Dear Dems, Please STOP Running to the Right

Last week, Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff lost in a special election race to fill Tom Price’s seat in Georgia. The race drew national attention and quickly became the most expensive race ever. Ossoff’s campaign raised $30M and was convinced an upset could happen. In the end however, Karen Handel, the Republican who during a debate that she  does “not support a living wage” prevailed. 

This marks the fourth straight loss for the Democrats in the Trump era. The first was in Kansas in a special election to fill Mike Pompeo’s seat. There the Democrat ran a progressive campaign and supported free college and single-payer healthcare. So naturally the DNC and DCCC didn’t do anything to help him out, even after Tommy boy Perez, the DNC chair said a 50 state strategy was the “only way forward.” Ultimately the DCCC tossed him a measly $3000. In Montana, Perez once again went back on his support for a 50 state strategy and the DNC snubbed progressive Rob Quist who ran in support of single-payer, campaigned with Bernie Sanders and didn’t take any PAC money. He got nothing from the DNC and DCCC whose literal job is to help elect Democrats. Both candidates actually came very close to winning despite being in such deep red districts. James Thompson lost by 7 seven points. However, In 2016, Donald Trump beat Hillary in the same district by 27 points. So as a progressive, Thompson managed to run 20 points ahead of Hillary Clinton. In Montana, Quist lost by just 6 points. But Trump beat Hillary in Montana by 20. So as a progressive Berniecrat, Quist managed to run 14 points ahead of Hillary Clinton.

After those two losses establishment Democrats once again trotted out their tired and failed talking points about “running to the centre.” They doubled-down on the notion that in order to win elections Democrats have to be more conservative and run to the right and be centrist. So how did that work out for Jon Ossoff? How did all that money and running as a centrist work? Jon Ossoff lost by 3.8 points. Yes, technically it was the closest so far. But how did he compare to how Hillary performed in the same district? Hillary lost in GA06 to Trump by just 1.5 points. So, running as a “pragmatic centrist,” Ossoff actually managed to underperform Hillary by 2.3 points. And make no mistake, Ossoff ran as a conservative. He ran against single-payer, he ran against raising taxes on the 1% and he supported budget cuts and balancing the budget. While watching the Fox New coverage of the election, I heard Dana Perino say that he “basically ran as a Republican.” Later, Katie Pavlich was on saying that he was running as a “fiscal conservative.” So yea. That’s who the Democrats are now. Centre-right conservative. Even Republicans are saying, he was basically just a Republican on economics.

Now of course the question becomes, since I obviously oppose Ossoff’s economic campaign, am I glad he lost? Am I glad that Karen Kandel is going to the house instead of Jon Ossoff? The question is actually in two parts. Am I glad Karen Handel is going to congress? No. Am I glad Jon Ossoff is not going to congress? Yes. Even then, would Ossoff have been preferable to Handel? Yes. Without question. But that just speaks to how far right the overton window has shifted in Washington. The Democrats are now a centre-right conservative party. The Republicans have moved so far to the right with people like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee that now the “liberal” party is campaigning against single-payer, taxing the rich, and for austerity measures and cutting taxes. What the hell happened? 

So now I’m faced with a decision. Do I support conservative, right of centre Democrats who are only marginally better than Republicans, or do I oppose them both equally? The problem is, if Democrats keep running as Republican-lite on the issues, and they know they’ll still get our vote how are we ever going to get them to change? The answer unfortunately I think has to be voting against them. Otherwise they’ll never get the message. But I don’t know. It’s a tough call to make. Do I want far right people like Ted Cruz? Not at all. Is Jon Ossoff better than Ted Cruz? Yes, absolutely. But he’s a conservative in what is suppose to be a liberal party. So what is the price for being a Republican in the Democratic party? What’s the punishment? There has to be some kind of way to remedy this disastrous trend of Democrats being Republicans. 

People frequently say that if Joe Manchin were to lose because of a primary challenger, that the seat would be gone to Republicans for years. Well, I got bad news for you, the seat is already gone to a Republican. As far as corporate Democrats go, Joe Manchin is the worst of the worst. 

I guess what I’m trying to say is, it’s getting to the point where I’m almost ready to launch into a Jim Demint-esque rant about principles and values. 

