7 hours, this article has exactly 1 comment. 7 HOURS.
Compare that with the following Gateway Pundit articles, dealing with the Ashli Babbitt ‘killing’, in the midst of what looks like a poorly acted false flag event during the Capitol riot.
EXCLUSIVE: Ashli Babbitt’s Memorial Held in Southern California – Family and Friends Honor a Loving and Passionate American Patriot (Feb 14) which got 1510 comments
After a Month and a Half DC Police Have Not Released the Name of Ashli Babbitt Killer – What’s Going On? (Feb 19) which got 1273 comments
EXCLUSIVE: Ashli Babbitt Is Laid To Rest In Pacific Ocean by Family and Friends (Feb 23) which got 830 comments
There’s a complete disconnect here, in terms of the number of comments. I don’t know whether or not the suppression is at the disqus level, or the gateway pundit level. Since gateway pundit could not fail to notice the HUMONGOUS disparity in comments, if they were not a player, they could edit their article to say “disqus is suppressing comments” (and then dump disqus).
They are doing no such thing….
When you read the (short) linked-to article, you are informed that Pelosi has called on Honore to investigate, who states the obvious that Capitol Police appear involved, but that Josh Hawley thinks this is outrageous.
I find myself in the strange position of rooting for a Pelosi associate (or selectee), over the poutrage of a Republican Senator who stood up for challenging electors (and thus, indirectly for election integrity). I’m also now very skeptical of Hawley, because what exactly does he think the downside is? Does he think Honore will try and frame any innocent Capitol Hill police, even if the facts point otherwise?
What I THINK has happened is that Pelosi has erred, and ASSUMED that because Honore had insulted Hawley over his election challenge, that he was as much a political animal, as she. And thus could be counted on to NOT seek the truth, insofar as it led to her doorstep, or the Deep State’s doorstep.
This is basically speculation on my part, based on just one short article….
The Gateway Pundit has also failed the cause of truth by allowing a ‘reporter’ to show all the nose for truth seen by embedded journalists in recent US war efforts, which means they were basically stenographers. I’m referring to the articles by Hansen, who apparently was present amongst Babbitt’s family and friends, and asked for no corroborating evidence that Babbitt was both shot, and dead; nor that they were seriously seeking the identity and testimony of her ‘killer’. Nor seriously seeking any information pertinent to a wrongful death suit.
I’m actually glad (so far) that the comment censors of the new GP article have made their censorship so obvious. Because it suggests that a real disruption to the Deep State status quo has occurred. I and others commenting at GP are nobodies, with no power. Honore is a somebody, apparently with real investigative power. Perhaps Honore has even studied not just articles, but comments at GP, many of which are highly suspicious of the police and SWAT guys during the riot.
metamars
Sorry, I got mixed up in my previous comment. The censored comment article, about Honore, is in populist.press, another rightwing rag. Searching for “honore” in the gateway pundit shows nothing.
It’s the case that populist.press updates more frequently, so maybe GP will have a story on this, later on, with no suppressed comments.
Geoffrey Dewan
Can anybody tell me why Ralph Nader ran for President in 2000?
different clue
Why did Nader run?
That often gets confused with the issue of whether he had an effect or not. People blame Nader for costing Gore just enough votes in Florida to throw that election into the “zone of doubt” where the meaner tougher fighters could strong-arm rob the Florida electoral votes.
My understanding is that Gore straight-up “lost” enough votes in Florida that if-he-would-have-won-them instead, he would have won by more votes than what Nader got anyway. And there is no guarantee that voters-for-Nader would have voted for Gore otherwise. They might not have voted at all.
But “why” did Nader run? I don’t have the tens or hundreds of hours to go back searching for articles, so I will just run on memory fumes. My memory is that he was personally offended that Gore did not “call him up” or something to “consult” with him about “something or other”.
