There need to be millions of Americans in the streets shouting “Not my president” and more. “Impeach Trump,” “Down with Trump,” “Fuck Trump,” whatever works. There can be no recognition of his leadership. He has the legal right to be president, he doesn’t have the moral right to show his face in public. He’s an evil creature, personally and politically, and there can be no reconciliation with evil.
His presidency, his ability to act as president, has to be fought by every non-violent means that can only be imagined. Mass protests, general strikes, shut-downs of college campuses and any other public institutions that can be shut down – all this should be on the agenda (and at least with college campuses, I’m pretty sure it will be).
Because of who he is and what he stands for, Trump would be illegitimate as president even if he won 100% of the vote. But the fact is that most Americans rejected him and a plurality of them voted for Hillary Clinton. As of this writing, she’s leading him in the popular vote by about 200,000. And the legendary Nate Silver (who this time around got it much less wrong, at least, than the other election-data analysts) says that once all the votes are counted, Hillary “should eventually win the popular vote by 1 to 2 percentage points, and perhaps somewhere on the order of 1.5 million to 2 million votes …”
1.5 million to 2 million votes. That would be three to four times as big a margin as Al Gore had over George W. Bush in 2000. This is mind-boggling. The miserable U.S. electoral vote system says Trump gets to be president, but he’s an imposter. Many more Americans voted for Hillary than for him, and most of those Hillary-voters, it’s safe to assume, are sickened and terrified by him. A mandate to lead? He has a mandate to shrivel up and disappear.
After the 2000 election I, like probably most Democrats, thought the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court robbed Gore of the presidency. But once Gore conceded, Democrats from top to bottom very grudgingly but decisively accepted Bush as the new president. Democrats have accepted the legitimacy of every Republican president-elect, no matter how much they disliked him.
This, however, is different, and it’s not because of Hillary winning the popular vote. It’s because of Trump. He is way, way, way beyond the pale, like no big-party American presidential candidate, let alone winning candidate, ever was. He is the worst major contender for power in a genuinely democratic country since Hitler in 1932 – and if you think that’s an exaggeration, name somebody worse. And now this individual is headed into the White House.
That’s his legal right. His 60 million opponents, meanwhile, have the legal right to try to impeach him, to go in masses into America’s streets and shout their fury and absolutely justified hatred of the president-elect at the top of their lungs, to shut down as much of America as they can shut down, to paralyze Trump’s ability to govern – and beyond their legal right, they have the democratic right to civil disobedience, to break the law non-violently in this cause.
Let it happen in the streets, and let it happen in the Senate, the House of Representatives and every level of U.S. government.
Everyone’s asking, What will the new face of the Democratic Party be? Let it be this.
Remember Trump’s multi-year campaign to wrest the presidency from Obama on the racist lie that he was born in Africa? Remember the alt-right’s monstrous conspiracy theories and verbal violence against Obama from the time he became a candidate for president – and against Hillary Clinton for the last 20 years? We are no less enraged today; the difference is that we don’t need conspiracy theories, we have the truth. It is time to pour out our wrath.
I don’t want to offer up another take on Shimon Peres’ mixed legacy because the media is flooded with them. But I do want to point out one historic act he performed that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere, which is odd because it was his last one: Playing an absolutely crucial role, as president, in stopping Netanyahu and then-defense minister Ehud Barak from fulfilling their dream of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Ari Shavit has written, with grudging respect, that Peres “spearheaded the opposition,” working “both at home and abroad to prevent an attack on Iran – and he succeeded.”
Peres first came out publicly against bombing Iran in February 2012, when war fever was raging in Netanyahu and Barak’s offices. He told Channel 2:
“It’s clear to us that we can’t do it alone. We can only delay [Iran’s progress]. Thus it’s clear to us that we need to go together with America. There are questions of cooperation and of timetables, but as severe as the danger is, at least this time we’re not alone.”
Haaretz’s Anshel Pfeffer wrote that a Peres aide had told him in early 2010, “Shimon is doing everything to block Bibi and Barak’s crazy plan to attack Iran.” Pfeffer added that he confirmed that account with one of Peres’ “oldest confidantes,” who told him, “It’s true, [military chief Gabi] Ashkenazi and the other security chiefs are all looking to Shimon to lead the opposition to a strike on Iran.”
Haaretz has reported that Peres began working with military and intelligence leaders to block Netanyahu and Barak in 2008, a year after he became president. The public campaign against the bombing of Iran didn’t start until January 2011, when Meir Dagan, immediately after retiring from the Mossad, began speaking out against it.