I’d almost rather have 30 Democrats in the senate who believe in progressive principles and ideas, than 60 Democrats who don’t believe in anything. Put another way, I’d rather have 30 Elizabeth Warrens than 60 Joe Manchins. (I didn’t use Bernie because it would predictably be met with “he’s not even a Democrat!” or some equally asinine argument) The American people agree with the progressive agenda. 73% of Americans believe we should raise taxes on the wealthy. Jon Ossoff, the “liberal” is part of the 27% that don’t. 62% of Americans support free college. Jon Ossoff and corporate Democrats do not. 58% of Americans support a single-payer system. Establishment Democrats are part of the minority that don’t. 53% of Americans believe we should tie the minimum wage to inflation. Unsurprisingly, the the Democratic establishment joins Republicans and a minority of Americans in opposing that. But Americans support the progressive agenda. The future of the country is progressive. That’s why Bernie Sanders received more votes from people under 30 than both Trump and Clinton combined. People like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders will pave the way for a new progressive Democratic majority. 

––M

The Impact of Social Media on Intercultural Communication

This is a short discussion post I had to submit for my online Intercultural Communication class. Here I briefly discuss the contradiction that social media creates in relation to intercultural communication. While on the one hand social media allows us to be more connected than ever before, on the other it makes us more divided than ever:

The technological revolution that has taken place since the 1990’s and the rapid expansion of technology from computers to smart phones, and cars that can park themselves has contributed to vast cultural developments not just in the United States but around the world. 

Perhaps one of the most significant developments to come out of the tech boom and the rise of Silicon Valley is social media. Beyond merely websites and phones apps for people to post about the Coke Zero they just bought at the gas station or pictures of their cats, social media has created what can almost be described as an alternative reality. From an intercultural perspective, social media can be both a blessing and a curse. The positives of social media are pretty straightforward for anyone involved. Social media allows us to connect with and communicate with people from all different parts of the world and from all different cultures. Within seconds I can log on and tweet at someone half away around the world. At almost any given second I can communicate with someone from a completely different culture and with vastly different world views, be it someone from Australia, Japan, India, or Wisconsin. In this sense social media helps bridge the gap between different cultures.

However, there are certainly downsides to social media that actually create a bubble for people to hide in and may result in them never encountering people with different cultures and views. Customisation, while nice for many things can actually be a problem when it comes to encountering cultures and viewpoints different from your own. By blocking out anything that thinks or looks different than yourself, one can create a false reality that acts as an echo chamber. By this, social media has also allowed us to create vacuums in which we need only see things that affirm our own existing views and culture norms. If I don’t want to see anything from people of other faiths, political views, or preference in comic publisher (for the record, DC is clearly better) I can simply block that out by not following them. If I never wanted to see what people with different political views thought I can easily avoid it.

 So while there are many benefits to social media in terms of connecting people with different cultures, it can be a double edged sword and also serve as a catalyst for secluding oneself from anything different.

––M

Centrist Dems Still Learning all the Wrong Lessons

Yesterday, Karl Bélanger, president of the Douglas-Coldwell foundation, wrote an opinion piece for the Toronto Sun. In his piece, Bélanger issues a warning to the Canadian NDP that while Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders have both had tremendous success, exceeding all expectations and garnering huge enthusiasm, the reality remains that both politicians lost their respective elections. 

Bélanger writes,

Hearing the NDP leadership candidates step over each other to praise Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, you would think they were respectively the British prime minister and president of the United States.

Many New Democrats are keen to replicate Sanders and Corbyn’s model for where the party should go. They might be right. But let’s keep things in perspective.

As much as their campaigns created enthusiasm and exceeded expectations, the tough political reality is that both Sanders and Corbyn lost.

There are lessons to be learned from both campaigns. Similar to Sanders’ run for the Democratic nomination, Corbyn was facing heavy headwinds. Despite virulent attacks from many British media and even sometimes from inside the Labour Party, he was able to connect with a significant number of millennials and motivate them to go to the booth and support his party.

Yes, Sanders and Corbyn got an impressive number of millennials excited about, and interested in, politics. But in Canada, it is Justin Trudeau that is still the millennials’ champion. In France, Emmanuel Macron connected with millennials. Both Trudeau and Macron are centrists. Cleary the equation to attract the young electorate is not simply hard left or bust. That’s wishful thinking.

