Juan Cole has an interesting spin on Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Law, which at one point was a required reading for a college liberal education in the US.
Juan Cole, Informed Comment: As Trump Breaks it, Top Ten Things we need to do to Fix America
Just to summarize:
- Where actions exceed the law, they must be stopped.
- Find ways to reemploy neglected or atrophied institutions and engage new centers of influence.
- Review the structure of the electorate. The Trump revolution was made possible not only in the more visible (and vocal) pronouncements and edicts on which the media was (and still is) concentrating but. structurally at the state and local level.
- Challenge the flow of money into politics, institutionally.
- A policy of fiscal restraint on “defense” that will be extremely difficult to put in place.
- Underneath all these feelings about foreigners is a deeper dilemma: we are all immigrants but are divided by tenure. Developing shared interest.
- Restore a habitual attachment of the people” to what aims to promote the public good.
- Restore the hostility to what the Federalist Papers called “faction”. Note that this is not wishy-washy bipartisanship that collaborates in selling out to 1% interests.
- An ombudsman. Hamilton’s idea that the Electoral College could perform this task failed in the 2016 election. Something is needed to get us back to the system that made American politics work, at least generally, as Hamilton wanted for “the happiness of our country.”
- Put the power to make war back under restraint. (This is quite a good discussion of the issues and how they were discussed in the debate over the Constitution.
This is a discussion that small-d democrats need to have urgently. Most of what Juan Cole discusses can be done locally through individual and small group action with existing supportive institutions, generally non-profits and the remaining healthy functions of government. The latter items, especially the ombudsman function and slowing the rush to war are the more difficult struggles. (You thought opposing Trump would be as easy as bringing down the New Deal was for Repubicans?)
Here’s the peril in not moving quickly something along these lines. There is a Constitutional Convention call moving through state legislatures. If the required number of state legislative calls is approved, the state will send conservative corporate and primarily white delegates to the Convention with the political instructions to undo those parts of the current Constitution that they don’t like. In this event, the entire Bill of Rights is in formal danger; it is long past being in practical danger. When the Bill of Rights ceases to be the norm of government action, even if often breached, the United States fails the 240-year-old experiment in self-government that against entrenched interests has the vision of being extended to everyone. Too much “realism” becomes the cynicism that gives up on the struggle to make that vision a reality in fact.
Juan Cole has given a point to change the discussion in a more helpful direction than it has been since the 2000 election first breached Constitutional norms.
(Cole was always low on my list of writers/thinkers to read and with his support of overthrow in Libya, he went off my list.)
There’s no shortage of ten point generic action plans. It’s getting them off the written page that’s the stumbling block because there is no permanent organization/institution to push each of the ten points. And every attempt to construct such an operation ends up dying because the preexisting energy required to do so gets exhausted in the process, often with subversion and crackdowns by TPTB and infighting.
Specific and time limited protests have a place to express outrage and sometimes, rarely, they can stop the implementation of bad policies or lead to better policies. In the short run, not so much, but in the long run they may push the needle in the right direction. Not that any of that can be seen in the 2016 election. (Millions protested in advance of the Iraq War, and a dozen years later are still wandering in the wilderness. Told that they must get with HER, the legacy, pro-Iraq War candidate they thought they’d rejected and wouldn’t see again eight years ago.)
What I’m using your forum for is to highlight a potential sliver of sunshine that falls into a three point action plan:
HuffPo – A Montana Special Election Nobody Is Following Could Deal A Huge Blow To Trump. I’m a nobody but I have been following this one. The real “nobody” in this instance is the national Democratic Party and party elites (too busy searching for Russian bots that defeated HER):
Yeah, Clyburn and SC that was HER firewall. Yet:
Only one poll so far on this three-candidate race and Quist is in the lead. But no complacency on the GOP side, The Hill – GOP super PAC pours $700K into Montana special election. heh — Quist isn’t Clyburn’s or the DC Democrats’ type of candidate. Clarifies the limits of their anti-Trump stance. Four hours ago, The Guardian noticed this race. (Likely appalled.)
These two different approaches are not mutually exclusive.
I’m not in the habit of personalizing ideas but take them and reports of the news for what they are. Cole represents a certain perspective on events and is more informed on Middle East politics and history than most pundits writing about what’s going on.
Cole’s blind spot is not understanding the persistence of a US tilt toward authoritarians because they are easy to deal with. (It’s why authoritarians so like Trump; no human rights lectures; even Xi Jinping will likely appreciate that.)
Yes, folks in Montana should get out and vote for Quist just because of the DCCC ignoring him and folks in Kansas should get out and vote for James Thompson. I even tilt toward advocating Georgia folks vote for Ossoff despite his sweetheart status with establishment Democrats; having any Democrat means someone that a Democratic or democratic constituency can put pressure on. If he turns out to as deaf to the grassroots as most incumbents with major donor support, situation normal; they will at least tend to follow Pelosi’s lead not Ryan’s.