But privately, in the high-level plotting against those crazy plans, Peres was there at the inception – as president and simply as Shimon Peres, whose private words carried a lot of weight in Washington, and whose later, public words would carry a lot of weight in Israel, and whose commitment to and likely leadership of the rebellion at the beginning no doubt bucked up Dagan, Ashkenazi and the others.
I’ve always thought Dagan was the movement’s hero because he was the first one who stuck his neck out, and in so doing threw away an unlimited future in politics to speak his conscience, for which he caught the expected accusations of treason from the right-wing powers-that-were-and-still-are.
But it may well be that Peres, as Shavit wrote, was the spearhead of the whole thing.
Catching it from Netanyahu, Barak
And he caught plenty of flak himself when he started expressing his opposition in public. (The only other major Israeli politician speaking on-the-record against bombing Iran was Tzipi Livni.) After that Channel 2 interview in February 2012, Netanyahu and Barak sought to undermine his credibility, slamming him publicly for overstepping his bounds as president, and recalling his opposition to Menachem Begin’s 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, which is considered in Israel and much of the world to have been a masterstroke. (The consensus of informed opinion, however, is that “Operation Opera” didn’t end Saddam’s nuclear ambitions, but rather supercharged them.) Netanyahu threw in Peres’ signature Oslo Accords and support for Sharon’s disengagement from Gaza as other reasons why Israelis shouldn’t trust his judgment. (I must say, my opinion of Peres’ mixed legacy is going up by the paragraph.)
From the time I came to Israel in January 1985, when he was prime minister, until the end of the Oslo peace process in late 2000, I adored Peres. He was the leader of the peace camp, without any question. But when the peace camp had its legs knocked out from under by the second intifada, and Israel began shifting inexorably to the right, Peres, instead of leading the opposition like he should have, found his place in 21st century Israel: as its liberal fig leaf. When Israel bludgeoned Gaza, Peres was there to defend it to the West. For me, he became a terrific disappointment.
But not in the fight over what to do or not to do about Iran, one of the most fateful dilemmas Israel ever faced, and if Netanyahu and Barak had been left to their own devices, most people outside Israel and the Republican Party think it would have been a catastrophe. If not for Peres, that might indeed have been how the story turned out. Toward the end, when it counted most, he became the highest example of a liberal opposition leader, regained his role as leader of the peace camp, and this time led it to victory.
For liberals, one of the lessons of the Trump campaign is that they and the Democratic Party have to start paying more attention to the economic pain of America’s white working class, which Trump has turned to his advantage in such a startling way.
These people without a college education are the ones left behind by the Obama recovery, left behind by the modern global, high-tech economy in general, and the Democratic Party, which used to speak for this class, doesn’t any longer and this has to change, according to the new liberal consensus.
I don’t doubt the economic pain of people who have no job security, whose salaries and benefits have steadily declined, and whose prospects for the future look no better. What I do doubt, though, is that Trump’s economic pitch – to bring back the good old days of American factory work – is up there among the main reasons why he’s getting such huge support from these people.
I doubt it because blue-collar America didn’t just start declining now; it started in the 1980s, and even a little before. Where have these working-class whites been all this time with their demands to reverse free trade?
These Trump voters are Republicans and right-leaning Independents; why have they been supporting pro-free-trade, pro-1%, anti-union, anti-safety-net Republicans for decades? Why did they, and why do they still, worship Reagan, who broke the mold on this economic policy, and who did more to screw American workers, not to mention the American poor, than any other president?
GOP’s old name for Trump’s economics
Before Trump, the Republicans had a term for the complaint that workers were getting hammered and Wall Street was the enemy: “class warfare.” Only Democrats preached class warfare, and the white working class wasn’t having it – if they voted, they voted Republican.
So why have they suddenly woken up? Why, for the first time since they left the Democrats and flocked to Reagan in 1980 (if they hadn’t left as part of Nixon’s “silent majority” in 1968, or as part of his 1972 landslide over the Bernie Sanders of the day, George McGovern) are they talking like proletarians?
Because the new, working-class economics that Trump is serving them comes packaged in the good old Republican wrapping that they always grab for – hatred of Washington, politicians, the media, the Democrats, Obama, the Clintons, immigrants, Muslims, as well as blacks, women and gays who aren’t grateful for all their advantages.
