July 21, 2016

Ideology in the Time of Trump

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

We can no longer distinguish Republican and Democratic parties with conservative and liberal labels. Too many Republicans proud of their conservative pedigree have distanced themselves from the party that Donald Trump now leads. Democrats now prefer the term progressive, but it’s not obvious that all those who supported Bernie Sanders will embrace Hillary Clinton despite his endorsement. Bernie led a political revolution against the 1%; it’s hard to see the former secretary of state, senator, first lady, and Wall Street lecturer in the 99%. But maybe our labels and the methods underlying them are the problem that needs address before we figure our vote and anticipate the post-convention campaigns.

When we reference ideologies, we can mix up political self-understanding with the analytical and critical accounting of communicative action. We ought to debate whether Secretary Clinton is really a progressive if she is part of the 1%; or if you prefer America’s version of Kremlinology, we can wait to see whom she chooses as her vice-presidential candidate to decide whether the progressive or moderate label fits her best. [1] But to focus on Clinton’s self-understanding and the ideological connotations of her policy and personnel choices is to do something similar to what the Republicans themselves do in their politics. By focusing on Hillary Rodham Clinton we miss how ideology works in the Time of Trump.

There is substantial scholarly work identifying the articulation of Trump in the world of ideology and power. A number of scholars of fascism have made a strong case for why the label fits his practice.[2] It’s not just that his language can be vulgar and that he diminishes many in his oratory. The label is compelling because it serves to warn us of a fascist future America has so far avoided.

For some, however, this is not about an unrealized future, but revenge of the past. One of the world’s leading scholars of race and the history of white people, Nell Painter, marks a steady history of violence against people of color and sometimes their white allies; she argues that Trump borrows from an ideology of American white supremacy to express resentment for a black president and all that accompanies Obama’s leadership.[3] Rather than being the force for law and order, then, Trump’s performance helps to stimulate the disorder that demands a strong white man to resolve.

Trump and his defenders can defend his implicit and explicit racist and fascist speech by declaring he stands opposed to political correctness, celebrating that he tells it like it is. They say he expresses the real frustrations of the American people. But in that very declaration, this coterie declares their whiteness and superiority without ever saying, explicitly, that white supremacy is the route to make America great again.

Of course Trump may never declare that he is a fascist or white supremacist, but that is not how ideology works in these times. We live in a time where those who care about truth are eclipsed by those who know how to put on a show, where comedians communicate the truth better than journalists or academics. Trump, while no comedian, is a showman, and knows how to turn any news into useful news. Melania Trump’s presentation with plagiarism, Jeffery Isaac proposes, was

“a perfect representation of Trump and his campaign: all show and no substance, all mendacity and no truth, and all ego and no real concern for anyone else. Say what you want. Do what you want. Vilify others and then steal their words. Get caught and then try to shout down and bully those who notice. This is not an aberration. This is Trumpism.”[4]

In this light, it would be insufficient to articulate Trump’s communicative power by linking it only to ideologies of fascism and white supremacy. His effect is realized through a celebrity culture that not only seeks salvation in the strong man, the superman, the Übermensch; it finds in the fantasy of beautiful blonde adult children and the ex-model wife an escapism that appeals to those who feel abandoned by policy wonks, free traders, movement activists, academics, and conventional politicians. [5] They can escape the world in which women and people of color threaten their imagined place and find themselves in the fantasy Trump embodies. These people, in their alienation from the world that exists, enjoy Trump.

Fantasy is different from the ideologies associated with conservatism, liberalism, or progressivism. It needs neither coherence nor evidence, for it is not designed to reflect or operate on reality. It is designed to constitute a reality that even its believers know is not real, but nonetheless has an effect that satisfies a desire that cannot be expressed openly in public. And it’s even better if that fantasy is somehow denied, for its proponents then can cry injustice and break the rules even more to prove, ultimately, the reality of that fantasy’s power and of their desire. The Republican National Convention is not just about selecting a presidential candidate; it’s the latest performance of a fantasy that derails the relevance of conventional policy and politics.

