Elizabeth Warren For President? Not this time around.

Before Bernie Sanders stepped forward to run for president in 2015, I was one of those who signed petitions for Elizabeth Warren to run for president. I adored her from her first studies as a law professor about the correlation between personal bankruptcy and medical expenses. I was very disappointed when she refused to run for president against Clinton, which would have avoided the whole "Bernie Bro" sexism divisiveness. Then, Warren's silence after Bernie stepped forward became deeply disappointing to me as the primaries wore on, and Bernie showed his viability. I thought at the time Warren's refusal to endorse Bernie was because Warren had her eye on challenging Chuck "Wall Street" Schumer for leader of the Democrats in the Senate. Then, she just fell in and let Schumer continue to be the Senate Dem leader without any challenge at all, which then made me angry with her for not stepping forward to support Bernie the way Tulsi Gabbard and Nina Turner, both initial supporters of HRC, did with Bernie.

I have heard people say they hate Warren's schoolmarm/shushing librarian's voice, and how they find her voice grating. Admittedly, I hear this about Joe Kennedy III, too. With Warren, it still pains me deeply as I find it largely offensive and sexist, especially if the person doesn't say the same about Kennedy III. It is also trivial and diverting us from a discussion of policy. And frankly, I have heard this sexist and offensive criticism enough to make me wonder about my initial choice for Warren to be a presidential candidate as I wonder, is this how it will go if Senator Warren wins the nomination? I also thought Warren taking the DNA test was a great idea to put the whole "Pocahantas" issue to rest. However, so many, many people, and the Kewl Kidz in corporate media, just attacked her more. To me, the test proved her family's stories were essentially correct all along, that is she is part Native American--yet, I watched with incredulity the way in which she was attacked from nearly all sides, including Native Americans who were angry for the worst "identity politics" reasons that were primarily cynical reasons.

Still, I am glad Warren is forming an exploratory committee. She is properly testing waters. She will see if progressives like me return to our original presidential candidate superstar. I for one am not returning. I find Sanders to be more impressive than when Sanders first announced in 2015, though I followed Sanders' career from way back to his days as mayor of Burlington, VT. On Sanders' announcement, I was concerned the primary season would be too grueling for him at his age. Instead, Bernie proved to be Baron Von Munchausen (who gets younger when the fight is on, and gets older when the fight is over or he is not in the fight at all). Bernie, to use a different analogy, is like an Energizer Bunny, he just kept going and going...and going. I took to calling Bernie an Energizer Bernie, as he energizes not only himself, but also so many of us, to think about public policy ideas and positions so many other politicians have been afraid to utter. And what has most impressed me about Bernie is his continuing and amazing energy and enthusiasm in bringing out important issues to the people of our nation with his finally and long overdue notice in the national media, owing to his impressive run for president in 2016. I continue to believe, however, to silence the age issue, he should pick a younger person as a VP candidate to run through the primaries with.  Oh, and next time someone says, Bernie ran, and lost, remind them Ronald Reagan ran hard against Gerry Ford in the 1976 Republican presidential primaries, lost (many noted bitterly at the time), and came back, in 1980, as the then oldest person running for president in a major party--and won.

For me, Elizabeth Warren is a great senator. I would also love to see her on the US Supreme Court if she did not remain in the senate to finally take away the gavel from Schumer. As for president, I no longer see Warren as a top choice. What I hope is that the same people who obviously pressured Warren (1) not to run against Hillary Clinton in 2016, (2) not to support Bernie after Bernie announced, and (3) not to take on Schumer for senate leadership, are not pressuring her to run for president in order to split the progressive base of the Democratic Party. If her decision to consider the presidency this time around stems from that same pressure, my sadness will turn into the deepest anger.

"The 28th Amendment" and why it seems Baby Boomers and Oldsters are fooled...again

In the nearly past ten years, some Baby Boomer or Oldster sends me a private message telling me to pass on what is called the 28th Amendment. Snopes has the breakdown of what is correct, not much, and what is more incorrect about it, which turns out to be a lot incorrect. The reason I would be cautious about even the idea around the proposed amendment is some judge will eventually find this amendment applies to employees of the federal government, and then it would destroy the lives of many people who work as civil servants in the US government, something that Hamilton and Adams, among others, would have found appalling. Note, too, that the two people who finally introduced what was initially some stupid meme includes Ron DeSantis, the newly elected racist right-wing governor of Florida. 

Anyone who believes in the ideas behind this amendment, but believes Americans should have the same privileges as Congressman have gotten for themselves (not immunity of lawsuits, of course, which Congress does not in many instances, either), should instead be focused on the abject hypocrisy of voting for any Republican or even corporate Democrat who wants to deny you and me the same perks of health insurance and pensions they get. How does anyone not go up to Paul Ryan and Ron DeSantis and slap them hard in the face, and say, "You goddamn evil hypocrite?!" 

I am normally not one to focus on hypocrisy, as I find it often distracts us from the substance of a situation or issue. For example, I have not joined in the criticism of Ayn Rand for her having taken Social Security and Medicare in her later and last years. She paid into it as anyone else, and so what that she was philosophically opposed to it? If it helped her, I am glad for her. That is the point of a universal program--even for those with whom we disagree or despise receiving the benefit, and even those who may not need it receiving the benefit. And yes, even those for whom it would be hypocritical to receive the benefit.  It is not "means-tested" because it is not mean and you don't have to pass a test to get it. It's for everyone.  Rather than pushing these silly memes, let's try to remember these congresspeople like Ryan and DeSantis are the ones who pass oppressive laws, or in the case of Medicare for All or shoring up public pensions, stop nice laws from being passed. And that is why I admit to finding it so disgusting Paul Ryan and even DeSantis are getting a federal pension for the destruction each has left in the wake of their selfish tenures as public servants.

