The candidacy of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States finds daily a new road to Hell, and threatens to drag the nation, and the world, down with it.

I wrote what follows before I watched the debate on October 9. Nothing in that disgusting spectacle changes my sense. I will, however, offer some concluding remarks about how the debate shapes my interpretation of the cultural political landscape in which this spectacle took place.

Trump is in a tailspin.

An Open Letter from Some Angry Women spelled out the list of affronts from Trump’s lips that have defined his campaign. His disgusting 2005 quotation led a number of Republicans to withdraw their endorsement, at last.  Republicans are right to worry about the effects of a Presidential Election day debacle for their down ballot contests, and now they scramble to save their own, personal, electoral futures. But more is going down in flames than a few Senate chances.

The defining GOP alliance of evangelicals and free market advocates was already on shaky ground given that Trump is neither devout nor a believer in regulation by market.  He believes in strong men being able to rewrite the rules of bankruptcy in order to make a buck and stiff the schmuck. Of course we all know, too, that the famous have the right to assault women according to the Trump holy scriptures.

While limiting reproductive health and rights for women has been a hallmark of many evangelical dispositions, celebrating the assault of their mothers, wives, and daughters has finally trumped the pragmatism motivated by their Supreme Court anxieties. If coherence of principles remains a conservative Christian priority, Evangelist Russell Moore’s op-ed last month will get many more readers as Trump’s lewd barbarism becomes ever more difficult to overlook.

Of course Trump’s destruction of the defining GOP alliance was preceded by the wreckage of its fantasized one.

Trump ruined the hopes of a new broader GOP alliance with his celebration of a wall that Mexico would pay for, but that was only the first of many “strong man” celebrations he would offer. His association with former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of his surviving spokespersons, has moved Trump to continue celebrating the disastrous policies of “stop and frisk”.  A smarter proto-fascist would have tried to build his authoritarianism on a broader base, but Trump’s ideology is just too deeply steeped in racism to be electorally triumphant. As one exceptionally well connected progressive friend predicted, Hillary Rodham Clinton should beat Trump in a landslide. The skeptic at that dinner table predicted HRC victory too, but worried about its certainty.

We ought worry, for our nation knows the risk of the October Surprise.

Trump’s tailspin risks us all

Those who leaked Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street only revealed what Bernie Sanders and everyone who embraced his commitment to ending Wall Street influence know: those speeches must have been “damned good” for Madame Secretary to have been paid so well for them. This is of course not really news, for we all know that you don’t earn your keep by offending your hosts. However, it does give those opposed to a Clinton victory the chance to redirect her possible supporters to the Green Party or to the Libertarians. Trump’s campaign is very happy about this release, of course, for those who vote for Stein, or stay home, implicitly keep Trump’s hopes alive. Putin is among his greatest supporters.

I am no cold warrior, but neither am I naïve about Putin’s Russia. I have spent my academic career analyzing Soviet-type societies and then the transformations of post-communist countries.  While we ought be focused on how Putin’s regime has redrawn European state boundaries by invading Ukraine (contrary to Trump’s understanding, reflecting something more than his careless language ) and by committing war crimes in Syria, we need be much more cautious about how Putin’s skillful manipulation of democratic public opinion within his adversaries’ nations leads to state breakdown.

Putin, and Trump, have celebrated Brexit – not because they care for globalization’s dispossessed, but because railing against global elites creates room for their brands of militarism and fascism to gain ground.  Putin does not stop there, of course – his aim is, ultimately, to weaken both the European Union and NATO, the latter of which Trump has found “obsolete” We ought, therefore, be wary of how Putin will try to maneuver Trump into the White House with his regime’s considerable capacities in information warfare.

In the end, however, I agree with my optimistic friend. Should Clinton manage to mobilize those who justifiably fear a Trump regime’s ruin of US international standing and its promised assault on our existing standards of rights for women, people of color, and others (including the dispossessed white folks who celebrate his promise of a return to greatness), we should see a rout of Trump and those who continue to support him. But that won’t be the end of Trump.

I don’t mean a new season of The Apprentice.  Trump has given license to those who, in the name of opposing political correctness, feel free to demean and harm, in speech and in practice, those they consider inferior. He has encouraged his supporters to think that, should he lose, he was robbed of the victory by illegal means. As a former Pennsylvanian myself, I can readily read his racist surmise when he tells his supporters to observe the polls in certain places.

When Trump loses, do you think his supporters will retreat to their private resentments for the erosion of white privilege in America?

The Morning After

I wrote the preceding on the morning before the debate, and now the morning after.

I found Michelle Goldberg’s account of the debate most HRC sympathetic – while the Secretary could not quite hold onto Michelle Obama’s high road all the time, she did pull us back toward rational democratic deliberation despite the menacing hulk looming behind her, despite Trump’s threat to imprison her should he be elected.

Those who declare Trump’s victory in debate can do so only because he has so effectively diminished not only our expectations of what a GOP candidate ought bring.  He has helped mobilize the flames of ressentiment so effectively that it overwhelms any politics of respect, whether toward his opponent or toward his Muslim American interlocutor, or towards “the African Americans and the Hispanics”.  He advocates a new sense of justice with the rule of law and constitutional integrity as potential casualties. Trump consolidated his base in the debate and in the preceding press conference with such bravado and bullying that he won’t be eclipsed. Those who seek to save the Republican Party will have to go to battle, and not wait for his never-to-come resignation.