In order to compete in the fantasy world made in the time of Trump, The Democratic National Convention and ensuing campaign cannot only be an expression of experienced leadership, policy expertise, and progressive and inclusive values. Most American citizens know that the system is in crisis, and desperately wish that the future could be more like the selfie Democrats post rather than what Republicans offer when they picture their interns.[6] But as crises and conflicts accumulate, Americans could become afraid that an ideology that embraces them all will be destroyed by the violence of the few, feeding the fantasy that order demands the return of a real man to power even if they, themselves, are not white supremacists and fascists.

We have seen how this works across the world. Putin blazed the trail, constituting the fantasy of a Great Russia at risk of destruction, finding evidence of that threat in democracy’s spread in Ukraine, and creating a war that demands even more authoritarian leadership at home. Erdogan has followed suit, finding the perfect opportunity in a bungled and possibly planted coup to impose a new order on Turkey, to impose the fantasy of a Turkey unbridled by expectations of western allies and cosmopolitan intellectuals. Trump and his promoters take note and whip up desire by positing threats (immigrants, Muslims, crooked politicians) to an order that might only be fulfilled if a strong man leads. Those who embrace this fantasy find enjoyment not only in hating those threats, but finally being allowed to say it publicly.

Secretary Clinton and her allies may think they are running a convention and campaign against another politician, but they also need to recognize what it means to challenge a fantasy. This 2016 election is not a contest of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. It is about the communicative powers of fantasy and escapism vs. those of political experience, expertise and solidarity. And if that is the contest, the showman will win.

In the Time of Trump, knowing how the world works is not more compelling than knowing how to declare that others are stupid. That’s not my fantasy, of course; it is my nightmare. And perhaps that is the point around which Secretary Clinton might become president.

It’s not about vision or policy, but it’s about the fear of what Trump has already wrought, and what he might still bring were he to win. To work for the Democrats fulfills an alternative fantasy of salvation, except this time keeping America from descending to fascism and a full throated white supremacist order.

This electoral contest is shaped by the contest between those who resent what they believe has happened under Obama, and those who fear of what might be under Trump.

I don’t know which will win.

[1] http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/02/clinton-vs-sanders-whos-the-real-progressive/#.V4-4AJMrLEY

[2] http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151209/NEWS/151209270 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/one-expert-says-yes-donald-trump-is-a-fascist-and_us_578d1a56e4b0d4229484d3e0

[3] https://www.facebook.com/historiansondonaldtrump/

[4] http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/07/why-melania-trumps-plagiarism-matters/

[5] http://www.queries-feps.eu/Mag8_NEW.pdf

[6] https://mic.com/articles/149274/this-dem-intern-selfie-is-dramatically-different-from-paul-ryan-s?

July 21, 2016July 21, 2016

Regunberg leads DNC effort to end superdelegates

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

RI state Representative Aaron Regunberg is going to the Democratic National Convention Rules Committee on Saturday with a mission: eliminate “superdelegates” in future elections.

“As I have spoken with fellow members of the Rules Committee about ending superdelegates,” said Regunberg, who is a DNC Rules Committee member, “I have been blown away by the passionate response. It is clear that this is an issue that committee members, delegates, and rank-and-file Democratic Party voters across the country care deeply about. I look forward to the debate beginning in earnest in Philadelphia this Saturday, and to voting on this important issue.”

According to Wikipedia, a superdelegate “is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. These Democratic Party superdelegates include distinguished party leaders, and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination. This contrasts with convention “pledged” delegates who are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party’s presidential nomination. Because they are free to support anyone they want, superdelegates could potentially swing the results to nominate a presidential candidate who did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries.”

The Rules Committee will meet on Saturday, July 23rd at the Philadelphia Convention Center. If the amendment secures the vote of a majority of the committee it will be sent to the full convention with a recommendation for adoption. If it secures support of just 25 percent of the committee, then a minority report in support of the measure can be offered to the full convention. The amendment already has over 25 percent of the committee signed on as cosponsors.