But I am not in Montana, Georgia, or Kansas, and there is stuff in Cole’s article that I can work on locally through informal civil society means. Rebuilding that informal unbranded informal civil society that is open to more than two brands of talking points is a key point in Cole’s proposals. And Cole does have the benefit of having studied how folks in the Middle East have resisted authoritarian rule even under police state conditions. Local and regional networks are key means of this resistance. Networks that work to transcend partisan cheerleading are key to resistance and to developing stronger opposition parties that can limit the power of authoritarians.
I don’t consider your topic off-topic at all. I hope that some folks actually respond to what Cole has proposed by reading the link. It is among his better pieces.
Not incompatible but we hamsters have to get off the spinning wheel. Nothing will change for the better, and it’s been changing for the worse for several decades, unless or until we stick to a single objective: better public officials. By better I mean honest, non-corruptible, candidates that will only serve the short and long-term needs of the public for health, safety and economic stability and security. Excluding the obsessive single issue voters (the anti-abortionists, christianists, die-hard racists, gun/military fetishists, (mostly captured by the GOP) and top 5%), most people (50.x% to 80%) want and need the same things. And they shouldn’t have to or need to spend much time on politics to get a government that is responsive to their individual and collective needs.
The 2016 election was like a choice between Goldwater and neo-Goldwater. Yet as of a couple of weeks ago, only one of the 2016 candidates is viewed positively:
The Trump slump continues and he’s greasing that slope himself, heading for his imaginary yuuge wall to crash into. But given a choice between a destructive clown and a destructive empty suit, voters may still prefer the clown.
“If I only had a nickel for every time I’ve been put on”
Still, he’s at least saying the right things.
Enough to bet $15 on. http://robquist.org/
Well adding to the marketing addiction of the Democratic Party is a good short-term way of getting a Republican out of office.
When I had money in 2006, I wasted a little on some long shots and the one that won, Larry Kissell, turned out to be an anti-Obama Blue Dog with a low-budget populist campaign style his first time around. His textile experience was as a low-level manager for Pillowtex (he was running to oust the Pillowtex owner, Robin Hayes for selling out to foreign competition in a one-company town). And he was a public school teacher after his Pillowtex job ended. But he quickly forgot who helped him; I guess $10 was not enough.
See #2. There will always be candidates that talk a good game during a campaign and supporters/voters shouldn’t be too embarrassed to admit that they were duped or that they couldn’t see that the seemingly “good guy” was in the early stage of dementia leading to rightwing think. When it does happen, quick action, back to #1, is the adult response.
Because I was out of his district, not voting for him was irrelevant, but he saw no more donations. Now with my financial situation, few to none see donations anymore. And none seem to want to improve my financial situation to get a gratitude contribution.
Yes, his web site is quite a bit more cautious than the endorsement I had read. Supposedly he is calling for Medicare-for-all, but his website only talks about saving Obamacare. He did endorse Sanders and vice versa. That’s something. The gun stuff and preserving forestry jobs I expect from Montana. If we in the Industrial states want allies, we have to realize that they have “way of life” issues too. Some we can live with, some, like segregation, we can’t.
Cue up California for your three-point action plan.
David Dayen, An Enemy of the Wall Street Foreclosure Machine Is Running to Unseat a GOP Lawmaker in California
Thanks. I’d be very surprised if Clinton carried the 45th by five points given Waters’ 17 point margin in 2016. At least in CA, it’s near impossible to track the top ballot line by House district.
The 45th was an uglier district for Democrats before the 2011 redistricting. Now less white, but surprisingly still heavily Republican for a district with a large state university in its boundaries. Housing wealth is a huge factor and that has only become more pronounced in the past three decades. Just checked for an example — $160,000 plus maybe $50,000 in upgrades (nicely maintained) in 1995 is now listed for $620,000. That’s two bedrooms and 950 s.f. Doubt it will go for that, but still.
Bought my house near Dulles Airport in 1973 for $47,990 from the builder. Sold it in 1980 for $71,500 less FOUR VA points that I had to pay on the buyer’s 100% mortgage. According to Zillow, somebody bought it in 2005 for %500,000 and sold it in 2008 for $200,000. Yes, a $300,000 bath.
In a nutshell it’s about creating institutions within the Party that can win and fight the power of the donor class which is Very powerful
Money isn’t really the issue so much as a network that is tied to more than a Presidential campaign.
We create organizations with no staying power
That’s because there’s no glue that can hold it all together for the long term.
What happened to the anti-war movement after 2008? Silenced and barely a fringe movement. Well, now Democrats can join the Republicans and cheer on getting tough on Assad by increasing the bombing of those poor people.
Authored by William Roe Polk, not by Juan Cole!
○ Congressional Record: George McGovern & William R. Polk excerpt o f “A Blueprint for Leaving Iraq Now” (October 2006) [h/t DaveW @BooMan in 2006]
Thanks. Remind me never to post before a cup of coffee.
