Saturday, July 27, 2019

Editorial: Call It Fascism

It probably was not a coincidence that Donald Trump tweet-attacked four Democratic congresswomen of color July 14, just two days after Alex Acosta announced he was quitting as labor secretary in the controversy over his extraordinarily lenient handling of wealthy businessman Jeffrey Epstein for sex crimes 12 years ago when Acosta was US attorney for southern Florida.

Acosta announced his departure July 12 while standing next to Trump outside the White House. Trump said it was Acosta’s decision to quit. Of course, Trump may have nudged Acosta, since he had no wish to keep Epstein’s name connected with him and the two dozen women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct since the 1970s. Also, a big roundup of undocumented immigrants who had been ordered removed from the US, which Trump had promised, was a bust, and the continued holding of refugees, including children, for weeks or months in overcrowded facilities along the border without basic amenities, such as showers, drinking water or even space to sleep, was an embarrassment. So the Great Misleader distracted the American public, as he often does, with a series of tweets.

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

Of the four congresswomen Trump referred to, Ilhan Omar, a Somilia native, was the only member of “the Squad” born outside the US. She immigrated to New York with her family in 1992 at age 10 and she now represents Minneapolis. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, born in the Bronx, N.Y., represents the Bronx and Queens, Rashida Tlaib, is a native of Detroit, Mich., which she represents in Congress, and Ayanna Pressley, is a native of Cincinnati, Ohio, and now represents Boston. And if it can be argued that, as Trump said, their government is the “most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world,” the Squad, and their colleagues in the House, are trying to fix it.

Then Trump doubled down in a rally in North Carolina that was originally called because he expected to be distracting from Robert Mueller’s testimony at House committee hearings, which had been scheduled for July 17. Mueller’s testimony was rescheduled, but Trump put on a show anyway, including crowd chants of “Send her home,” in response to his attacks on Omar.

Trump based his 2016 campaign on fear of brown immigrants, including Latinos, blacks and Muslims, and he wants to make the Squad the faces of the Democratic Party. While their support for issues such as health care for all, tuition-free public colleges, environmental protection, living wages and support for basic human rights appeal to a broad base of voters, Trump believes stoking fear and resentmeent of people of color can unify white people and carry him to re-election.

Frank Bruni warned in the New York Times that the Squad members only represent their districts, and they replaced Democrats in solidly blue districts, so “their victories had zilch to do with why or how Democrats regained control of Congress and have dubious relevance to how Democrats can do the same with the White House in 2020. The House members they replaced were Democrats, not Republicans, so their campaigns weren’t lessons in how to move voters from one party’s column to the other.”

Other first-term House Democrats who defeated Republicans in districts where Trump had prevailed by four to 10 percentage points just two years earlier include Lauren Underwood in the exurbs of Chicago, Xochitl Torres Small in southern New Mexico, Abigail Spanberger in the suburbs of Richmond, Va., and Antonio Delgado in upstate New York. “None of them ran on the Green New Deal, single-payer health insurance, reparations or the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency,” Bruni said. “They touted more restrained agendas. And they didn’t talk that much about Trump. They knew they didn’t need to. For voters offended by him, he’s his own negative ad, playing 24/7 on cable news.”

Of the roughly 90 candidates on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s list of 2018 challengers with some hope of turning a red House district blue, just two made a big pitch for single-payer health care. Both lost. But candidates who picked up seats campaigned on protecting the Affordable Care Act, and coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, which Trump and the Repulicans tried to kill in 2017 and are still trying to destroy.

Republicans want to label the Democrats as socialists heading into the election year. Democrats shouldn’t pick up that bait, but they should remind voters the GOP still targets Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A Kaiser Health poll in January found widespread support for expanding Medicare and Medicaid:

• 77% of the public, including 69% of Republicans, favor allowing people between the ages of 50 to 64 to buy health insurance through Medicare;
• 75%, including most Republicans (64%), favor allowing people who aren’t covered by their employer to buy insurance through their state’s Medicaid program
• 74%, including nearly half of Republicans (47%), favor a national government plan like Medicare that is open to anyone, but also would allow people to keep the coverage they have if they want to; and
• 56%, including nearly a quarter of Republicans (23%), favor a national plan called Medicare for All in which all Americans would get their insurance through a single government plan.