Barring some extraordinary October surprise, Trump has not only failed in his campaign, but has destroyed the Republican Party in the process. But he remains dangerous. In fact, without the moderating force of the GOP mainstream, he becomes even more threatening. Trump has fertilized with his lies, grandstanding, and celebrity surmises, with his BS, a measure of white supremacy, bald patriarchy and proto-fascism on American soil I would have never anticipated.  Those who embrace that vision will not be quieted with an electoral victory by Hillary Rodham Clinton. I fear, by contrast, they will be incensed.

This last month of campaigning is not just about who wins the White House. It’s about whether the culture of this contest paves the road to Hell or gives us a chance to reroute toward the Promised Land. I pray for the latter, but the sociologist in me fears the former.

Michael D. Kennedy, Professor of Sociology and International and Public Affairs, Brown University

homepages:

http://www.brown.edu/academics/sociology/michael-kennedy

http://watson.brown.edu/people/faculty/kennedy

https://brown.academia.edu/MichaelKennedy

@Prof_Kennedy on twitter

Now Available! Globalizing Knowledge: Intellectuals, Universities and Publics in Transformation.  Stanford University Press  http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24607

Address: Box 1916 Maxcy Hall Brown University 108 George Street Providence, RI 02912 Fax: (401) 863-3213

Catholics for Choice

Key findings include:

• Latinos, Catholic women and Catholic millennials show the largest support for Clinton over Trump.
• Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that the views of the Catholic hierarchy are not important to them when they are deciding who to vote for in the presidential election.
• Six in ten Catholic voters do not feel an obligation to vote the way the bishops recommend.
• Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that abortion can be a moral choice.
• Seventy-two percent believe that abortion should be available to pregnant women who have contracted the Zika virus.
• Seventy percent of Catholics do not think that companies should be allowed to use the owner’s religious beliefs as a reason to deny services to a customer or employee.

Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice said, “The Catholic vote is like a jump ball in basketball—every election it comes into play and both parties try to claim it as their own. As it represents 25 percent of the electorate, considerable effort goes into trying to determine which team will grab it. However, as this new poll shows what we’ve always known: Catholics are concerned with social justice and compassion and do not vote with the bishops, no matter how much the bishops try to project their own beliefs onto this section of the electorate.”

The poll was conducted before the vice presidential debate between Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence, where the two squared off on religious liberty and abortion, but in a statement released after the debate Catholics for Choice said, “Catholics act according to their own conscience and they do not stand with the Catholic hierarchy on abortion, access to healthcare or the rise of religious refusals backed by the bishops, and similarly do not think they nor Catholic politicians have an obligation to vote according to the Bishops. In fact, Senator Tim Kaine said it was not the role of a public servant to mandate their faith through government, and on fundamental issues of morality, like abortion, we should let women make those decisions.”

Rhode Island is routinely said to be the most Catholic of the United States.

A full roster of elected officials and almost 200 people packed the Rhode Island Democratic headquarters in Warwick Saturday morning to kick off a statewide effort to support presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The storefront office was standing room only as the governor and our congressional delegation energized attendees with their perspectives on the race and the importance of a Clinton win.

The rally, which began at 10:30, lasted about half an hour, after which many of the attendees pulled out cell phones and laptops and began to make calls for Clinton. Governor Gina Raimondo started off the event by talking about the critical nature of November’s choice.

“There’s more at stake in this election than any I can remember in my lifetime, because the consequences of Trump presidency are so terrible that it’s hard to even fathom,” said Raimondo.

She went on to talk about what she says when asked by voters why she supports Hillary, stressing Clinton’s values and experience. “Hillary’s values are what I believe are the right ones: making college affordable, investing in K-12 education and universal preschool, raising the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure and building an economy from the middle out, not from the top down. And she’s the most experienced person ever to run for the US Presidency.”

Sen Jack Reed picked up on the theme of experience. “She is the best prepared individual to lead this country that I have seen in my lifetime. On the other side, we have an individual that lacks the emotional, experiential abilities to be President. That is obvious for all to see.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse drew on American and Rhode Island history to make his case for Clinton. “People say that we have a divided country. Well, we do. But in our history, we had a country so divided that we were fighting a civil war. And in that civil war, we could not have been more divided. What did the President then do? He called us to the ‘better angels of our nature.’ Donald Trump stirs the darkest demons of our nature.”

Whitehouse continued, “Bigotry is deplorable. Period. And that’s a Rhode Island lesson that goes back to when George Washington, when he was campaigning for President, wrote to a Rhode Island synagogue guaranteeing that it would always be the policy of the United States to give ‘to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’” Said Whitehouse, “Tell that to Donald Trump.”

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-2) echoed Whitehouse, saying that Trump draws on some of his followers’ worst impulses. “I hope that when we go to the polls in November that we speak loud and clear as a nation that we reject that kind of politics.”

“This election,” said Rep. David Cicciline (D-1), “is a referendum on the founding principles of this country. We’re a country that was founded on the ideas that everyone should be treated with dignity, free from discrimination, that everyone should have an opportunity to get ahead, have access to quality education, make decisions about their own healthcare, and in so many ways, this is a referendum on those ideas.” He added a pointed personal observation: “Jim and I know first-hand serving in the House what the country would look like if Donald Trump and the Republican Party have their way.”