Fourteen national organizations are supporting the effort, including Center for Popular Democracy, Courage Campaign, Credo, Daily Kos, Demand Progress/Rootstrikers, Democracy for America, MoveOn, National Nurses United, New Democrat Network, The Other 98%, Presente, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Progressive Democrats of America, and Social Security Works.

“If we want a Democratic Party that leaves Philadelphia next week as fired up as possible,” said Regunberg, “I can think of no better move than to get rid of superdelegates and prove that we are, in fact, committed to democracy and diversity and that we value the will of the people over the interests of the well-connected few.

“These values are not reflected in our current superdelegate structure. Right now, unpledged delegates – party insiders who can vote however they please, regardless of the will of their state’s voters – have as much weight in our nominating process as the pledged delegates from the District of Columbia, 4 territories, and 24 states combined!

“That means that in future contests, they could very well overturn the most important political decision our party’s voters get to make. And even when they don’t end up tipping the balance, the mere existence of superdelegates adds to the perception among many voters that the political system is rigged. Why force any nominee to carry that albatross in the future, when the problem can be so easily resolved?”

July 21, 2016July 21, 2016

The Toxic Tour of South Providence

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

South Providence, at the port, is one of the heaviest concentrations of toxic chemical storage in New England, and not coincidentally, those who live in the area suffer the highest rates of asthma. Sherrie Anne Andre of the FANG Collective and Julian Rodríguez-Drix of the Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island lead a tour of over 60 people, including Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, along Allens Avenue, pointing out some of the worst polluters in our state.

The Rhode Island Recycled Metals facility was the first stop. In 2015 the US Coast Guard revealed that the site was operating without proper permits. As a result the facility was not in compliance with laws regarding oil spillage and storm water run-off. In general, recycling is a good and positive thing. But when done without concern for the health and safety of residents and the environment, the losses can outweigh the gains.

2016-07-21 Toxic Tour 015 — The tour passes through Motiva

Motiva Enterprises LLC occupies both sides of Allens Avenue. Chemical piping actually runs underneath the road. Motiva is a joint venture between Saudi Aramco and Shell Oil. Here in Providence the facility is the largest of many fuel terminals in the port and a major importer of petroleum products. It receives regular shipments via tanker ship and exports via truck. The Port of Providence is the entry point for the majority of fuels that power southern New England. In 2014 Motiva managed 34,425 pounds of toxic waste products. Over 1000 pounds of toxic waste was emitted into the air, making Motiva the largest air emitter in the City of Providence.

Ethanol trains come through the port every week. Known as “bomb trains” elsewhere in the United States, similar trains were banned in Boston because of safety and toxic concerns. The ethanol is mixed at the Motiva facility and transported out.

2016-07-21 Toxic Tour 008 — Rhode Island Recycled Metals

Univar is the largest facility in the area. It is a wholesale chemical distributor and chlorine manufacturer. As far as is known, though Univar produces chemicals used in fracking, they are not manufactured or stored in Rhode Island. There are 3.3 million pounds of toxic chemicals stored at the Univar facility. It is the most dangerous facility in all of Rhode Island, with a 14 mile hazard radius. Stored here are 1.4 million pounds of chlorine gas, 1.2 million pounds of anhydrous ammonia, 626,400 pounds of ammonium and 35,000 pounds of formaldehyde. each one requires a chemical risk assessment plan from the Environmental Protection Agency.

National Grid wants to upgrade its facilities at the Port of Providence by installing a liquefaction plant on the premises. This would allow the company to supercool LNG so that it becomes more compact, allowing the company to store much more LNG on the premises. Note that LNG is fracked methane, imported through pipelines to the facility. These pipelines, owned by Spectra Energy, run through Burrillville, through Cumberland, and across the bay from East Providence.

The existing storage tank is filled by truck. It takes about 2600 trucks to fill the 24.2 million gallon tank, said Andre.