However, views on Medicare for All turn negative when people hear the arguments that it would eliminate private health insurance companies, require most Americans to pay more taxes, threaten the current Medicare program, and/or lead to delays in some people getting medical tests and treatments. And even if those arguments are misleading, they get plenty of airplay on corporate news channels and right-wing radio talk shows.

Republicans have been calling Democrats socialists ever since the New Deal. In the Trump era, the rhetoric has become more extreme, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who knows better, called the Democrats “a bunch of communists” during an appearance on “Fox and Friends” July 15. “Well, we all know that (New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and this crowd are a bunch of communists, they hate Israel, they hate our own country,” Graham said.

US Rep. Liz Cheney (R-S.C.), the third-ranking Republican in the House, agreed with the sentiment, tweeting, “We will never stop fighting the communist wing of the Dem party.”

It’s not just about Trump; it’s the whole party Trump has co-opted, few of whose “leaders” have the courage to separate themselves from his racist rhetoric (and many of whom may have thought it was a good strategy to unify his base).

Democrats should start calling out the Republicans for what they have become: a fascist organization that will increase the power and privileges of big businesses and billionaires by any means necessary. House Democrats should step up hearings on Trump’s alleged “high crimes and misdemeanors,” from his apparent violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act to keep his extramarital affairs secret before the election, to his attempts to obstruct the federal investigation of his campaign’s involvement with Russian and other foreign individuals before and after the election.

Democrats still might not get 20 Republican senators they would need to remove Trump from office after impeachment, but the people still deserve the truth — while we can still get it. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, August 15, 2019

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Selections from the August 15, 2019 issue

COVER/Dr. Caroline Poplin
Medicare for All — What’s necessary and what’s not


EDITORIAL
Call it fascism


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS
Betsy DeVos on education: Voucherize, privatize and segregate


HEALTH CARE/Margot McMillen
Terrorizing immigrants


DISPATCHES
Sex trafficking prosecutions plummet under Trump;
Budget deal outrages hawks;
Trump lags in ‘battleground’ states;
Mitch McConnell is only senator more unpopular than Susan Collins;
Federal agencies’ plans to move out of D.C. slammed as ‘anti-science’;
Trump heat wave: Just a taste of what’s to come;
Trump’s EPA favors chemical industry over kids;
Trump wants to profit off meeting with world leaders;
Coal towns face financial collapse;
Rural hospital closures affect empoyment and wages ... 


ART CULLEN
Rural vote is about abortion, not immigration


JOSEPH B. ATKINS 
Kissing industry’s butt in Laurel, Miss.


JILL RICHARDSON
Weapons of the weak


JOHN YOUNG
That oath was Trump’s first lie in office


LEO GERARD
Is there a future for unions?


GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet 
The real race card


GENE NICHOL
The best friend of North Carolina fire breathers


JOEL D. JOSEPH  
Gerrymandering and the Supreme Court

D.H. KERBY
ICE holds activist after poetry reading


BOB BURNETT
The economy and the election


MARK ANDERSON
Texas bans pipeline protests


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas 
The true demons


SAM URETSKY
Little-known democratic presidential contendors deserve a look, too


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel 
The battle continues


WAYNE O’LEARY
American conservatism’s China dolls


JOHN BUELL
Neoliberalism down on the farm


DAVID SCHMIDT
Pluralism, partnerships and prosecutions: Church and state in contemporary Mexico


ROSS ROSENFELD
My daughters will not grow up with Disney. Here’s why.