Of the last portion where he sys that Marcon and Trudeau are the millennials champions, nothing could be further from the truth. In Canada, with Trudeau’s abysmal record on the environment and his failure to pursue electoral reform, millennials are fast abandoning their love-fest with him. 

As for Macron, the only reason he won and got so much millennial support is because he was running against Marine LePen. Even then, it’s worth nothing that LePen actually got significant support from millennials. But the real champion of millennials in France, was not centre-right corporatist banker Macron, but socialist Jean-luc Mélenchon. As France24 reported, “Firebrand leftist Jean-luc Mélenchon came very close to claiming third place in France’s nail-biting ballot. Buoyed by massive support from first-time voters.” They went on to quote the French director of the polling firm BVA, who declared, “Jean-Luc Mélenchon really succeeded in capturing that youngest segment of the voting population.” So Bélanger is just flat out wrong when it comes to saying that centrist and corporatist Macron is the rockstar of the millennials. If they had it their way, socialist Mélenchon would be the French president. 

The other point Bélanger ignores is that while technically both Corbyn and Sanders “lost” their election bids, the future electorate is clearly in their favour. As if the case in France, where young millennial voters side with Mélenchon, not centre-right tool Macron, in the UK, it was millennial voters that gave Labour such a big night during the UK election. According to SkyNews exit polls, Labour candidates took 63% of votes from those aged 18-34. Clearly, the millennial vote was behind Corbyn and his Labour platform. As CBC notes, “U.K. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has a lot of people to thank for his unexpected showing in the UK general election last night. But on the top of his list will likely be the country’s young people.  According to exit polls, there was a surge in younger voters.” Once again, the millennial voters were strongly with Corbyn and his progressive message and ideas. Even Bélanger’s point that Corbyn “lost” is somewhat misleading. While it’s true that the Tories did win the most votes and the most seats in Parliament, Labour gained 30 seats while the Tories lost 13 seats and their majority. When faced with a scoreboard of +30 to -13, it’s hard to come away from that and say that Labour “lost.” Labour had the better night and in terms of who had a better election, the clear winner is Labour. Labour certain did much better than they did 2 years ago when they lost 26 seats as the Tories gained 24. Then Labour was under the leadership of centrist Ed Millibrand. Go figure.

As for Bernie Sanders, perhaps Bélanger should keep in mind that the future of the country, millennials, strongly supported Sanders. In fact, according to the Washington Post, Sanders received more votes from people under 30 than both Trump and Hillary combined. So while Bélanger is warning the NDP to stray away from Sanders and his brand of politics, the facts simply don’t agree with his assessment at all. Since millennials overwhelmingly supported Sanders and very noticeably stayed home or voted for a third party when it came to the more conservative corporatist centrism of Hillary Clinton, if anything NDP should embrace and adapt Bernie’s message and ideas. The common argument from establishment Democrats and neoliberals is that “Bernie can’t be or isn’t the future of the party.” Well, considering he received more votes from the future of the country than both Trump and Hillary combined, whether or not it’s him specifically, Bernie’s message and ideas are exactly the future of the party. 

So Bélanger is just flat out wrong on almost every point. The millennials are not with Macron, Hillary, and Trudeau (they are still largely with Trudeau but that support is waning) and rather are with Mélenchon, Sanders, and Corbyn. The lessons that centrist Democrats and so called “liberals” need to learn is to embrace progressivism and more Democratic socialistic ideas. But unfortunately, as they get wiped out on every level of government and get proven wrong time and time again, they keep moving further to the right and insisting that centre-right conservatism is the way to go. *sigh*

––M

Green Lanterns: Rage Planet ~ Review

About two weeks ago I bought Sam Humphries Green Lanterns vol. 1: Rage Planet. I’ve heard pretty solid reviews of the Green Lanterns series so far and decided I would give it a shot. This was actually the first Green Lantern(s) book I’ve ever read. With DC Rebirth dominating comic sales I figured I might as well try it since I’ve been thoroughly enjoying other Rebirth titles.

Overall I was very satisfied with this. The writing is a bit repetitive, and some of the dialogue is a bit cheesy, but it works well. The plot isn’t too complicated or revolutionary and is fairly basic but it is nonetheless enjoyable. 