The proposed LNG liquefaction facility will cost $180 million. These costs will most likely be passed on to consumers. The facility will be located between National Grid’s existing storage tank and the Univar facility. The energy required to power the liquefaction is equivalent to half of the energy generated by Deepwater Wind, the first offshore wind farm in the United States, presently under construction off the coast of Rhode Island.

One more concern: National Grid is located on the former site of a manufactured gas plant. The soil in the area is soaked with chemicals from when a company squeezed gas from coal, a toxic process that permanently contaminated the land. The RI Department of Environmental Management has records of dozens of other leaking, underground tanks in this area. “The soil we are walking on is known to be toxic,” said Rodríguez-Drix.

On the National Grid site, some of the chemical contaminants have been capped with the intention of keeping the contamination from further spreading, but this capping will be disturbed when construction begins, allowing the wind to carry the toxins into the air and into the bay for the two years of construction.

Below is video of the tour:

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein attended the Toxic Tour, and talked about the Green New Deal.

Raymond Two-Hawks spoke about the aboriginal response to the continued denigration of his ancestral lands.

Laura Perez is running for House District 11 against incumbent state Representative Grace Diaz.

Sheila Calderone is a resident of South providence and a member of the Environmental Justice League who suspects that illnesses she has suffered are a result of the pollutants she has been exposed to while growing up in the area.

2016-07-21 Toxic Tour 018 — Julian Rodríguez-Drix

2016-07-21 Toxic Tour 021 — Raymond Two-Hawks

2016-07-21 Toxic Tour 022 — Sheila Calderone

July 21, 2016July 21, 2016

Jill Stein doesn’t mind helping Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for president, thinks progressives should vote for her even if it means Donald Trump would defeat Hillary Clinton as a result.

“Sometimes you have to lose elections to build your power,” Stein told RI Future in a wide-ranging, 35-minute interview Wednesday. “Because we don’t get out of this hole unless we build our power. We don’t change this system unless we challenge it. In the words of Frederick Douglass ‘power concedes nothing without a demand.’ It never has, it never will. We’ve been doing this lesser evil thing for quite a while right now and this politics of fear has brought us everything we are afraid of. All those things we didn’t want we’ve gotten by the droves because the lesser evil essentially silences us.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cgZoxHfz_w

But what about all the Supreme Court justices Trump would appoint, I asked her.

“As opposed to having Hillary Clinton in power starting an air war with Russia over Syria because she wants a no-fly zone,” Stein responded. “She’s all about challenging Russia and provoking Russia and surrounding Russia with nuclear weapons and missiles and troops. Do we really want an aggressive war hawk in the White House who has a proven track record of actually doing the things that Donald Trump says?”

Clinton and Trump are “different,” she conceded, “but not different enough to save your life, your job or the planet.” She asked if America would be better served by “an advocate for billionaires in the White House instead of a billionaire himself?”

Fair enough. But Trump’s alleged wealth doesn’t even register on the list of things that would make him a terrible president. What about the hate and distrust his presidency would breed into America, I said.

“And think about where that came from,” Stein retorted. “Why does Donald Trump have support now? Because working people have been subjected to a miserable economy. And where did that miserable economy come from? Well, we had NAFTA, who gave us that? This was a policy of the Clintons, supported by Hillary. We had the Wall Street meltdown, which disappeared 9 million jobs and stole 5 million homes.”

Stein added, “I would feel horrible if Trump gets elected and I would feel horrible if Hillary gets elected but I feel most horrible about a political system that says we have two lethal choices, now pick your weapon of self destruction.”

Instant run-off voting, which allows voters to rank candidates, would allow people to vote for their preferred candidate without risk of aiding a political enemy, she said. But she was also clear to point out, there’s no reason to think she can’t win.

“In my view we don’t even have to lose this election,” she said, noting that there are 42 million people who are “trapped in predatory student loan debt. I’m the only candidate who will cancel that debt like we did for the crooks on Wall Street.”

Stein said Cornell West, Michelle Alexander and Seattle City Councilor Kshama Sawant are potential vice presidential candidates. She said Bernie Sanders could have “just about any” position in her administration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cgZoxHfz_w