ROB PATTERSON
Woodstock at 50


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson 
Pandora, the box


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell 
Tenement lament’s testament

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Trump making racist statements about the Squad is not a reelection strategy, but a temporary tactic in the southern strategy the GOP has employed since the 1950’s

By Marc Jampole

Now that the initial stench of Donald Trump’s racist comments about four freshman Democratic female Congressional representatives has lifted, most analysts are discussing this series of racist tweets as if they represented an overall election strategy: make these four progressives candidates the “face” of the Democratic Party. This gambit—if it is one—attempts to take the focus away from the inherent and obvious racism of the comments and place it on presenting the Congresswomen’s views as radical and un-American—“socialism” and “communism” are the words being bandied about by Trump, Mark Meadows, Lindsay Graham and the usual gang of idiots (apologies to the soon-to-be-defunct Mad Magazine). 
In my view, calling a series of disgusting tweets the beginning of a strategy of identification is just typical Republican backfill of their leader’s stupidity and virulent racism. It’s a silly idea to base the election strategy on making Representatives Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Omar and Tlaib—known as the Squad—the face of the Democratic Party for two big reasons: 1) As soon as the Democrats have a nominee or an unbeatable frontrunner, she or he will be the face of the Democrats, no matter what the GOP wants.  2) The more times that Republicans label as “socialist” positions that most people agree with such as universal healthcare insurance, support of government action to address global warming, cheaper college and making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, the less people are going to care about what you call it. Recent surveys show this process kicking in, especially among millennials and Gen-Zers. Many people are happy to call it socialism, as long as they get healthcare.  
The mainstream media has been happy to go along with the idea that making four minority Congressional representatives the face of the Democratic Party constitutes a strategy because it plays into their current obsession with splitting the Democratic Party into two warring factions—the crazy left-wingers and the centrists. On most issues, all that separates these two groups is the speed with which they want to get to the ultimate goals and their willingness to piss off entrenched interests. The real internal problem for the Democrats, of course, is that the large funders of the Party have a slightly different agenda than do Democratic voters and small donors. The Dem fat cats are happy to clean up the environment, provide good healthcare to all and raise wages—as long as they (the big donors) don’t have to pay for it, or can make money from it, as in the case of union-busting charter schools. 
Even those pundits who have kept their aim zeroed tightly on the obvious racism of Trump’s remarks—another in a long line of crude Trump attempts to create an us-versus-them mentality among his core—have missed the target to a certain degree. The real point of the Trump anti-Squad remarks involves not just racism and economic issues, but misogyny and fundamentalist Christian values as well. As University of Arkansas professors Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields point out in their recent The Long Southern Strategy, from its inception after the Supreme Court declared segregation illegal in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Republican “Southern Strategy” has combined racism, sexism, revivalist-tent religion and right-wing economics in almost equal measures. 
The goal of the Southern Strategy has always been to change voting patterns in the south from straight Democratic to straight Republican. This multi-decade strategy has involved pandering not only to racist views, but also to old-fashioned ideas that women should stay at home cooking and raising children and to an extreme religiosity based on accepting the words of the Bible without interpretation. The GOP infused these long-time core “southern” values with its brand of small-government capitalism by attaching racial code words to discussions of government efforts to help the poor, aged and down-trodden, to make racist voters believe that social welfare programs primarily benefited minorities. As Maxwell and Shields write, “Poor southern whites have long been conditioned to forfeit a personal battle in the service of winning an imagined war from which they do not benefit.” In this historical context, Trump’s anti-Squad tweets, full of venomous lies, e.g., that these women said they hate Jews, is not the beginning of a strategy, but another tactic in the GOP’s long southern strategy.
Maxwell and Shields take a complicated approach to their telling of history. Instead of a straight chronology, each chapter follows a single theme from the 1950’s until today and then presents a series of recent studies that show how different the south is from the rest of the country and how open the south was to receiving the racist, sexist fundamentalist message spouted to a larger or smaller extent by Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, both Bushes, McCain, Dole, Romney and Trump. The themes include southern racism, southern white privilege, the myth of a post-racial country, traditional southern sexism, the southern white patriarchy, the gender gap in voting, the revival-tent roots of contemporary southern religion, southern white fundamentalism and the myth of the social conservative.