Plus, many if not most of them really like Trump’s style, which is also new. Many respect his wealth, seeing it as proof of his ability and believing he’ll use it to get them a better break. Many also see his beautiful women and his exciting life, and hero-worship him.
Take away Trump’s Republican political and social themes, take away his personality, his billions and his celebrity and make him a Democrat running against free trade and for bringing back factory jobs to America – would working-class whites be interested? I don’t think so.
I know, Bernie Sanders also appealed to working-class whites with the same basic approach to trade and jobs. But I’m convinced that many of these people didn’t know he was a holdover from the late-‘60s New Left, and that once they found out – as they most certainly would have in a general election – they would have fled in droves to the Republicans, to the Libertarians or stayed home.
By and large, America’s working-class, high-school-educated whites are not proletarians, or anyway that is not an important part of their identity. No, they’re nationalists. And nationalists need enemies. That’s what the Republicans have given them, it sure as hell is what Trump has given them, and this is the decisive reason they love Trump.
Protectionist economics? That’s icing on the cake.
I have to wonder if these voters even believe it, if they believe there’s something a president can do to get their jobs back from overseas, to rebuild the factories and revive industrial unions and guarantee their employment, good wages and benefits, regular raises and the rest of what was once on offer in blue-collar America. It’s gone. It’s been dying in pieces for almost 40 years. The technological revolution and globalization killed it off; how do you reverse that combined force?
Anybody who tells Americans with no more than a high school diploma that there’s a way to get them into the middle class – other than by upgrading their education – is lying through his teeth. Leave that to Trump; Democrats don’t have to imitate him.
Protectionism, raising minimum wage, raising taxes on rich – this, by popular demand, is economic platform of GOP’s new leader.
It’s ironic: America has been moving left on social issues in recent years because there are more minorities and “millennials” in the population, yet the country is finally, in this election campaign, moving left on economic issues as well because of white, generally middle-aged Middle Americans – mainly those who support the fascistic Donald Trump.
These are the people who, ever since Reagan, exasperated the liberals by consistently acting against their economic self-interest and voting for a Republican Party that so clearly favored the rich and disdained the working class and poor. The reason they voted Republican was the social issues, the symbolic issues, the ones that involved their likes and dislikes, that pitted their culture against liberal, cosmopolitan culture. These are patriotic, traditional Americans, and the Republicans talked like their kind of people, while the Democrats talked like big-city college kids who didn’t know how to change a tire. On economics, these voters said they hated government and taxes, and the Republicans said they did, too, so it was a perfect match – even though the GOP-style economy left these people further and further behind while the rich kept getting more obscenely rich.
But this year the alliance between Middle America and Republican economics broke apart. It happened mainly because Trump jettisoned the GOP’s laissez faire dogma, and instead told Middle America’s inadequately educated whites, “I’ll save you. I’ll get your jobs back. I’ll stop all those businesses from leaving the U.S. and they’ll have to hire you, at good wages.” In other words, protectionism. Prohibitive taxes on foreign imports, and confiscatory taxes on U.S. businesses that dare defy the government. What Republicans call socialism, totalitarianism.
And the salt-of-the-earth white folks of the heartland loved it. Meanwhile, on the social and cultural issues, Trump threw them more raw meat than any serious presidential candidate ever had – the ugliest racism and nativism, the worst abusiveness, the most fuck-you brand of hell-raising – and between that and his economic wonder drug, he left the Republican free-market purists in the dust.
PROTECTIONISM IS AN idiotic idea in this day and age – among other awful effects, it would lose America billions of foreign customers for its exports, and thus cost more Americans their jobs than Third World competition ever did – but the important thing is that Trump, by making this idiotic claim so successfully, has separated Republican voters from Republican economic doctrine. Which is a great thing, because Reaganomics, which has held sway in America since the 1980s (the big exception being the passage – and success – of Obamacare), has helped expand the country’s pool of have-nots, strike fear into the middle class and give the upper class an abominably large share of the nation’s wealth.
Trump – purely by accident, because he doesn’t have an economic idea or principle in his head – has torn down the Republicans’ facade and allowed the party’s educational lower class to acknowledge, very loudly, that economic freedom isn’t working for them, and that they want somebody in charge – say, the next president – to give them economic security one way or the other.
As a result, Trump has had to keep moving left economically – now he’s changed his mind and come out in favor of raising the minimum wage, which is the sort of thing that would have gotten a Republican hanged as recently as last year. In another forced reversal, he’s even talking about raising taxes on the rich. Protectionism, minimum wage hikes, higher taxes on the wealthy – this, by popular demand, is the economic platform of the Republican Party’s new leader.