Democratic Party Chair Joe McNamara (RI D-19) closed the rally by asking the room to finish a few sentences by reading off cards that were handed out to attendees at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. McNamara led the group in a series of powerful and emotional call-and-response prompts. “We know that we are stronger together,” said McNamara. “Under a Clinton administration, all families will…” The whole room shouted, “Rise Together.”

“And we know that bigotry will never prevail,” said McNamara, “because…” “Love trumps hate.”

“And with a President Clinton, we know that we will have…” “A future to believe in.”

As the attendees broke to make calls, a reporter for RI Future asked Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse specifically about the importance a Clinton win for efforts to combat climate change and protect Rhode Island’s shoreline.

Whitehouse cited two reasons that make a Democratic win essential. “First of all,” said Whitehouse, “Trump has gone down the sort of lunatic path of pretending that climate change is a hoax, and that all the scientists and every American scientific society, all the scientists at NASA and NOAA, the scientists at every American national lab, are all wrong or are in on some evil conspiracy. Which is almost creepy as a point of view, it’s so wrong.”

“And then, second, he’ll be representing a party that basically has become the political wing of the fossil fuel industry. So, for both of those reasons, it makes it far less likely that anything will get done if he’s the President. Now, Nature does not forgive, and sooner or later, it will become clear to everybody that we’ve made a terrible, terrible mistake. We just don’t want that realization to come too late.”

An RI Future reporter caught up with Rep. Cicilline to ask about the reticence of some to throw their support behind Clinton, and what he would say to local progressives who are still on the fence.

“Anyone who examines these two candidates carefully, who shares progressive values, frankly, the values of our Party, will see it’s very clear that there is only one candidate who both has a record of getting things done in this area, and also a set of policies that will really advance our country and move forward on many important progressive priorities. Ultimately, elections are about choices, and while I know there was a lot of enthusiasm for Sen. Sanders — and I’m a huge fan of his, he raised some incredibly important issues in the campaign — I think he would be the first to say that the campaign was not about him as a person, it was about a set of issues and a commitment to move forward on those issues.”

Cicilline continued that a Trump win, “Would set back our movement and our country significantly, and this is going to be a close election. We can’t take anything for granted. We need to work hard to vindicate the progressive values we care about by electing Sec. Clinton.”

I think there is no doubt Clinton will defend medicare/medicaid/social security, defend the medical insurance expansion of the ACA, stand up for reproductive freedom, the Iran nuclear deal, rights for immigrants, labor, the LGBT community, appoint reasonable Supreme Court justices, and maybe expand gun background checks, child care and family leave programs if Congress allows. Trump and the GOP will do the opposite on all of the above.

Of course Clinton is not perfect. I don’t trust her on trade, she may approve high levels of immigration that depress wages,  she has been too quick to intervene in foreign countries such as Libya and Honduras. But she and Obama did try to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, resisted pressure to do more military stuff in Syria and Iran, and are being criticized for that and for not doing even more killing in opposing ISIS.  So I can’t see how putting these GOP critics in charge who got us into Iraq in the first place will do us any good.

On taxes, Trump is a mainstream GOP trickle-downer, proposing the end of estate taxes, big corporate and personal income tax reductions. We’ve been down that road, it would further transfer wealth to the 1%, further starve government programs. Clinton wouldn’t do that.

On the environment, Clinton would likely continue the mixed record of Obama while Trump and the GOP would be all in for coal and oil and fossil fuels, they even say they are. Clinton would resist the GOP assault on pubic land and on wildlife. And Transport Providence of all people should appreciate the Democratic support for bikes, transit, and trains (by the way, VP choice Tim Kaine promoted downtown Richmond passenger rail revival when he was Mayor), the national GOP wants to eliminate all Federal support for that.

Clinton is not a pacifist, socialist, or radical, so those that are have legit reasons for not backing her, but it still doesn’t make her “evil.”  Not being in those categories, I see it as an easy choice to back Clinton, and not just because of Trump.  Still, in Rhode Island we are so used to civil and reasonable Republicans who often back needed good government programs and watchdog excessive spending, we can forget the extremism of Trump and the national GOP these days.

I also frankly value the idea of finally electing a woman as President.  Eight years ago plenty of progressives said that about a first black President, but its not cool to say that now about a real chance to elect the first woman.

As for the interminable e-mail stuff, nobody cared that previous GOP Secretaries of State used a private e-mail server at times, and rightfully so. While Clinton was ill-advised to do this, it doesn’t make her “evil” it is just a political attack point which Sanders himself thought was a distraction.

To sum up, though far from perfect, she is a reasonable and decent choice to support for President.

The #MaybeHillary movement is open to the idea that voting for a lesser evil is sometimes the right thing to do, but also seeks to push that lesser evil candidate to the maximum that is possible within the political situation. People who say that that’s already been done are ignoring Hillary Clinton’s very right-leaning (and sometimes rightwing) foreign policy stance, and her tepid stances on climate change.

