Back in the Bloggers Chair: Thoughts on the 2016 election.

I’m back on the bloggers chair after a long hibernation!! Yay!  Originally I wanted to update reguarly, but grad school got in the way.  I apologize for any mess that this has left and I will try to make up for it....if I can!  Below are my thoughts on what has transpired with the victory of Donald Trump.

The Election of 2016: My Thoughts

First of all, the 2016 election.  I was not surprised that Donald Trump won.  Donald Trump's victory could boil down to two different factors.  One factor was of course the racism and misogyny prevalent in America.  Trump spoke to the darker elements of American society, the alt-right, the KKK, the white nationalists, the neo-nazis and formed a far-right populist bloc catering to the worst elements of racism, ultranationalism and xenophobia.  Trump promised law and order, as well as the most extreme policies perpetuated against illegals and muslim-Americans.  He overall took advantage of the xenophobia and wounds, hidden by the myths of post-racialism, within American society and offered the idea that if a certain minority, be it Mexicans or Muslims, be removed completely from America, that things will be better.  Trump has dug up hatred, and brought it to the surface.

Yet the narrative that Trump simply galvanized dark and racist forces, while true, is not sufficient to explain everything.  Trump also reached out to elements of American society, such as the rust belt, that lost out to neoliberalism and the movement of industries and jobs overseas.  He manipulated these elements of rural and working-class America with promises that he will "drain the swamp", that he will preserve America for the working class and get jobs that were lost back.   

Do Black Lives Matter for the Democratic Party?

August 31st, 2016 saw the release of emails by the hacker Guccifer 2.0 regarding the Democratic Party's stance on Black Lives Matter.  Suffice to say that it dosen't bode well for the Democratic Party.  Why? Because the leaks exposed all to clear the notion that despite rhetoric condemning Trump's racism and the alt-right, Black Lives don't matter for the Democrats.

These documents were supposedly uncovered from Nancy Pelosi's files.  It stated Black Lives Matter was a "radical movement" and that while Democrat party leaders should meet with them and avoid snubbing them with racist terminology such as "all lives matter", they should not support the platform the BLM.

The Democratic party has tried to shrug off the implications of these leaks.  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee(DCCC) has stated that BLM has evolved into a political force with a significant impact on the nation as a whole, and that they welcome dialogue and cooperation with BLM.  They sidelined the contents of the leak by stating that "they will not allow for" the contents of the leaks to negatively affect their relations with the BLM activists.

BLM leaders and activists however, were unconvinced.  Their facebook page offered the statement that the DCCC response was simply used to obfuscate the implications of the issue and silencing black communities.  They state that regardless of party lines, that elected officials in a democratic society have to make legislation reflecting the needs of their constituents.  BLM activists such as Shaun King have stated that the democrats have chosen to not focus on transformative policies to address racism and policy brutality, but instead just chose to "act polite and supportive without giving any real support".

Why are Third Parties Important?

NOTE: This only at this current stage, applies to federal level elections(barring a very strong Green party or progressive independent downballot candiate).  I noticed how the Bernie Sanders campaign has spurred Berniecrats like him to run for office.  As a result, my belief is that in downballot initiatives, they should support Berniecrats running for office against establishiment democrats, establishiment Republicans, and alt-rightists.  However, progressives should vote for Stein on the federal level and from there, work to ensure that states allow for more alternatives on local elections.

The 2016 election is shaping up to be easily the most unpopular election in American history.  Both Trump and Clinton net unavailability ratings on a massive scale.  Both candidates are viewed to be not only unlikable, but also untrustworthy.  Under these conditions, it is time to consider the importance of third parties and how they may prevent American democracy from being dominated by "the candiate" the populace hate the least and the rule of "voting the lesser evil" to prevent the greater evil from emerging.

Some say that it is impossible for third parties to make a dent on America, that all they would do is split the vote and allow the greater evil to win.  While some may argue that from a right-wing libertarian or moderate prespective, building a third party has a good chance of bearing fruit this election, it seems to be harder to justify progressives building the Green Party in the wake of Gary Johnson's growing chances electoral success that Jill Stein and the Green Party does not seem to share.  This blog entry will discuss some of the reasons to vote Third Party, framing it in the context of the Green Party's struggle for electoral breakthroughs.  It ultimately argues that in an election with the most derided candidates, 2016 offers the best opportunity to start building an alternative to the two party system.

Apologies for the Delay

Hello, Daniel here, and I apologize for the delay.  Watching the Olympics, taking all the beautiful No Man's Sky pictures as well as preparing for my grad school program in September seems to have drained quite a bit of time from me.  Neverthless, this sociopolitical blog is still on, I am not quitting my bloggers' chair any time soon, and will have my next article up as soon as possible.

But first, a quick note on the Green Party Town Hall that occured yesterday.  I was more excited for the Green Party town hall to say the least then any of the upcoming Hillary vs. Trump debates.  As I feel the 2016 election will not be a progressive campaign pitted against a alt-right one, but a business-as-usual neoliberal establishment campaign pitted against an alt-right one.  Despite Bernie's efforts to inject left wing discourse into American politics, it seems that politics remains wedded to the notion of lesser of two evils.  And Hillary looks to be shaping up to be business as usual, seemingly abandoning the most progressive democratic platform in history.  The Green Party Town Hall with Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka is thus a refershing alternative to dead-end politics where voters have to pick between the maintaining of neoliberal policies or give way to the far-right and the dangers it might entail.  The dominance of the political duopoly is even more jarring considering a large percentage of young people want a third party to represent them.

Thoughts on Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton

On July 12th, 2016, Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  He concedes the nomination to Hillary Clinton.  He congratulates her on the nomination and states he will do whatever it takes to allow her to become president to ensure a Democratic victory on November 8th.  He praises Hillary's supposed promises to create a living wage, as well as to rebuild crumbling infrastructure.  This will of course contrast with Trump's plan to nominate a right-wing Supreme Court Justice and to cut minimum ages.  

While this move has finally ended Bernie Sanders' conflict with the Democratic Party, it has split Sanders' progressive base.  Some believe that Sanders made the right decision, rooted in his earlier promises that he will endorse Clinton to defeat Donald Trump.  They believe that the threat of Donald Trump and the alt-right eclipses any sort of protest that could be achieved by voting Third Party.  Thus it is wrong to support Green Party presumptive nominee Jill Stein because all that would do is take away votes from Clinton, viewing Trump's plans to be detrimental to a progressive America because of his far-right polices.  Others believe that the Sanders' "Political Revolution" laid the grounds for genuine independence from the Democratic Party through an independent Left.  Consequently, they view Sanders' endorsement as a sell-out or a betrayal.  When looking at these arguments, I feel that, while Bernie Sanders may not have sold out(at least in my opinion), the latter camp is in the right, and that it was wrong for Bernie Sanders to have endorsed Hillary at this stage of the campaign.   That is because Hillary's behavior often makes it hard to believe that she would stay true to fighting for a progressive campaign, and this was in fact reflected in certain campaign decisions that was made by her as the convention neared.  Likewise, if she becomes president, it would not be guaranteed if she would actually move to implement more progressive policies because of the supreme court of whatnot as, much of which has come about as progressive policies was due to grassroots activism.  

It also bears noting that this endorsement could actually benefits the alt-right, whom would use Bernie's endorsement to paint Bernie as "corrupt" or no different than the rest.  This will be contrasted with Trump, who would be seen as "incorruptible" and the only one to "deliver" America from corruption.