There are two new Green Lanterns; Simon Baz and Jessica Cruz. Simon acts largely on instinct and is very headstrong from his past experiences. Jessica is very different and suffers from almost crippling anxiety and insecurity. Thus the two could not be more different from each other. Yet despite their differences, they manage to create a good contrast that makes a pretty solid team. 

In this book the two must work together to fight off the Red Lanterns and their leader, Atrocitus. The Red Lanterns are powered by rage (which here appears to be a more abstract force) and are intent on turning the world into a rage filled vacuum so that they can launch what is called “Red Dawn.” 

Anyway, the dynamic between Simon and Jessica is done really well. I’m pretty introverted so naturally I tend to like and relate more to Jessica than Simon who strikes me as kind of a ‘ready, fire, aim’ type character. The character development throughout the story is probably the strongest part of this whole arc. While the plot was very basic, it still was really fun to read and set up the next arc really well with the whole ‘rogue guardian’ and the ‘phantom ring.’ I’m really curious to see what comes next, so this book succeeded in capturing my attention and I’ll definitely be reading more of this series.

Rating: 7.5/10

––M

Senior Thesis Ideas

As I enter my fourth and final year at the University of Kansas, my senior thesis is fast approaching. I will graduate in May of 2018, but before I can do that, I have submit my thesis to the department. I’m not sure what the thesis requirements are for my communication major, so this post will only be dealing with my religion major. 

While there are smaller and more tedious assignments throughout the semester, the main assignment for the Religious Studies Capstone course is, “a research paper (10-13 pages) and several related assignments that are informed by and engage with the readings and discussions on theory and method we have covered in the course. Paper topics should be developed in close consultation with the instructor.”

To be quite honest, 10-13 pages seems really short for a senior thesis. I’m sure there’s a lot of busy work for the course, but still. Anyway, seeing as I’ll be taking the course and writing my thesis in the spring, I figured it’d be wise to start thinking about what topics I might be interested in writing my thesis on. If possible, I’d love to go into the course already knowing what my topic will be and already have a good chunk of the research done. 

So here are some ideas that I have as of right now. Some of these will definitely need to be refined and worked out with my instructor, but these are just places to start to get myself thinking.

Sacred Feminine in Ancient Religions
If I had to pinpoint one event as the source of my interest in biblical studies, it would have to be reading Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. It was within the pages of Brown’s novel that I first encountered the gnostic texts; The Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary. It was while reading the Da Vinci Code that I became aware that Christ’s divinity was not always as it is now, fully human, fully divine. While much of the history in Brown’s novel is exaggerated at best with most of it being grossly sensationalised or made up, there are definitely small kernels of truth in the book. There really is a Gospel of Mary. The Church did “vote” on Christ’s divinity at the Council of Nicea. There actually was a military wing of the Vatican called, The Knights Templar. Opus Dei is a real organisation. Other than that though, the rest of Brown’s book essentially all made up. However, the concept of divine or sacred feminine, which plays a huge thematic role throughout the book, is a real concept that was prominent in ancient religion, particularly ancient Greek religion. For this paper topic, I would study the philosophy of and behind ‘sacred feminine’ of ancient Greece. The feminine had a very special place in religious thought and ritual to the Greeks. It is also a strong theme that can be seen in the Gospel of Mary, a 2nd century Gnostic text. This makes sense seeing as the Gnostics based much of their theology on Greek philosophy. The idea of the divine mother or the divine feminine can be observed in some of the fundamental teachings of the Gnostics. So this paper would be an analysis of the sacred feminine of the Greeks and how it was adapted into the Gnostic theology behind the Gospel of Mary. Much work has been done on the GoM by Elaine Pagels and Karen King. As of right now, if I chose this topic I would probably title the paper something along the lines of; Cracking the Da Vinci Code: The Influence of Sacred Feminine on Christian Theology.