The #MaybeHillary movement is also open to considering the relative strength or weakness of a Republican challenger. It should be agreed that we can’t allow a rightwing Republican like Donald Trump into office, but part of that equation should be constantly fine-tuning our assessment of just how likely his election is. With Republicans fleeing Trump for Clinton or sometimes even Gary Johnson, there is increasingly an opening to push Clinton to make sure she keeps and extends her progressive message.

The #MaybeHillary movement is also one that supports the idea of flexible strategies to reflect the differences of various states. Yes, it’s true that voting is a collective action, as Samuel G. Howard states, but in 2012, Barack Obama held Rhode Island by 27 points. Jill Stein would have to take that support, without Donald Trump losing any votes at all to the Libertarians, in order to act as a spoiler. And in a world where the Green Party did well enough to take 27 points of an election– even in a blue state– the political conversation on the Wednesday after election day would be one to look forward to.

Saying #MaybeHillary means not being aggressive and nasty to people who are voting for Clinton, because in an election like this one, who can blame voters for not wanting Donald Trump? Saying #MaybeHillary means being open to switching to Clinton if she satisfies enough major progressive pledges (for me, the two I think are most sorely missing are her foreign policy and climate change positions, but you can fill in your own in the comments section). Saying #MaybeHillary means having the kind of conversation with voters that can energize them to press the candidate for more in a viable way. The #NeverHillary movement shuts down conversations, and so does shaming people for voting their consciences. Let’s get people activated around issues, hold Clinton accountable, and get what we need.

This strikes me as poorly thought-out. While I can understand that in Rhode Island, the majority of voters are likely to vote Democratic, and thus many feel that it’s not a risk to vote Green (and are likely right) this is a problem of a collective action like voting: we only know the outcome when we know the outcome. Polling can tell us a probability of how our votes will be divided, but often that information is erroneously reported. Everyone works blindly, in a sort of prisoner’s dilemma; if enough people vote a certain way, they could throw the election to a person who would would be even worse.

This has been a factor in U.S. Presidential elections for a long time. Starting in 1828, Henry Clay and John Crawford made the results of that election inconclusive, Martin Van Buren could’ve prevented Lewis Cass from becoming President in 1848, Millard Fillmore likely spoiled the election for John Fremont in 1856, in 1912 William H. Taft spoiled it for Teddy Roosevelt (or possibly vice versa), in 1968 George Wallace arguably did in Hubert Humphrey, just as Ross Perot might’ve done to George H. W. Bush in 1992, and in 2000 Ralph Nader helped make George W. Bush president.

All of these took place in specific circumstances. 1828 was a breakdown of the dominance of the Democratic-Republican Party, and the emergence of true political parties in the United States. 1848 saw the rise of an explicitly anti-slavery party with a former president at its head, whereas in 1856 the former president was leading a nativist party that sought to ignore the issue of slavery. Taft and Roosevelt were both the sitting and the previous president, striving against one another as the Progressive movement sought to move out from merely being a cross-party group. 1968 was the breakdown of the New Deal coalition and the “party switch” that transferred segregationist white southerners into the Republican Party. And 1992 and 2000 were eras of relative prosperity where the presidency simply wasn’t too important.

Majorly, the thing to notice is that except for recently, almost all of these featured establishment politicians making plays for power. Only Perot and Nader are exceptional in lacking political office on that list, and the impact of their parties have been negligible. Clay helped establish the Whigs soon after 1828, Van Buren’s Free Soilers joined the Whigs to become the Republican Party within a decade, Fillmore’s American Party was already on the decline in 1856 after having achieved control of the U.S. House, but was absorbed into the Republicans. The Progressive movement basically had all three major candidates in support of its goals in 1912. Wallace’s pro-segregation supporters have been dog-whistled to for the last fifty years until Donald Trump put down the whistle and starting yelling things at the top of his lungs.

Meanwhile, Perot and Nader’s efforts have come to naught. The Reform Party is spent, and 16 years later, the Green Party is as much of a joke as it’s ever been. Their efforts for the presidency are not turning points in American political history, but rather quixotic ends to otherwise fine careers.

Now, I’ve been highly focused on presidential elections, and I think this highlights the issue of third parties. In the way things are structured in most states, third parties simultaneously must contest the highest possible office. This constantly forces them into the position of spoiler for other candidates more likely to win, making voters resistant to casting their ballot for the third party. This Duverger’s law in action – a system like the United States’, with plurality voting and single-member districts, forces there to be mainly two parties.

What’s the current most successful third party in the United States? It’s not the Greens or the Libertarian Party. It’s the Vermont Progressive Party. The Progressives there have two things going for them: fusion balloting, which allows candidates to run as both a Progressive and a Democrat, and multi-member districts, which means there’s a level of proportionality in how many seats a party gets based on its vote in the districts. Also, there are fairly relaxed rules to establish a political party. It’s a highly local party that was mainly established to support Bernie Sanders as mayor of Burlington, VT; the party’s main power base continues to be located there.

The other major thing the Vermont Progressives have is that they don’t need to contest major offices. As a result, they can persist beyond being a personality-driven organization. And let’s face it, third parties are mostly vehicles for specific individuals’ megalomania.

Take Rhode Island. I have long said that the Moderate Party lacks an identity beyond being the party of Ken Block or Bob Healey. With the former abandoning it, and the latter deceased, it’s now got to find someone new to be its standard-bearer for governor. It’s forced into this position because RI’s ballot access laws require a political party to win more than 5% of the vote for governor or president every four years, depending on when you collected ballots.

