Jamelle Bouie’s recent piece at The New York Times is worth your time. It is important to remember that many socialists in United States history, including Debs and Sanders, believed they were defending American ideals.
Here is a taste of “The Enduring Power of Anticapitalism in American Politics“:
But Debs didn’t just condemn his class enemies. He also called on his audiences to imagine a better world — to realize the democratic and egalitarian promise of the American Revolution through collective action. “We live in the most favored land beneath the unbending sky,” he said in a speech in 1900. “We have all the raw materials and the most marvelous machinery, millions of eager inhabitants seeking employment. Nothing is so easily produced as wealth, and no man should suffer for the need of it.” Debs’s appeal, noted the historian Nick Salvatore in his 1982 biography, “Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist,” was “frequently described by contemporaries as evangelical, and transcended at that moment factional disagreements and led each in the audience to glimpse a different social order.”
Or, as one self-described “hard-bitten socialist” said to the journalist Heywood Broun at the time: “That old man with the burning eyes actually believes that there can be such a thing as the brotherhood of man. And that’s not the funniest part of it. As long as he’s around, I believe it myself.”
I mention all of this because I saw something of that Debs during Sanders’s Saturday rally in Queens, N.Y., where 25,000 people gathered to hear Sanders and many of his most high-profile supporters, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It was a show of force for Sanders, who was recently hospitalized following a heart attack.
Read the entire piece here.
After Donald Trump told U.S Representatives Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Tlaib, and Omar to “go back” to their own countries, I heard and read a lot of conservatives say something similar to Fox News commentator Brit Hume:
Trump’s “go back” comments were nativist, xenophobic, counterfactual and politically stupid. But they simply do not meet the standard definition of racist, a word so recklessly flung around these days that its actual meaning is being lost.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) July 15, 2019
Hume’s tweet shows his ignorance. For more than half a century, historians have made a a strong case that nativism/xenophobia is rooted in racism. But I would imagine Hume, if confronted with such scholarship, would simply say that it was produced by a bunch of liberal professors and it thus has no merit.
Other conservatives have said that using the term “racist” to describe Trump’s tweets will somehow water-down the true meaning of the term. Racism is bad–really bad–so let’s use the term carefully. These statements are usually followed a reference to Miriam-Webster.
Now many of these same conservatives are saying that Trump’s recent tweets about Elijah Cummings and Baltimore are not racist.
I would suggest that instead of thinking about racism by trying to apply a dictionary definition to our current moment, we should think historically about white people’s understanding of racism. If we did this, we would learn that there is a long history of white people denying their racism. In fact, most white people in America during the so-called Jim Crow-era thought that they were treating blacks fairly. (The same, I might add, could be said for slavery).
Michael Tesler, a political scientist at the University of California-Irvine, makes this case in a recent piece at The Washington Post. Here is a taste of his op-ed, “Republicans don’t think Trump’s tweets are racist. That fits a long American history of denying racism“:
Although many politicians, political commentators, news outlets and even a few longtime defenders of the president have called Trump’s words “racist,” Republican leaders have generally closed ranks and rejected this characterization.
To understand this debate about Trump and racism, it’s important to put it in historical perspective. First, it is but one episode in a long history of American denials of the extent and consequences of prejudice, racial discrimination, segregation, disenfranchisement and persecution. Whites have done so even when the racism was virtually undeniable.
Second, this debate illustrates the more recent and growing partisan polarization on the question of what constitutes racism. That polarization makes it unsurprising that so many Republican leaders would not condemn Trump in these terms.
The Jim Crow era, from the 1870s through the 1950s, was a period of explicit, legally sanctioned racism. Racial segregation was enforced by law for decades. Black people were subjected to systematic discrimination, property deprivation, disenfranchisement and even violent death at the hands of Southern racists.
But remarkably, when pollsters asked white Americans about the situation of blacks, most still thought that African Americans were being treated fairly. In 1944, 1946 and 1956, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) asked Americans, “Do you think most [N]egroes in the United States are being treated fairly or unfairly?” The graph below shows that at least 60 percent of whites said that most blacks were treated fairly.
Read the entire piece here.
Peter Beinart, writing at The Atlantic, is on to something when he writes, “In the past, the president riled up his base by exploiting violent incidents in the news. Now he just manufactures his own controversies.”
Here is a taste of his piece:
Over the past two weeks, as President Donald Trump has picked fights with Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and now Elijah Cummings, a consensus has emerged: Trump has begun his reelection campaign. He’s stoking bigotry to motivate his conservative white base.
It makes sense. But if Trump is launching an offensive, he’s also trying to solve a problem: He has less material. Over the course of Trump’s 2016 campaign, the United States and its allies experienced spasms of deadly violence, which helped him convince white Christian Americans that only he could protect them from a supposed threat from Muslims and blacks. Today, although America still experiences plenty of violence—mass shootings, for instance—it’s not the kind that fits Trump’s narrative. So instead of exploiting incendiary events, he has to create them.
Read the rest here.
Trump has been waiting for a moment like this. After watching some of his rally last night in Greenville, North Carolina, it is clear that the president thinks he has found his path to re-election in 2020. Trump hopes to ride his racist criticism of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Talib, and Ayanna Pressley to a second term in the White House. Last night he attacked these women relentlessly. When Trump disparaged Omar, the crowd chanted “send her back.”