Amazon Warriors of the Ancient Greeks
This topic, should I choose to go down this route, would definitely need some refining. Seeing as this is for my religious studies capstone course, I would need some tie-in to religion. This isn’t impossible but I would need to dig a bit deeper. The Amazons were a mythical tribe, created by the ancient Greeks, of warrior women. Though they are regarded as a mythology, research has shown that there is some historical framework for which one can ground the Amazons in. Some pose that the Sythians and the Greeks’ admiration for them, were the basis for the Amazon myths. Again, I would need to find some way to incorporate religion into this. Perhaps this could also deal with women in ancient religions. My main interest in this stems from two points. The first is my love for Greek mythology. I have long been a fan of the works of Homer, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, etc. The second point is my passion for comic books. Wonder Woman is my favourite comic character and her character is heavily rooted in Greek myth. According to the comics, Wonder Woman was molded from clay by her mother Hippolyta, queen of the Amazons, and was brought to life by Zeus. Thus, since she is an Amazon, I’ve always been curious about the mythologies surrounding the Amazons. Recently, Adrienne Mayor has written a book about the Amazons and the archaeological and historical evidence about warrior women across the ancient world. Should I decide to do something about the Amazons I would likely title the paper something like; The Amazons of the Ancient Greeks: The Quest for the Historical Wonder Woman.

The Q-Source Theory
Being more inline with my previous studies, this next topic deals with what is known in New Testament studies as, the Q-source. The mainstream view among scholars is that the Gospels Matthew, and Luke, share a common source apart from Mark. That source, the narrative goes, was a saying source containing a list of sayings by Jesus. Matthew and Luke then subsequently rearranged those sayings in their own fashion and that’s why the synoptic Gospels are so similar while at the same time being so different. (John did not use this source). While this has some explanatory power, I’ve never been a fan of this theory and find to be simply too convoluted and based on speculative evidence. A much more likely explanation would be that Luke simply had access to Matthew and is redacting both Mark and Matthew. The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas with the Nag Hammadi library in 1945 provided scholars with an idea of what Q may have looked like as a sayings source. The problem is, it’s just unnecessary as it adds a component to the theory that doesn’t need to be there. There is a solid case for the notion that Luke used Matthew, which would remove the need for Q. So I doubt the validity of Q as a theory and its explanatory power. To me, this is a classic case of Occam’s Razor; the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. This thesis would be a push back on the Q theory and an argument in favour of something like the Farrer hypothesis. If I pursue this topic, I like the title; Xing Out Q: The Case Against the Synoptic Saying Source, for the paper. I also really like the title: Houston, We Have a Synoptic Problem: The Case for Dispensing the Q Theory.

So those are just three ideas that I’ve been considering around in my spare time. Each would require a great deal of research as I haven’t done too much of any research in either topic. I am however, currently reading Mayor’s book on the Amazons and own a copy of Burton Mack’s book on Q. While I haven’t made any decisions and won’t need to for a while, it never hurts to start thinking about this now and maybe start doing some preliminary research. 

––M

Progressive Movement Gains Big in Local Elections

So, about two weeks I wrote another article at IVN. This time on how the progressive movement, while it is yet to truly win a national level seat since Trump’s election, has made huge gains at the local level.

At the time, Rob Quist had just lost the Montana special election for its at large congressional seat. However, that same week, Christine Pellegrino, a Bernie delegate at the 2016 convention, won a state house seat in a district Trump won by 23% points. The same day, Edie DesMarais won a state house seat in New Hampshire, becoming the first Democrat to win in the district. 

Even with Quist’s loss to body slammer, Greg Gianforte, he still managed to run 14 points ahead of Hillary Clinton in Montana, running on a progressive platform and campaigning with Bernie Sanders.

Even more recently, progressive candidate and Our Revolution endorsed, John Courage just won a city council seat in the most conservative district in San Antonio. 

California just recently passed a medicare for all bill in the state senate, and Nevada’s legislature just recently passed a bill allowing anybody to sign up for medicaid. 

Needless to say, the grassroots progressive movement is still trucking along at the local level. After all, change begins at home. As the saying goes, think globally, act locally. 

My article can be viewed here.

–M

Corbyn and Labour Show How Bernie Could Have Won

Thursday night I watched the BBC as results came in for the UK election. The election ended in a hung Parliament and even though the Conservatives won the most votes and ended up with the most seats, it was none the less an embarrassing blow to the Conservative party and their leader, Theresa May. May called for the election because she wanted a mandate to govern. She saw the early polls and assumed she would win easily and that the Conservatives would crush Labour at the polls. The opposite happened. Labour ended up crushing the Tories, gaining 30 seats while the Conservatives lost 13 seats and their majority in Parliament. This was a clear rejection of May and the Conservatives.