This is intentional, and it prevents third parties from spending resources in more easily-winnable races, such as at the school committee level or town council. It means a third party has to exhaust a lot of manpower or cash on a big race it can’t win to achieve ballot access every four years, or else face being dissolved. So they lose, they might cost someone else the election, and drive potential supporters away. Meanwhile, they are unable to conduct meaningful candidate recruitment, unable to attract potential candidates because they appear frivolous, and unable to establish any sort of meaningful governing record.

This drives an incentive to simply be some individual’s ego trip. And that’s exactly what’s happening in the Green Party and its nominee Jill Stein.

You might think this is hypocritical to focus on Stein’s ego when this is an election of egos. But let’s be frank: Stein’s ego far outstrips her actual accomplishments. Her highest office to date is Lexington Town Meeting Representative. And yet, she says her aim is to win “at least a plurality” of votes in November (anything more than a plurality would be a majority). Her current Real Clear Politics polling average is 3.8%.

No other presidential candidate with ballot access to a potential majority of electoral votes is this delusional. Donald Trump actually won a major party’s nomination, despite his ego making him think lying about his success is the same as “sacrifice.” Gary Johnson actually has run a state as a governor – and won reelection. And there’s a strong case that Hilary Clinton is as egotistical as anyone, but then again, she’s earned it. We can definitely criticize her arrogance, but she actually has been U.S. senator and secretary of state. She actually has had to craft and shepherd policy that effected millions of people’s lives. And more importantly, she actually has a political organization that can support and help pass her agenda should she reach the White House. Trump has the latter, and Johnson has done the former, but Stein can’t claim either.

No third party will take the presidency this way. The only way so-called third parties have ever managed to do so is by stepping over the bodies of their predecessors. The next major party of the United States won’t be from the edges of the political system; it will follow Clay and Van Buren, and Lincoln – it will arise from the heart of the establishment, lead by a figures who were once partisans in some deceased major party.

There are, at least, political movements that understand that change happens through political power, not at its fringes. Say what you like about the Progressive Democrats and the Working Families Party – at least they are attempting to shift the dynamics locally of one of the parties, and with a greater potential for impact than all the Greens put together.

It was an odd phrase to hear in a nomination acceptance speech, so odd that it immediately made me wonder why it was there — and with a speech as fine-tuned and brushed down as Hillary Clinton’s last night, one can be assured there are no accidents.

It was near the beginning of the speech, in a section nominally connecting the present to the Philadelphia of the American Revolution, which in most such addresses would be a pleasant historical callback, but here becomes freighted, almost overdetermined:

“When representatives from 13 unruly colonies met just down the road from here, some wanted to stick with the king. And some wanted to stick it to the king. The revolution hung in the balance. Then somehow, they began listening to each other, compromising, finding common purpose.”

The “stick with/stick to” phrase jumped out at me. It’s so pungent, so colloquial. And, I began to sense as her speech progressed, so central to her dual rhetorical mission: to disarm the attacks focusing on the “cartoon” Clinton as dynastic one-per-center and at the same time redirecting that populist ire at the true shill for the oligarchy (whether American or Russian remains to be seen) Donald Trump.

There were a number in the Wells Fargo Center last night who still wanted to stick it to Hillary. About 200 die-hard Bernie fans (coming from science fiction fandom, it’s easy for me to understand the depth of their loss; I still mourn the cancellation of Firefly) wearing their high-visibility yellow “Enough is Enough” t-shirts and occasionally trying to interrupt speeches. Nor were they alone. I spoke this week with less visible but equally disappointed folks who deeply disagree with Clinton as a matter of principle on a range of issues: foreign policy, trade, education, militarism.

For this audience, Clinton’s challenge was to position incrementalism as progressive, as she did when she explicitly reached out to Sanders, his delegates, and his fans:

“To all of your supporters here and around the country: I want you to know, I’ve heard you. Your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion. That is the only way we can turn our progressive platform into real change for America.”

That’s the first half of the speech’s mission: to inoculate against the meme of a Clinton “coronation” by leveraging the most powerful positional advantage against Trump: I versus we.  Kings, by definition, rule alone, by unassailable right. By divine right in some cases, or in our version of divinity, by virtue of their visible status as one of the Elect in surreptitiously Calvinist America. When Clinton (mildly mis-)quoted Hamilton en passant late in the third act of her speech, “We may not live to see the glory/let us gladly join the fight” she knew that HamFans would automatically supply the next line: “And when our children tell our story/they’ll tell the story of tonight.”

And that story is about a scrappy group working together to turn the world upside down. In Lin Manuel-Miranda’s incisive retelling, we see Alexander Hamilton — who in the rear-view mirror of history is an engraved profile on a bank note, the picture of a Founding Father one-per-center — as an outsider determined to rise above his station, deeply committed to serving the cause of his young country. It is no accident that the video history of Clinton’s life lingered so long on her family’s early challenges. Kings do not come from families where a parent is all but abandoned; witness the prominence of the story of her mother having to walk alone to the cafe on the corner for food. That’s not the parent of a king. That’s a “founding father without a father” riff, an origin story for a hero.