Thanks for the additional material.
A lot of civil society stuff for a fundamentally establishment guy.
Polk doesn’t even get respect at the Council on Foreign Relations (another corporatist, warmongering institution) Democrats are not ashamed of but rather proud that their 2016 nominee consults with and is advised by Kissinger.
(The Atlantic article that includes Polk’s piece is by James Fallows. Should note that The Atlantic seems to have improved in quality and thoughtfulness of late. As has Slate. Still, The Atlantic endorsed HRC — only the third endorsement in the magazine’s 160 year history; so, consumer beware.)
The quality of Fallows’s reporting, like that of Hersh, tends to depend on the quality of information available to his sources, especially his regular sources. Anonymous sources become problematic when they become regular sources of spin and lies. The attempt to delegitimize Hersh is an attempt to spin complicated information into a single narrative line. I kinda think the same is true of Greenwald, save for the fact that Greenwald engages in opinion journalism much more than Hersh or Fallows.
Writers are not responsible for the insanity of their bosses. Nonetheless, under the circumstances endorsement of Hillary Clinton is probably no worse than voting for her. Disclosure: I voted for Hillary Clinton. Only Trump was an alternative in NC, and that made the decision dicier for folks in states where there were alternatives but no actual third party momentum. That only mattered in certain swing states in the end unless you can envision flipping Texas (a claim in September 2016 when Clinton had her peak.)
Hersh is a reporter. Greenwald is an attorney that shifted to political journalism with a fully acknowledgment orientation on a number of specific issues. Important to keep that distinction in mind. Different turfs. Not so many do both. Taibbi is one but his best articles generate from his having done actual reporting. Hersh’s best omit his opinions.
Endorsements are a higher standard than a default vote. Credibility is lost for those that issue the latter and call it the former. And did those 99% of publications lose credibility by doing that in 2015 and 2016. (Along with a few other institutions/organizations — ie NEA endorsement of HRC in the primary.)
Speaking of which:
Richard N Haass tweet
Glenn responds
Some time in the past I stated that Syria is Russia’s satellite and they can take care of it themselves.
And why the Hell are we arming Al Qaeda?
Now Trump wants to fight Putin in Syria. see what all this “Trump is Putin’s agent” crap has resulted in? Now Trump has to prove it false with American blood. And, yes, I’ll admit I don’t give a big rat’s ass for Syrian blood. I only care about American blood.
Trump and Hillary both want to replace Assad. What? With Thieu? Been there. Done that. DON’T WANT MY GRANDSONS DOING IT!
Thank you, esquimax and Marie. Sorry for shouting. It’s been half a century but I still get mad at the stupid meat grinder that some of my friend’s died in and others survived but with wounds that don’t show. They left their youth in a rice paddy. I don’t want other youth to lose theirs in a sand dune. At least none of my parents’ generation regretted WW II. Although my one uncle whop interpreted for an Army fact finding mission in the death camps would wake up shouting in the night. My Aunt said it wasn’t the Battle of the Bulge. It was the death camps that gave him nightmares.
I love the word games of the modern U.S.
>>To call for mil action is not to push for… war
no, of course not, it’s only military action. It would be a war if the other side were capable of hitting back, but they aren’t, so we should bomb them just because we can.
Excellent article by Polk. A number of good points, especially on the massive defense budget/power of the MIC, the difficulty of challenging the entrenched defense system, the lack of thorough audits/oversight by Congress in the past 25 yrs.
Also to note his beneath-the-sunny-surface, honest discussion of immigration historically in this country, how the overall situation is more problematic when one looks closer.
And the war making tendencies of this country. Now again a concern as the many Russophobe crazies in both parties, and virtually all the MSM, seem to be setting up for another ME regime change venture, this time in Syria. It appears this latest chemical weapons attack story might not be what it purports to be — which wouldn’t be surprising — yet the MSM runs with the video images and allegations unskeptically. I think we’ve seen this movie before.
Finally, I liked Polk’s summation of the Obama presidency:
In looking at issues, it helps to ask Qui bono? Who benefits?
On immigration, it is always the employers and occasionally the political or economic refugees who benefit, but anger is always directed at the immigrants. Punish the employers by enforcing minimum wage laws (or passing minimum wage laws for agriculture and hospitality industries. (Any wonder Trump is opposed to minimum wage? Or is hell on immigrants but not employers of immigrants?)
Yes, the chemical weapons attack was a false flag trying to get US-NATO intervention to preserve al-Quaeda affiliated rebels from destruction; they most likely were the ones who did the previous false flag that had the fortunate result of disarming Assad of his military-grade chemical weapons.
And yes, on Polk’s reading of Obama. Not far enough out, but it looks like the historical reading is of another Carter. Politically adept, easy-going, visonary to a degree, and savaged by Southern (Carter) and national (Obama) racism. A historical tragedy that the American people did to themselves because of massively bad information and popular delusions.