It was also a huge redemption and “I told ya so” moment for the leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. For months now, neoliberals in the Labour party and in the media have smeared Corbyn, asserting that he’s too far to the left. They claimed that his leftwing populism would be soundly rejected by the UK voters and hand the Conservatives a landslide win. The opposite happened. The next day, after the Labour thoroughly trounced the Tories, many pundits and right-wingers within the Labour party woke up with not just egg on their face, but an entire omelette. It turns out, people are ready for leftwing, progressive policies.

This can be and should be a huge lesson for American politics as well. Theresa May, though she is the leader of the Conservative party, was the Hillary Clinton of the UK election, and not just because of her gross arrogance, sense of inevitability, and her vastly inflated ego and underestimation of her own popularity. If you go by policy and political ideology, Hillary Clinton is not a liberal. She’s not a progressive, nor is she even remotely left of centre. Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is a member of the political right. Just because someone is a Democrat, does not mean they can’t still be conservative. Hillary Clinton is at best centre-right and at worst solidly rightwing. On foreign policy she’s a neocon’s neocon. The entire establishment wing of the Democratic party is centre to centre-right with many being just flat out rightwing. It’s no surprise then that the 2012 campaign manager for the Obama team went to work on the May campaign for the conservatives. Why? Because they agree ideologically. By the rest of the world’s standards, the US Democratic party is a centre-right conservative party. So naturally, a key player in the Obama 2012 campaign went to work for the Conservative party campaign in the UK.

Donald Trump is basically the UKIP candidate of the US. He’s a rightwing populist who echoes sounds of nationalism and is sceptical of mass migration. Donald Trump’s take over of the Republican party during the 2016 primaries in many ways reflected that of UKIP’s triumph over establishment Conservatives over the Brexit referendum. Then PM David Cameron was a strong supporter of the ‘remain’ campaign and in light of the ‘leave’ victory, stepped down as PM. UKIP and rightwing populism had won the day as the UK voted to leave the European Union. During the 2015 elections UKIP made significant gains as well vastly over performing projections.

Finally, Bernie Sanders is the Jeremy Corbyn in the US. Even then however, Corbyn is significantly to the left in many regards of Bernie. Bernie as it turns out, is the actual centrist in the US. Again, if you look at the international standards, Bernie is basically a centre to centre-left politician. Corbyn is through and out a leftwing guy. So while Bernie is seen as “far left” and “radical” by the US standard which has shifted dramatically to the right since the 90’s, he’s actually just centre-left. 

So what’s the lesson from the UK election? In a political climate where the establishment class is united against the progressive, arguing he’s too left for the country it appears as though that’s exactly what the UK wants. Progressive policies are the future since it was students who played such a crucial role in delivering Labour their victories on Thursday. Likewise, Bernie Sanders, during the primary received more votes from people under 40 than both Trump and Hillary combined. If Corbyn is Bernie and May is Hillary and Trump and the alt-right are UKIP, the clear winner by a landslide was Corbyn. UKIP who just a year ago was basking in their victory over the Brexit vote, on Thursday had the floor fall out from under them as they got thrashed at the polls. UKIP got just 1.8% of the vote this time around, 10.8% less than what they got in 2015. A considerable reason for that is that many UKIP voters who are themselves former Labour voters switched over and voted for Labour. Not only did Corbyn beat out the establishment with May, but he also beat out the rightwing populists. Translated into the US race what that shows is that left populism not only beats centre-right neoliberalism/conservatism, but it also beats rightwing populism, i.e. Trump. The fact that Corbyn managed to pick off as many UKIP voters as he did tells me that Bernie could have easily picked off Trump voters in the rustbelt. After all, Bernie did win both Wisconsin and Michigan during the Democratic primary. 

In conclusion, Corbyn and Labour’s victory over the Conservatives and UKIP, running on a significantly leftwing platform, shows that progressive ideas and the populist left can and does beat the centre-right neoliberalism of the Hillary wing as well as the rightwing-populism of Donald Trump and his brand of politics. I’m not saying for a fact Bernie would have beaten Trump, but this certainly lends credibility to the notion that had Bernie been the one to run against Trump, that he very well could have pulled it off. 