And Nader’s motive was strictly to draw enough votes away from Gore to get Bush elected, to show how important Nader really was and to show why the Political Establishment should have respected Nader more. In other words, Nader’s motive was spite and revenge, however dressed up in beautiful crepe paper about “corporatism” and so forth.
edmondo
Can anyone tell me why Joe Biden ran for president in 2020?
different clue
Biden ran for president to prevent Sanders from getting nominated, thereby sparing the clintobiden obamazoid Democrats from the nightmare of Sanders getting elected and perhaps moving to declintaminate the Democratic Party.
Jessica
If the current system is so utterly rigged that the current performance of Bernie, AOC, etc. is the most possible, then we would be better off if they pushed as hard as possible for what we want and were taken out and we could get over the illusion of there being any actual democracy.
I am not sure that things are quite that dire but we would be far better off knowing one way or another.
Personally, I think the problem is that the professional class* solved the economy-wide stagnation of the 1970s by throwing the working class (and since then increasing parts of the middle class) under the bus and so little of the left is willing to decisively break with such class war criminals. Most of the left does not even let itself be aware of the crime and who committed it.
By the way, the deplorables all know, even if they can’t all articulate it clearly.
*This class war crime was committed across most of the developed world, not just the US.
Astrid
I didn’t pay much attention to politics in 2020. So I don’t know if there’s some personal animus or whatever that motivated Nader to run. That isn’t my point. It is that despite being high profile and effective in his methods, he had since been largely deplatformed and millennials and Zoomers might not even be aware of his existence.
Again, I am not making excuses for AOC and Sanders caving, even if it was at the cost of their careers and even lives. Many politicians in days past and many politicians and activists around the world risk their lives and freedom to fight for their people. Sanders and the Squad made a promise to be better to their supporters and betrayed that promise by their inaction. I am just explaining why we are ending up with the sort of worthless Left that we have. It wasn’t an accident of temperament but an intentional selection process.
Astrid
Autocorrect striking again. I meant election of 2000, when Dems and GOP intentionally marketed themselves as the harmless “other white meat” and Cheney/Lieberman might just be the worst set of VP options ever presented to the American public.
Jason
Nader said he ran because there was “nothing left to work with” in the Democratic Party. Though the process of destruction had begun before him, it was Clinton who completely gutted it.
I take him at his word.
Jason
Personally, Biden ran because that’s all he knows. He’s a political whore who follows those winds where they lead. Biden couldn’t not run for president.
TPTB weren’t all in on Biden at all initially. They chose him (Kamala was chosen around the same time) when it became evident he was the best vessel to defeat Bernie.
anon
I have not followed nor do I find Biden and his lifelong political career remotely interesting, but my general understanding is the guy has wanted to be president since the 1980s. That’s probably all he’s wanted to do since graduating from law school. He’s a career politician who does not care about helping average Americans and has been disconnected from the world outside of elite DC society for decades.
Biden made the best decision of his political career when he accepted to become Obama’s VP. I don’t think he would have locked in the older black support he did if he had not humbled himself to work for the first black president. Of course, a larger number of younger black voters saw right through Biden and supported Sanders, but youth voter turnout wasn’t enough to help Sanders against the DNC machine, Obama’s backroom deals, and the entire establishment coalescing around Biden before Super Tuesday. He was the highest profile establishment Democrat running in the last Democratic primary other than Sanders.
S Brennan
Good Post Ian;
And I would, point out that “blue no matter who voters” have this same power over theneoD party and they refuse to use it…ever.
Instead they listen to vilification propaganda [insert another assembly-line Hitler – HERE]…how “this is the most important election of their lifetimes” because this “Hitler” fellow will start WW III !!! These “stories” are always propagated by those in power…imagine that?
As long as there are enough lefties*/liberals*/pregressives* that are “blue no matter who voters”, Al From’s neoD’d party will remain the party of gilded-age-economics[sans mercantilism]/neocolonialism.