After this, after Trump’s exposure of the dissatisfaction in party ranks with laissez faire, is any Republican going to try to sell voters on Milton Friedman or the Laffer curve again? I don’t think so. That way has failed, first economically, now politically.
TRUE, IT’S NOT only Trump and his white Middle Americans who are moving the country left on economics; it’s also Bernie Sanders and his white Middle Americans, along with his millennials who believe in equality, and who also believe they shouldn’t have to pay so damn much to go to college. They’re right, of course, and hopefully their nudging of Hillary and the Democrats leftward (except on free trade, where they’re as wrong as Trump), will be a lasting thing. But by far the most significant development – the shredding of America’s economic Right – has come from the heart of the Republican electorate, driven forward by a sociopathic billionaire. If that’s not ironic, I don’t know what is.
This isn’t too good to be true, either: After Reagan, it was Bill Clinton who said “the era of big government is over” as the Democrats joined the Republicans in keeping taxes low, slashing welfare and in general burying the party’s New Deal legacy (until Obamacare). For 3½ decades, American economic policy has been moving one way, right. Now, from the force of reality and the advent of Trump and, to a lesser extent, Sanders, the pendulum is swinging back.
So, assuming that Hillary Clinton wins the November election, which I think is a very safe assumption, the 2016 election campaign should go down as a turning point for the better in American economic history. (And assuming that Trump gets wiped out electorally, which I think is a likelihood, this will have been a healthy year for American national life all around.)
I don’t know if Hillary and the Dems will make things better for average-income and poor Americans; if they don’t, the Repubs could come back to power later – but not with more of their economic bullshit. They can’t make life much easier for the rich or much harder for the poor and working class without turning America into something like a Third World country itself – and without chasing more and more voters away.
The Republicans are going to have to deliver the goods to their struggling supporters, because these people won’t listen to promises of trickle-down anymore. The GOP has no choice but to rejoin the Western world and accept that a mixed economy, one that includes reasonable taxes and reasonable government intervention, is necessary for a fair society.
It’s no mystery why he’s gotten so far while being vicious to the handicapped, minorities, and women whose appearance he doesn’t like: Millions of people among his base of support have been lapping this stuff up for years.
Of all the outrageous, unprecedented things Trump has said and gotten away with on the campaign trail, the most amazing has got to be his ridicule of people for their disabilities. There was his spastic caricature of a New York Times reporter who has a congenital joint disease, and his counterattack at pundit Charles Krauthammer, who is paralyzed from the waist down (“I get called [out] by a guy that can’t buy a pair of pants, I get called names?”)
Trump’s audience seemed to love his imitation of the Times reporter; it certainly didn’t cost him any support, nor did his putdown of Krauthammer. How does a presidential candidate get away with such cruelty? The injunction against public ridicule of disabled people is one of the most absolute, iron-clad taboos in civilized society, yet breaking it didn’t hurt Trump at all; if anything it enhanced his reputation for “telling it like it is.” I wondered – how could this be?
And then I remembered a video I saw of Larry the Cable Guy (stage name of Daniel Lawrence Whitney), the first big star of contemporary, right-wing “redneck comedy,” doing his version of Christmas carols at one of his concerts. “Hark the harelip angels sing,” he begins, then splutters through the next line like he figures a person with a harelip would sing it – and the audience is laughing like crazy. Then, to the tune, of “Frosty the Snowman,” he sings, “Donny the retard, had an eight-pound waterhead,” finishing up with an imitation of a severely retarded person, and again the audience is cracking up.
This was not at a nightclub filled with drug-addled young people; from the YouTube of the skit (which has over 4 million views) you can see that this was a big auditorium filled with moms and dads, a Grand Ole Opry crowd. And it was uploaded in 2006 – before the global recession, before Obama, before gay marriage, before “safe spaces,” at a time when George W. Bush was in the White House, so I don’t want to hear about the anger of the white working class. This was just pure, elemental meanness, and the audience was loving it – a preview of heartland America’s embrace of Trump’s abusive style.
The Christmas carols skit by Larry the Cable Guy featured another theme that was considered off-limits in a presidential campaign until Trump famously made it work: overt racism. “O come, all ye illegal immigrants / Come and get your green cards / And learn some damn English / And then how to drive,” sings Larry, and this time the audience isn’t just laughing, it’s cheering.