So who, then, is King George? Ah, yes, of course. Clinton supplies the answer with a “stick it to” clause, explicitly connecting the actions of the colonists at Independende Hall to the actions of the delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention:

“Then somehow, they began listening to each other, compromising, finding common purpose. And by the time they left Philadelphia, they had begun to see themselves as one nation. That’s what made it possible to stand up to a king.”

Listening (a major theme in all the “why I support” speeches and videos: Clinton listened and took action), compromising (as the Clinton camp did on platform and superdelegates and Sanders himself did on the nomination), and common purpose. Articulating that common purpose (turning our platform into change) will occupy the rest of speech, but first, Clinton drives the point home, cinching the present moment tightly to the Continental Congress and the true meaning of the Gadsden Flag, that coiled snake of unity ready to strike at all enemies foreign and domestic:

“Our Founders embraced the enduring truth that we are stronger together. Now, America is once again at a moment of reckoning. Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart. Bonds of trust and respect are fraying. And just as with our founders, there are no guarantees. It truly is up to us. We have to decide whether we all will work together so we can all rise together. Our country’s motto is “e pluribus unum:” out of many, we are one.”

And then she focuses all the weight of all the history she has brought to bear on the core question the country faces:

“Will we stay true to that motto?”

If we have taken on board the framing Clinton proposed, we of course can have only one answer to that question. Like the colonists sweating out an awful Philadelphia summer (an unplanned historical parallel) we know we must hang together to fight the king, the real king in this drama: Donald Trump.

After laying out a broad policy agenda in the first half of the speech, she turns to an exploration of King Donald and his failings (echoing the Declaration of Independence’s list of indictments — “He has refused, he has forbidden, he has constrained,” etc.): “He offered zero solutions,” “He doesn’t like talking about his plans,” “He just stiffed them,” “He also talks a big game about putting America First,” “He loses his cool at the slightest provocation.” And then the one that ties it all together: “He’s offering empty promises.”

Clinton returns to her central metaphor, pointedly, as she begins her close:

“Let our legacy be about ‘planting seeds in a garden you never get to see.’ That’s why we’re here…not just in this hall, but on this Earth. The Founders showed us that. And so have many others since. They were drawn together by love of country, and the selfless passion to build something better for all who follow. That is the story of America. And we begin a new chapter tonight.”

Yep. Rhetoric for the win. For those in the hall last night, the experience was electric, and the applause and whooping and banner waving was entirely spontaneous. It was a meticulously constructed speech, delivered with wit, grit, and passion, and my sense in the room was that many will have found it persuasive. When our children tell the story of how that garden came to be, my guess is that they’ll be telling the story of tonight.

However, I don’t blame those Sanders delegates who chose to walk out. We all know that the DNC, at the very least, “slanted” the primaries in Clinton’s favor and sought to undermine the Sanders campaign. We all know that Clinton, by way of the FBI’s statement on her email scandal, is inherently dishonest, even to her own supporters, and that collusion between her campaign and the DNC possibly occurred during the primaries. I don’t blame those Sanders delegates for protesting, or booing, or for feeling jilted.

But I do blame them for not following Bernie’s lead. Sanders, in his speech on Monday night, called for unity in the Democratic Party. And at the end of the roll call vote on Tuesday night, he graciously moved to nominate Clinton after he did not win the vote. He made a selfless gesture toward unity, and not just Democratic unity.

He made a gesture toward unifying against Donald Trump.

I don’t want to buy into the fear-mongering, but beating Trump at the polls in November is of the utmost importance. His narcissistic nihilism, tinged with fascism, framed by xenophobia, and fueled by racism is, in the words of the Washington Post editorial board, a “unique and present danger” that the GOP has officially presented to the general electorate. Now Trump is everyone’s problem. And, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is now the only major party nominee that stands between Donald Trump and the presidency.

For those who aren’t willing to risk a third party vote, this choice boils down to a difficult moral dilemma. One one hand, we have a deceitful neoliberal who lacks favorability and is quite possibly corrupt, yet unarguably has a qualified history in American national politics and has the backing of prominent progressive politicians, including senators Warren and Sanders. On the other hand, we have a loud-mouthed bully with no political experience, who doesn’t know Constitutional law, who would trample on free speech rights and freedom of the press, who openly discriminates against Muslims and Mexicans, who tacitly supports racial violence, and who asked Russia to help reveal Clinton’s lost emails.

Democratic unity, today, is not about rallying behind Clinton as a nominee, nor even about rallying around what she represents. It isn’t unity within the Democratic Party per se. It isn’t even about Clinton, or Warren, or Sanders, as Bernie has pointed out numerous times in his speeches, particularly on Monday night. It’s about Donald Trump, which is exactly what Trump wants because everything in his world must be about him. In his own words during his acceptance speech, he said of America’s problems, “I alone can fix [them].”

What Trump doesn’t know is that no president alone can “fix it” (and Trump “doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out“). The same rule applies to Clinton, yet she knows that. But the slight benefit of a Clinton presidency is that she has the support of progressives like Sanders and Warren and will be held accountable by them. They will influence her decisions, help frame progressive legislation, and approve Supreme Court picks that will overturn Citizens United. That’s what checks and balances are for. And Clinton, despite her massive shortcomings, is expected to defend our Constitutional rights by her progressive peers, and she would do well to repair her lack of public trust by delivering a strong progressive agenda.