The professors analyze literally hundreds of surveys and studies on attitudes and beliefs. The surveys show what we always knew: There are racists, misogynists, Christian fundamentalists and economic right-wingers everywhere, but in all cases, there are more in the south. What is eye-opening, however, is the degree to which these four social characteristics are correlated, among both southerners and northerners. Some examples: The more likely people are to believe that blacks are inferior, the more likely they are to think that women should not hold elective office. The more likely they are to be against the Equal Rights Amendment, the more likely they are to think that whites are currently discriminated against because of affirmative action. Those who believe in fundamentalist religion tend to express greater racial resentment and sexism. These many connections between strands of belief create a tightly woven culture, resistant to change.
The economic aspect of this nexus of beliefs is particularly weird, as it has become a mask for racism even as GOP economic policies have hurt virtually all Americans, especially its large army of southern white voters. As it turns out, the 2016 decision of a majority of Electoral College voters to cast their ballots for Trump in and of itself immediately assuaged the feelings of economic insecurity among Trump voters. Several surveys show white perceptions of competition from minorities and general economic anxiety among whites decreased dramatically just by virtue of Trump assuming office. It’s the perverse mirror image of the emergence of the Tea Party movement almost within days of Obama’s inauguration. As Maxwell and Shields write, “The economic masks the racial so much so that many do not even see it.” The economic positions become a coded substitute for racial ones, which explains why those who manifest racist attitudes so often vote against their own economic best interest.
Trump’s strategy for reelection in 2020 is the same as his strategy was in 2016 and the same as the strategies of every other Republican candidate for president since Goldwater in 1964—summon a large turnout by a core of supporters throughout the country defined by the traditional values of southern society: the inferiority of non-whites, the subservience of women to men throughout society and a fundamentalist religion that enforced both misogyny and racism.  It’s the long southern strategy that has seen the south flip from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican in the course of a lifetime.  
The one thing that Trump has added to the mix is his virulent anti-immigration stand that he has racialized by only going after immigrants and refugees from non-European countries.  Reagan and Bush II in particular had much more humanistic approaches to legal and illegal immigration, and all the former Republican presidents and presidential candidates steered clear of racializing Muslims, although many other Republican office holders and candidates have not refrained from virulent anti-Islamic rhetoric. The anti-Squad tweets and follow-up thus make for a great reinforcement of the long southern strategy. 
The flaw in Trump’s campaign to add people from the Middle East and Central and South American countries to the legion of the despised, inferior, un-American “other” is that it has more than doubled the size of “America’s internal enemies.” That also means more voters in opposition to the Republican program, including not only the Latino and Muslim minorities, but the many industries that depend on immigrant employees with a variety of educational backgrounds, the families into which these minorities marry and the communities where they have established deep roots. It might even convince a number of upper middle class and wealthy voters who supported Trump solely to get tax breaks and regulatory relief to now vote against what has been for them a useful rouge. 
That doesn’t meant that Trump is destined to lose the 2020 election. Voter suppression laws will still keep many Democrats home. Russian interference may include fixing the ballot box, as some believe happened in Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania in 2016.
But by including immigrants in the southern strategy, Trump has hastened the process by which the majority of Americans embrace both diversity and western European social democracy. As immigrants from everywhere and educated young people fill thriving cities and high tech capitals throughout the country, Virginia has already turned from red to blue, while Georgia, North Carolina and Florida are purple with Texas headed in the same direction. The future of an American democracy lies only in a diverse mixed economy with lots of government regulation and programs and a highly progressive tax system. Note that I wrote “the future of an American democracy,” and not “the future of America.” Those who support an economy tilted towards those already wealthy and the 21st century version of the nexus of southern values—AKA Republicans—have shown time and again that they care less about having a democracy than they do about imposing their will on American society.