And as you said Ian:
“Voters don’t like wimps who won’t use their power: if you won’t fight, it doesn’t matter what you believe…Using power tells both your enemies and your friends that you are serious, and that your demands must be met or you will make them pay…[pregressives/lefties/liberals]* are like bullying victims who have forgotten that you end bullying only by hurting the bully (win or lose) not by giving in to them”
Now, I know Ian, you only meant to invoke the application of Machiavelli’s advice within the boundaries of neoD party but…you and I both know, the world does not stop at the edge of a plantation’s property line…if voters are unwilling to see past the propaganda and look at the long term results of their passivity…they deserve to be treated with disrespect.
And that’s what Al From said back in the late seventies, lefties*/liberals*/pregressives* deserve to be treated with disrespect because “they have no place to go…they will always vote blue”. Forty years have passed since the purging the party of FDRists and lefties*/liberals*/pregressives* still don’t get that their guaranteed vote is what get’s them a Hillary or a Biden. Their guaranteed vote is Sanders and Cortez openly work with Farmer Deiensee to insure that their flock is delivered, in a timely manner, to the abattoir.
*self-identified, not genuine article
S Brennan
Should have been “Their guaranteed vote is [why] Sanders and Cortez openly work with Farmer Deiensee to insure that their flock is delivered, in a timely manner, to the abattoir.
C.L.
@Mark Pontin,
If you want to look at how AOC, Sanders, etc. become domesticated by the Beltway, look no further than K Street. Those who refuse to use their power may lose elections, but they’re rewarded with cushy seven-figure jobs.
Those who use their power against the Establishment face one of three options, depending on how powerful they actually were and what Establishment group they threatened: (1) they’re gerrymandered out of office and into a relatively low paying gig that isolates them from their base, which effectively prevents them from gaining any power in the future (see, e.g., Sanders 1.0, Dennis Kucinich); (2) they’re cancelled, usually in a sex scandal (see, e.g., Eliot Spitzer and Wall Street); or (3) they’re thrown into jail on really creepy charges such as child molestation, which effectively precludes them from any future public life (see, e.g., Dennis Hastert, especially Sibel Edmonds’s testimony on the timing of his child molestation case and its relationship to Turkey).
I’m sure there’s a solution to this, but I’m not sure what it is. Maybe have the congressman and all their aides sign a public oath saying they’ll go back to teaching/bartending/whatever they were doing before they moved to DC? I have no idea how it’d be enforceable, though.
Astrid
Spitzer was/is dangerous because he is actually smart, tough, and independently wealthy. Perhaps PTB only let him into power knowing his weakness for paid sex.
Astrid
The solution is hereditary monarchy. And I’m only slightly kidding. This is what the Greeks and Romans settled on, after their detour into democracy and Republicanism.
Jason
If Murkowski votes for Tanden (big if, I know), the final vote will come down to Bernie.
Jason
Indeed Astrid. I’m coming around to the benevolent monarch idea as well. Debt jubilees are necessary, though I’d go further and just issue no usury edicts. The mantra that lending at interest is necessary for human development and well-being is a false one which leads to environmental destruction and mass human misery.
nihil obstet
Astrid, Jason, I’ve seriously settled on a governing council composed of a majority of councilors chosen by lot attached to each executive position. You do need expertise developed over time, but most you need people who have not been identified with the personal desires of the governors.
Astrid
I think the problem is scaling. Swiss style direct democracy can work for a very long time. The US government, as imperfect as it was, worked for a long time. When the scale is small and the elites lived amongst the subjects, there is opportunity and incentive to course correct. Also the mistakes would not cause widespread catastrophes.
The problem is that at some point, they either become empires or are threatened by empires and then things can go to hell in a hurry. That’s the problem. It’s not that humans can’t live reasonably sustainably, it’s that the dynamics of growth means bad fast growth crowd out and destroy sustainable good growth. I think something like China or Persian empire might be the best that can be achieved for big and “sustainable”, in that they’re big enough to resist outside cultures but have systems that sorta work out most of the time without a constant need for further conquest.
But that’s before fossil fuel and industrial revolution and nuclear warheads and bio/geo-engineering. So who knows anymore.
Alex Cox
Very good analysis.