–M

Blaming Jill Stein for Hillary’s Loss is Asinine

With yesterday’s announcement from President Trump that the US will be pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, there has been a renewed frenzy of third party blaming on Twitter. Not surprisingly, Neera Tanden was among those calling out people who voted for Jill Stein as well as Stein herself. Yes, the people who voted for the environmentalist are at fault.

This argument has been going around since November 9th as people awoke to realise that Hillary Clinton, now the worst candidate to ever run for president, had lost to Donald Trump. So what happened? Did Hillary do what Romney did and accept defeat, apologise, admit her mistakes and then disappear? (Granted Romney did re-emerge last spring, but was met with much criticism and rightly told to go back into hiding). No of course not. Instead it was a blame fest with a laundry list of excuses for running what was perhaps the worst campaign in recent history. 

But anyway, once again people like Neera Tanden floated the notion that if all the people who voted for Jill Stein voted for Hillary Clinton, Hillary would have won. However, that’s simply just an asinine, hack argument. In fact, some people I know who voted for Jill Stein are proud to have voted for her and given what they know of Trump now, if they could do it over again, would still vote for Jill Stein. Tanden’s asinine argument rests on the assumption that everyone who voted for Stein would have voted for Hillary. But that’s just not true. That’s why they voted for Jill Stein in the first place, because they didn’t want to vote for Hillary and her rightwing, neocon, corporatism. Look Neera, this isn’t that hard to figure out, if Jill Stein voters were going to vote for Hillary Clinton, then they would have voted for Hillary Clinton. If Jill Stein wasn’t an option, most of those voters would have just stayed home, left the presidential spot blank, or written in Bernie or someone else. There’s no reason to assume Stein voters would have voted for Hillary. The fact that they didn’t indicates that they wouldn’t have. 

Furthermore, if we’re really going to talk about third party voters then why don’t we talk about the Libertarian voters and Evan McMullen voters who clearly played a big role in taking away votes from the Republican ticket. Tanden and people like her seemingly forget the massive force that was the #NeverTrump movement within the Republican party. Spearheaded by people like Bill Kristol (who at this point is like the Neera Tanden of the right) the #NeverTrump movement was a large group of conservatives who refused to vote for Trump. Thus there were a lot of Republicans for whom Trump was just unacceptable. Therefore it’s no coincidence that Johnson received over 3 million more votes in 2016 than he did in 2012. Evan McMullen, who was literally the anti-Trump candidate on the right, received 700,000 votes despite not even being on the ballot in most states. The point here is that in any normal election with a traditional conservative Republican candidate like a Mitt Romney or a Jeb Bush or a John Kasich, it’s hard to believe that Gary Johnson would have gotten so many votes or that Evan McMullen would have even been a candidate.

In fact, using Tanden’s asinine logic, I could just as easily argue that third party candidates cost Trump the popular vote. If it were not for third party candidates, Trump could have won even more states than he did. In that sense Neera should be thanking third party candidates. In Colorado, Hillary Clinton won by 136,386 votes. However, Gary Johnson received 144,121 votes while Evan McMullen received 28,917 votes. So if all the people who voted for Gary Johnson had voted for Donald Trump, he would have won Colorado and its 9 electoral votes. 

In Nevada, Hillary beat Trump by 27,202 votes. But Gary Johnson got 37,384 votes. So if just 28,000 of the people who voted for Gary Johnson voted for Donald Trump in Nevada, he would have won the state and its 6 electoral votes.

In New Mexico, Hillary won by 65,567 votes. Once again, Gary Johnson’s vote total exceeded the margin by which Hillary beat Trump by. Johnson got 74,541 votes in New Mexico. If all of Johnson’s voters, or even just 66,000 of the 74,000 voted for Trump, he would have won New Mexico and its 5 electoral votes.

Even in Minnesota, which has not voted for a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1972, Trump lost by just 44,765 votes which was the closest Minnesota vote since Mondale in ’84. Gary Johnson however, got 112,972 votes. If half of Gary Johnson’s voters voted for Donald Trump, he would have won Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes. Evan McMullen received 53,076 votes in Minnesota. If everyone who voted for McMullen in Minnesota voted Trump, he would have won the state. 

