Tag Archives: 2016 election

Eight election epigrams

by Nathaniel Smith, Politics: A View from West Chester, 11/17/16

1024px-white_house_06-02-08Half the country hopes he meant what he said and half hopes he didn’t. Just like 8 years ago, but not the same halves.

There’s right, wrong, and politics. When questions have only two answers to most voters—right and wrong—politicians beware!

The Democrats’ hoped-for version of 2010: if it doesn’t come in 2018, will it ever?

A white woman to follow a black man? That was asking more than many Americans could handle.

Workers white, black, Latino, female, male, undocumented: what do they have in common and how can men of ill will pit them against each other? US history—from the beginning to last week—shows how: it’s not the worker part. Divide et impera, as the ancients said.

All things to all people: enough people believe that a candidate is listening, hears their needs, and will work for them in office. A track record can be too long. Then, all things to all people quickly turns into some things to some people, and the equation becomes: “all minus some = disenchantment.”

If the only thing to fear is fear itself, what is the only thing to hate?

Logic 101:”A includes B” does not prove that “B includes A.” Thus: white supremacists may support X, but not all X supporters are white supremacists. Fortunately.

Offer a 70-year-old man the chance to become a good, empathetic, rational person? The triumph of hope over developmental psychology.

(Photo: public domain, from Wikimedia Commons)

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016 election, Nathaniel Smith

An American Tragedy

by David Remnick, The New Yorker, Nov 9, 2016

The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism. Trump’s shocking victory, his ascension to the Presidency, is a sickening event in the history of the United States and liberal democracy.

On January 20, 2017, we will bid farewell to the first African-American President—a man of integrity, dignity, and generous spirit—and witness the inauguration of a con who did little to spurn endorsement by forces of xenophobia and white supremacy. It is impossible to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety.

There are, inevitably, miseries to come: an increasingly reactionary Supreme Court; an emboldened right-wing Congress; a President whose disdain for women and minorities, civil liberties and scientific fact, to say nothing of simple decency, has been repeatedly demonstrated. Trump is vulgarity unbounded, a knowledge-free national leader who will not only set markets tumbling but will strike fear into the hearts of the vulnerable, the weak, and, above all, the many varieties of Other whom he has so deeply insulted.

The African-American Other. The Hispanic Other. The female Other. The Jewish and Muslim Other. The most hopeful way to look at this grievous event—and it’s a stretch—is that this election and the years to follow will be a test of the strength, or the fragility, of American institutions….

keep reading at The New Yorker

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016 election, US President

The Secret Power Behind Local Elections

By CHISUN LEE and LAWRENCE NORDEN, New York Times, June 25, 2016

WHEN the history of elections in 2016 is written, one of the central points is likely to be how little voters knew about the donors who influenced the contests. At the federal level, “dark money” groups — chiefly social welfare nonprofits and trade associations that aren’t required to disclose their donors and, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, can spend unlimited amounts on political advertising — have spent three times more in this election than they did at a comparable point in 2012.

Yet the rise of dark money may matter less in the race for president or Congress than for, say, the utilities commission in Arizona. Voters probably know much less about the candidates in contests like that, which get little news coverage but whose winner will have enormous power to affect energy company profits and what homeowners pay for electricity. For a relative pittance — less than $100,000 — corporations and others can use dark money to shape the outcome of a low-level race in which they have a direct stake….

continue reading at New York Times

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016 election, Campaign finance

The Endgame of 2016′s Anti-Establishment Politics

by Robert Reich, 4/25/16

Will Bernie Sanders’s supporters rally behind Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination? Likewise, if Donald Trump is denied the Republican nomination, will his supporters back whoever gets the Republican nod?

If 2008 is any guide, the answer is unambiguously yes to both. About 90 percent of people who backed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries that year ended up supporting Barack Obama in the general election. About the same percent of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney backers came around to supporting John McCain.

But 2008 may not be a good guide to the 2016 election, whose most conspicuous feature is furious antipathy to the political establishment.

Outsiders and mavericks are often attractive to an American electorate chronically suspicious of political insiders, but the anti-establishment sentiments unleashed this election year of a different magnitude. The Trump and Sanders candidacies are both dramatic repudiations of politics as usual….

continue reading at Robert Reich

Leave a comment

Filed under Progressive movement, US President