Trump, however, is expected to trample on our rights by his jeering supporters and the foolish GOP politicians who endorsed him. His VP pick, Mike Pence, has signed legislation that legalized open discrimination against LGBTQ people. And the most frightening part is that the most ignorant of Trump supporters don’t even realize the danger he poses to their own liberties and freedoms as Americans. Trump would have control of the FBI, NSA, CIA, TSA, and every other executive branch agency (not to mention the military) that he could easily, under executive order, command to act out his hostilities.

And this is where I say what I’ve never wanted to say: a vote for the Democratic nominee is more important than voting my conscience, at least this time around. Of course, in terms of my personal values, I want to vote for Jill Stein, but I do not place voting for my own values above protecting what liberties and freedoms that we already have. To do so would be selfish and disrespectful to people who would face the worst treatment by a Trump presidency. While I admire Stein for tackling the two-party system, now is not the time to do so, and openly dividing Democrats under the #DemExit banner is counterproductive to the goal of keeping Trump from the presidency.

Yes, Rhode Island is deep blue and a vote for Stein may be safe here, but against the broad and insidious influence of Trump, we shouldn’t take any state for granted, especially with Clinton’s high negatives and recent drop in the polls. So, instead of voting Green or staying home on election day, we should consider following Bernie’s lead to vote Democrat in November. Bernie knows that this movement has now become about the long game. He has vowed to continue the Political Revolution, and the first step toward gaining ground is beating Donald Trump, because under a President Trump, there’s no chance to pass any progressive legislation. I have no doubt that he’d veto anything he wants without a second thought.

There’s nothing I’d love more than to see a Bernie Sanders presidency, or even Green Party viability. But second to that, I’ll take Trump getting blown out of the water on election day. To vote Democrat is not to just reject Trump as a nominee, but to reject the hateful and powerful zeitgeist he’s stirred up among a surprising number of voters in our country. That’s where our choice as voters goes beyond voting against a candidate. It’s about voting against what Trump has come to represent. Preventing the rightward march toward peril that Trump has inspired is absolutely imperative to continuing the experiment of American democracy, however flawed that experiment may be.

In combination with the truly dangerous fantasy Trump presents,[2] most of my friends on the left declare that supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton is both historical necessity and a matter of political responsibility.[3]  I agree, but, as progressives, we need to appreciate how we get there and what her election means for the future.

Being progressive is not only about outcome. It’s also about process.  It’s about living in our daily life the politics we want to see writ large. But before I point out the challenges of progressive identification with HRC, I wish to acknowledge just fears.

If Trump is elected president, one of my gay friends told me, the marital unity he treasures most will be put at risk.  We will have as vice -president one of the most fundamentalist religious politicians in the nation whose embrace of extremist anti-LGBTQ politics and anti-choice politics is enough, by itself, to move progressives to mobilize against Trump.[4] The Supreme Court’s composition is too important to allow Republican Party extremists to control those nominations.

If Trump is elected president, the global security system will be put at risk. Already my friends on NATO’s eastern flank express profound worry about how Trump’s professed admiration for Putin and skepticism toward NATO put them at risk. Of course NATO’s embrace is hardly an obvious progressive position, but if you live in a place where Russian imperialism threatens, you must choose which superpower to welcome.

NATO may not be an obvious place where progressives unify, but we must unify in opposition to the ways in which Trump uses religious and racial differences to divide, and puts all the means of violence, including nuclear weapons, on the table.  I agree with those progressives who marked their opposition to President Obama’s drone wars and other ethically compromised means of war.

But Trump is worse.

We can go on, but to do so only reinforces a legitimate progressive objection.  Our vote is sacred and it is our choice. We want to live in a system more authentic, and less compromised. Katelyn Johnson, delegate for Bernie Sanders, said during an interview on MSNBC on July 27 that she wanted her vote to echo “the system I want to live under.” She doesn’t want to drink “the kool-aid of a system I want to dismantle.”  Progressives who fear Trump need to hear her, and so many others like her. We can’t allow our concern for outcomes to drown out the everyday practice that makes progressives different.

And what is that distinction?

We can’t base that distinction on particular substantive issues, even though it is the progressive’s inclination to debate which issue is fundamental. Is it a policy around the Trans Pacific Pipeline or closing GITMO?  Perhaps it’s about investing in public goods rather than privatizing them. Like other progressives, I have positions on these and more policy issues. But progressives can, and should, debate these matters based on informed readings of policy consequences and their motivations.

I think we come closer to recognizing that distinction when we look for authenticity. One reason Bernie Sanders mobilized so many people was because he has been consistent over decades in his opposition to the concentration of wealth and its deleterious effects on politics and everyday lives. One reason Joe Biden drew the applause for his speech that he did was because he emits, in everyday life and on stage, a sincerity that is not staged in the ways that so many other politicians look manufactured. While both Bernie and Biden are professional politicians, they are different from most.

Barack and Michelle Obama are in a class by themselves. Their speeches at this convention moved the house not only for their fine deliveries, but also because they could embody the progressive, and human, alternative that we wish our America could be.  If their daughters could play outside a White House built by slaves, we feel the progress that has been, that might be.

But here’s the problem.