Moving on the New Hampshire, where Clinton by just 2,736 votes. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson managed to rack up 30,694 votes. So yet again, if everyone who voted for Gary Johnson voted for Trump, he would have won New Hampshire and its 4 electoral votes.

Adding that all up, that gives Trump 34 electoral votes. Interestingly enough when you flip Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, and New Hampshire but then give Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to Hillary, Trump still wins 285–253.

See how that works? When you just decide to give all of candidate X’s votes to your preferred candidate you get a much different result, shocker. Now you may be thinking, “well that’s dumb, why would you assume that all of Johnson’s voters would vote for Trump? If McMullen was running as the anti-Trump candidate then wouldn’t the fact that the people who voted for him, voted for him indicate that they would not vote for Trump even if McMullen wasn’t running?” Exactly. And that there is the problem with Neera Tanden and her ilk who go around spreading the meme that ‘Jill Stein voters cost Hillary the election.’ There’s no reason to assume Stein voters would have voted for Hillary. If they were going to, they would have.

Come to think of it, if everyone who voted for Trump voted for Hillary, she would have won.

––M

 

 

Wonder Woman: The Truth ~ Review

Yesterday afternoon I finished reading Wonder Woman #23 and with that finished the third story arc in the rebirth series. Aptly named, The Truth, this story answers questions about Wonder Woman’s past that were raised back in the one-shot issue last summer. Everything Diana knew was a lie and at the end of The Lies story arc, we found out that Diana had never been back to Themyscira since she left to bring Steve Trevor back home. Essentially ever since the Year One story arc, she’s never actually been back home. It was all a lie.

At the beginning of #23 we finally get answers as to why she’s never been able to return home and the truth about her homeland is revealed. Ares explains to her, along with Veronica Cale, that it was decided long ago that war only lead to madness and destruction. The gods declared that it was best to keep the god of war, Ares, away from humankind as their natural tendency was the way of war. Allowing Ares to be free among them would only perpetuate it. Subsequently, Aphrodite, Ares’ lover, bound him with chains forged by Hephaestus to keep him away from the human world. Ares was essentially a prisoner and to guard him the Amazons were created to protect him and his prison. That means that Themyscira was basically created as prison for Ares. Because access to and knowledge of Ares location was seen as too dangerous for anyone to obtain, they made it so that no one who left Themyscira could ever return. The gods then gave Wonder Woman false memories to keep it a secret.

There’s more but that’s the general summary of the answers we get. The truth is that all Wonder Woman’s memories of returning to Themyscira were false ones. She’s never been home. There is a brief moment at the end where she does get to see her mother, Hippolyta through a two way portal. They exchange a few words and Hippolyta tells Diana that she’s proud of her. Following, Diana returns to man’s world to continue her mission of peace.

Overall I have mixed feelings about this. On the surface, this was a beautiful, very well written story. Rucka’s writing is near flawless throughout and the artwork is amazing. Wonder Woman’s search for the truth plays into her personality and what she represents in the world. With that said, I was a huge fan of the New 52 series. I loved Azzarello’s run and in some ways that may have been my favourite Wonder Woman story ever. Thus to see Rucka retcon New 52 out of continuity is very sad. I loved Diana as the god of war and Azzarello’s 21st century Greek Epic was a literary masterpiece. Not only does this retcon New 52, but it also calls into question her entire history from Gods and Mortals to now. Did The Circle never happen because she went to Themyscira? Did the second contest and challenge of Artemis never happen since that also involved her going back to Themyscira? Did Rucka just wiped the entire slate clean? Going forward it will interesting to see what still remains and what was affected by this.

But I don’t want to dwell on that too much. While it will take some time for me to get over the fact that New 52 has been thrown out completely, I did really love this story and thought it was both powerful and inspiring. The concluding issue was beautifully written and while the ‘final battle’ was rather anticlimactic, Wonder Woman’s embracement of Phobos and Deimos at the end was very powerful and in many ways speaks to what is going on in the world today. We can take up arms and continue to fight a bloody war that never ends, or we can come together and love each other like Wonder Woman. So yes, the retconning of New 52 and possibly more was disappointing, but I think this was a really strong story. While I will be sad to see Rucka leave after issue #25, I’m hopeful and optimistic for the future of our Amazonian heroine.

Rating: 9/10

–M