For some reason, Trump hasn’t ridiculed gays, nor hinted that Hillary is a lesbian, even though much of his base – white, non-evangelical, right-wing Middle Americans – are no doubt itching for him to do it, and Larry showed how it’s done. To the tune of “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”:
You better watch out, I think she’s a guy, / I ain’t quite sure, but somethin’ ain’t right, / Hillary Clinton’s comin’ to town.
So it’s not a mystery why Trump has gotten so far in American politics even while being vicious to the handicapped, minorities, and women whose appearance he doesn’t like: Millions of people among his base of support have been lapping this stuff up for years.
I’VE ONLY LEARNED about “redneck comedy” from Googling, so I’ve only seen the tiniest fraction of what’s out there – but the Christmas carols video wasn’t the only one in which Larry the Cable Guy ridiculed the disabled. In this one, which has had almost 700,000 views since it was uploaded in 2008, he calls the public toilet for the handicapped the “cripple stool.”
This style of entertainment is not a fringe phenomenon in American culture; Larry the Cable Guy has had seven albums that went to No. 1 on the Billboard comedy album chart. And he’s not the only Trump-mean “redneck comedian” who’s done it; the No. 1 comedy album on the Billboard chart today is “Redneck Shit” by Wheeler Walker Jr. (stage name of Ben Hoffman). Vulgar and stupid beyond words (Larry, by contrast, is very clever), mainly about sex, the album’s title song includes this lyric:
Takin’ pictures of my mama when she’s trying’ to take a shit, / Then I’m throwin’ rocks at cripples and I laugh when they get hit.
Another song on the album is titled “Which One of You Queers Is Gonna Suck My Dick?” The No. 1 comedy album in America. And people are shocked at Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.
Then there’s country singer/comedian Rodney Carrington, who’s had a No. 1 comedy album and twice hit No. 2. He’s got a song called “Rap Star,” in which he slags off black hip-hop performers for singing about “pimpin’ ho’s” and for bragging about their “bling,” which is fine by me; black hip-hop lyrics tend toward the disgusting. But then, in explaining rap terms to his audience, he says the word “ax” means “to pose a question,” which simply demeans black people. Naturally the crowd, which is at least 99.9% white, loves it.
This is Trump’s base on their own, enjoying themselves. In Carrington’s skit “Radical Islam,” in which he refers to Allah as “Allah Jackson,” he adds:
I’m not talking about all Muslims, for all you Muslims who are in here tonight, because God knows I’ve got a big following of them. I’m huge in Egypt.
Then he does a bit about going to “some Japanese, Chinese, fuck they all look the same restaurant,” and the rest of the sketch is based on making fun of Asian people talking English.
I knew your legs were missing, by the knot in your pants. / But that didn’t stop me, I asked you to dance. / I danced while you sat there. / Danced while you sat there …
BASED ON THE limited Googling I’ve done, I’m happy to say that not all country comedians are sadistic assholes onstage. Three very popular ones who’ve toured with Larry the Cable Guy on the “Blue Collar Comedy Tour,” Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engvall and Ron White, don’t make fun of vulnerable people; White, in fact, does a bit in which he takes down homophobes.
Obviously this penchant for laughing at people over their disabilities, their looks, their race, religion or sexuality isn’t shared by all of Middle America’s cowboys and cowgirls – and maybe not by most, either. But it is certainly shared by many. (Recall the scene in “Borat” when the patrons at a country music bar in Tucson, Arizona sing along merrily as Borat performs “Throw the Jew Down the Well.”) It is more than acceptable among the people of Trump’s base; it is greatly rewarded, in pop culture as in politics.
Larry the Cable Guy, Rodney Carrington, Wheeler Walker Jr. and who knows which other country comedians think that dissing people in wheelchairs is defying PC, like ragging Obama. Last October Larry told one of his fans, Fox News’ Sean Hannity, that he didn’t listen to people who tell him “you shouldn’t have said that,” or that he was “dumbing down America and all this kind of stuff,” and that he agreed with Hannity that Americans had “lost their sense of humor.”
In that same interview, when Hannity asked him, “Do you like Trump?” Larry didn’t go so far as to endorse him – this was back in October – but he did say:
Yes I do like Trump. … Here’s why I like Trump: He’s shoving a knife right into political correctness. People will finally realize that’s why he’s popular. People are sick and tired of that garbage.
Finally, I suppose inevitably, a couple of months ago, Rodney Carrington released a song called “Vote For Trump”:
He understands the working man, / Tells the truth that we can understand. / If you don’t like it you can all just kiss our ass.