Trump will paint the entire Democratic Party as socialists who share the same views at the so-called “Squad.” He will mention these four women every night. He will convince his Fox News listeners that the Democratic presidential candidates are cut from the same cloth. He will convince people that Democrats hate America and pose and immediate threat.
Of course this entire strategy is built on fear and ignorance. In 2016 Trump learned that fear-mongering and appeals to anti-intellectualism work.
His appeal to white evangelicals will be the same as 2016. In fact, this appeal will be more effective in 2020 since Trump has delivered on Supreme Court justices and Israel. We can only hope that educated evangelicals who voted for Trump in 2016 will see the moral degradation of his presidency and abandon him in 2020.
Some of you may remember that Donald Trump thinks Frederick Douglass, ex-slave-turned-abolitionist, is still alive. Douglass is not only alive, but he is doing “an amazing job.” (I am not sure if any corrected him on this. For the record, Douglass died in 1895).
So I wonder what Trump would think about this passage from Douglass’s “What to a Slave is the Fourth of July”:
“What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?
I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.”
How unpatriotic. Look–if Frederick Douglass does not love this country he is free to leave.
Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 16, 2019
It looks like Trump is going to use his Twitter feed to attack Douglass after he is done with Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Talib, and Ayanna Pressley. Like the women of “The Squad,” Douglass hates America. This is why he uses such disgusting language.
And while he is at it, Trump should also target William Lloyd Garrison. I hear he is getting more and more attention lately. He burned the Constitution. HOW UNPATRIOTIC! WHEN WILL GARRISON APOLOGIZE TO THE COUNTRY?
110,318 voters in New York’s 14th Congressional District voted for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This district is 18.41% white.
267,703 voters in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District voted for Ilhan Omar. The district is 67.39% white.
165,355 voters in Michigan’s 13th District voted for Rashisa Talib. The district is 33.4% white.
216,559 voters in Massachusetts’s 7th District voted for Ayanna Pressley. The district is 33.69% white.
The President of the United States says that these four women of color should leave the country because they don’t love America. Would he say the same thing about 759,935 people who voted for this members of the House of Representatives? These women were duly elected by their constituencies. Unless, of course, the elections were rigged. 🙂
You can definitely expect a lot of this kind of “presidential” rhetoric over the course of the next fifteen months as Donald Trump ramps up his re-election campaign. He won on white nationalism in 2016 and he will try to do it again. Trump is a racist and a xenophobe.
It is also worth noting that Robert Mueller will be testifying soon and Trump needs a distraction.
…..Sorry, can’t let them into our Country. If too crowded, tell them not to come to USA, and tell the Dems to fix the Loopholes – Problem Solved!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019
And let’s not forget this:
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……
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019
According to Trump, the members of “The Squad” do not just disagree with him politically, but they are also racially inferior because they come from the wrong countries. Wow! It almost sounds like these congresswomen came from Germany (18th-century), Ireland (19th-century) or Italy and China (20th-century). “Go back to where you came from.”
Read more at The Washington Post.
Barack Obama warned on Saturday that US progressives risk creating a “circular firing squad” at a time when prospective presidential candidates are competing fiercely against each other to run against Donald Trump.
The former president was speaking in Berlin, at an Obama Foundation event.
“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States,” he said, “maybe it’s true here as well, is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be’ and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad’, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues.
“And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens.”
Read the rest here.
Who does Obama have in mind? Bernie? Or perhaps he is responding to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”s comment that moderation is “meh.”
The Green New Deal concept championed by Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aims to address looming environmental catastrophe while creating good-paying jobs. Some critics argue that these two goals should be kept separate. But, as historian Neil M. Maher writes, there’s a strong precedent for the two goals going hand-in-hand. Take, for example, the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was part of the original New Deal.
Read the rest here.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pulled off a major upset in yesterday’s Democratic primary race in New York’s 14th District. She defeated Joe Crowley, the 10-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives who many believed would be the heir-apparent to Nancy Pelosi as the House Minority Leader. Ocasio-Cortez is a 28-year-old Democratic Socialist who ran on universal health care and the abolition of ICE. She is also a Catholic.
On the day after her victory Ocasio-Cortez started writing, but not for The New York Times or The Progressive or The Nation or Jacobin or In These Times. Nope. She turned to the web pages of the Jesuit magazine America.
Here is a taste of her piece, published today:
Discussions of reforming our criminal justice system demand us to ask philosophical and moral questions. What should be the ultimate goal of sentencing and incarceration? Is it punishment? Rehabilitation? Forgiveness? For Catholics, these questions tie directly to the heart of our faith.
Solutions are already beginning to take shape, which include unraveling the War on Drugs, reconsidering mandatory minimum sentencing and embracing a growing private prison abolition movement that urges us to reconsider the levels at which the United States pursues mass incarceration. No matter where these proposals take us, we should pursue such conversations with an openness to change and an aim to rehabilitate our brothers and sisters wherever possible and wherever necessary. By nature, a society that forgives and rehabilitates its people is a society that forgives and transforms itself. That takes a radical kind of love, a secret of which is given in the Lord’s Prayer: Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And let us not forget the guiding principle of “the least among us” found in Matthew: that we are compelled to care for the hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, sick and, yes—the imprisoned.