Privileged progressives in our system like to feel good, and to believe that the place of the Obamas indicates that we live in a post-racial society. We do not. We can debate whether particular statistics mark progress or not, but we cannot diminish the profoundly racist underpinnings of the system in which we live, where violence against people of color, whether by police or through the proliferation of guns, whether through a prison industrial complex or in everyday aggressions and exclusions, define the enduring significance of the color line. When progressives celebrate Tim Kaine’s choice by referring to how well he speaks Spanish, and how he was a missionary in Honduras, many POC ask why not just recruit a Latinx person?

The answer for too many progressives is obvious. We must win, and to win, we must cut into the demographic that supports Trump, that white male working class electorate, perhaps religious, that might find Kaine’s working class roots and enduring Catholic commitments compelling. But that’s the problem for many progressives who recognize racism’s power. Outcome trumps process, and leads too many progressives to adopt that condescending position of knowing better than POC who declare these candidates to be more of the same old racist system, with glass ceiling broken or not.  And it gets worse.

I especially appreciate what my friend Justice Gaines shared on Facebook, with wisdom zir friend, Nikkie Ubinas, offered:

If Donald Trump wins, it’s not because not enough people of color chose not to vote for Hillary.

It’s because enough people voted for Donald Trump to make him a candidate. It’s because people elected Donald Trump. It’s because institutions, systems, and people created him. It’s because we have corrupt systems that don’t give a shit about people of color and poor people. It’s because Donald Trump is right in line with our American racist xenophobic and sexist history. It’s because Donald Trump is America’s enduring legacy.

Here’s the issue that so many of my progressive white friends miss, what I miss were I not to listen and learn from Justice and others.

In the panic about defeating Trump, progressives can practice reprehensible politics in everyday life, abandoning their commitment to authenticity, equality, and process on the altar of expediency and outcomes defined by those with privilege.

We ought celebrate breaking a glass ceiling, and I will do what I can to defeat Trump and elect Hillary Rodham Clinton. But that is not because I am with her. I remain committed to political revolution, and its chances are so much greater with Clinton/Kaine in office than Trump/Pence. I am continuing that political revolution when I work for Clinton/Kaine, but a vote does not fulfill my political responsibility as a progressive. That political responsibility means holding Clinton and Kaine accountable to the Democratic Party Platform those leading the political revolution at DNC moved.

When Bernie endorsed Hillary it was not the end of the political revolution. It was just a signal that it is time to refocus down ballot and on civil society, to mobilize and apply pressure to politicians too easily influenced by Wall Street and other lobbies with money. When Katelyn Johnson, Justice Gaines, Nikkie Ubinas, and others signal their distance from politics as usual, I will listen and respect their position for that is the foundation of the political revolution, not the election of a particular presidential candidate.

I also respect Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison much, and he said it right today on Morning Joe:

“Active citizens need to help politicians govern the country, and one way to do that is to let them know how you really feel…”

And it’s not just holding up placards and maybe even disrupting a speech. It’s about holding authorities accountable.  This DNC platform is different from all others preceding because it was made with the political revolution in mind. Again, Ellison said as much when he anticipated an election in which Clinton and Kaine win, but face active citizens who will demand that a new administration adhere to the platform’s principles.

Were I to identify the progressive distinction, it’s one in which we respect and recognize one another, being particularly attentive to the ways in which power and violence diminish some and privilege others. Progressives are not defined by the candidates they support, but by the work, in everyday life and in political campaigns and in enduring political struggles, to include everyone in the set of rights and responsibilities that democracy organizes.

Recognition, respect, and maybe even love moves the political revolution, and my identification as progressive.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-glass-ceiling_us_579827fee4b0d3568f85272e

[2] http://www.rifuture.org/ideology-in-the-time-of-trump.html

[3]  http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/07/why-i-support-hillary-clinton-for-president-a-letter-to-my-friends-on-the-left/

[4] Note here religious identification is not the issue. The Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine is a devoted and practicing Catholic, but also supports women’s right to choose and the sanctity of love over homophobia. Rhode Island Bishop Tobin’s take on Kaine  https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/local/roman-catholic-bishop-in-rhode-island-criticizes-kaine/2016/07/25/378ad256-529e-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html has prompted healthy debate within the RI Catholic community http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20160726/thomas-m-hines-bishop-tobins-arrogant-view-of-tim-kaine

“I’m racing home tonight to watch [Clinton’s] speech with my 12-year old daughter because I want to be there with my daughter. This is real. This is an historic moment,” said Raimondo.

Love Hillary Clinton or hate her, Governor Raimondo is right, this is a historic moment. The first woman presidential nominee from a major party in the history of the United States is accepting the nomination this evening. As the father who attempted to instill a confidence about their full equality in his two daughters, I can’t help but feel this historic moment intensely.

The election will play out as it must, and the politics will be dark and dirty and full of terrible reveals. I don’t expect a Clinton campaign to solve the problems of misogyny any more than Obama’s presidency solved the problem of racism. Should Hillary Clinton become president, I don’t expect her to be a great progressive leader any more than Governor Gina Raimondo, the first woman governor of Rhode Island, is. I’m not naive about the politics, or the stakes in this election.

But let’s pause a moment on this historical day and reflect.

Here’s Gina Raimondo’s full appearance on Morning Joe.