Bottom line: The answer is not the 28th Amendment. This proposed amendment is merely a long bumper sticker. The answer remains something that eluded Baby Boomers for most of our adult lives: Stop electing people who claim to hate government, claim to hate your getting medical care and pensions through the government, yet get it for themselves. How many of these people do we have to keep electing? If you want a pension and you want Medicare for All, then vote for people who will support and pass it. 

In closing, I must note I never once have received this long meme from a Millennial or younger person. Only us Baby Boomers and my folks' generations, and maybe a few GenExers, send this crap. Some education we got that we are such suckers. Think of how simple it would have been, before sending this around, to check with Snopes--and reading the links at Snopes if you're one of those who does not like Slopes. 

Kids, you know what to do. Vote even more in 2020. Save us. Save yourselves. Save the planet. We suck.

First Amendment right to overturn a collective bargaining agreement, but not get contraception. Part II.

Why am I not surprised a presumably white male, who works in information technology for the New Mexico State government, has filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in New Mexico saying he doesn't want to pay union dues?  Libertarians looking at sociological demographics care to guess, though see here? "I am an individual!  I will always be who I am no matter what my race, creed, or location where I was born--and no matter if I am poor, working class, middle class, or rich!  I will always do better on my own, negotiating for my wages!"  The guy is probably like "Tom" in "It's a Wonderful Life."

Anyway, the reporter at the ABQ Journal has written an excellent article about the lawsuit, has done a great job tracking down people to speak with, and does a good job explaining the basic legal issues.  Great reporting.  

For me, I am not happy about the 2018 US Supreme Court decision in the Janus case, which gave an individual government (not private) employee a "First Amendment" right to individually reject a collective bargaining agreement which the workers and management had voted on and agreed to enact.  What makes me angry with the US Supreme Court is that, just a few years before, the US Supreme Court told individual female workers at Hobby Lobby that the for-profit company they work for had a "religion," and the corporation's "religious views" prevailed so as to deprive the female employees from receiving free contraception through the group insurance plan, as insurance companies had agreed to provide free contraception to all insureds under the ACA/Obamacare. As for those women employees, the Supreme Court's response was, "Hey, individual employees!  If you don't like it, go work for someone else!" Yet, somehow in 2018, the majority of Supreme Court justices waxed philosophical about the government employee's individual right to overturn what workers and management decided in enacting a collective bargaining agreement.  No "Go work for a non-union shop if you wish!" to Mr. Janus.  I know, I know. If one looks at the history of the the judiciary and labor unions, one finds a fairly consistent bias against labor unions. And the US Supreme Court is largely not too happy about helping women as women, but they like their wives, sisters, daughters more than labor unions. 

Anyway, the reason this class action lawsuit may succeed is perhaps two weeks to decide to join or reject a labor union's collective bargaining agreement will be deemed not long enough for a waiver of the right to reject the collective bargaining agreement, and maybe there can be no waiver at all with respect to the First Amendment. A reasonable argument for the unions and the state is that two weeks, meaning fourteen days, is more than sufficient time to decide whether to reject paying union dues, and frankly, the fellow can always wait till the collective bargaining agreement renegotiation rolls around.  In other words, the argument for the unions and the state will be the burden on the First Amendment right is not unreasonable--you know, kind of like how the US Supreme Court thinks women should watch movies about heart-beating fetuses before they can go get an abortion, have to go through a waiting period, and then, can be told, "Sorry, too late, you should have acted earlier" if they wait "too long." However, since the Courts are as politicized as they ever have been, and with right wing bomb throwers in various judicial positions, including in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court, we will see how this goes. 

Serious Commentators on Television. "We know better than you."

Elizabeth Drew, one of the senior "serious" commentators in corporate media, who began her career as a talking head in the early 1970s, has written an op-ed published in this morning's New York Times.  It is called "The Inevitability of Impeachment."  I then imagined the following group conversation:

"Serious" Commentators for the Past Nearly Two Years:  Impeachment will never happen.  It is naive to think so.  Don't even think about it, let alone talk about it.

Cut to Summer 2019.  Mueller report has been released.  Impeachment articles are drawn up in the House.  A vote is taken.  A majority agree to begin impeachment hearings. 

"Serious" Commentators on Cable Television:  Nobody could have predicted this.  Nobody saw this coming. But when we think about it, it was always inevitable.  Let's have Elizabeth Drew on now, to explain how she saw it just before the year began.  She was the oracle, the sage on this.  Nobody before her saw this as a possibility.  This is all just like nobody knew Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.  This is just like nobody saw Hillary Clinton was not popular in the Mid-West and could lose the election to Trump.  Just one shock after another.

Me: But, but, but, I said all of that before those things happened.  I said Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction.  I was worried Hillary Clinton would lose to Trump.  I said we should talk impeachment and we should see how this drip, drip, drip of information would go, considering how Trump had been tied up with Russian oligarchs since the 1990s.

"Serious" Commentators on Cable Television:  Who are you?  You are nobody.  You didn't go to an Ivy League college.  You are not famous like we are.   We know better.  We are on the inside.  We see these political leaders every day.  We are the realists--

Me: C. Wright Mills called people like you "crackpot realists."

"Serious" Commentators on Cable Television:  See?  You are not serious.  And you're a radical, too.  Nobody listens to radicals.  You hardly watch us, so what do you know? Did you even hear what Trump tweeted today?  Did you hear what some celebrity said about Trump's tweet?  And anyway, Bernie's too old.  Nancy Pelosi, who is more than a year older than Bernie, is not too old.  And that Joe Biden, oh, we like him, though he is only a year younger than Bernie.  And that Beto, too.  Maybe Biden and Beto will run together.  

Me:  I like Beto a lot, but I am concerned he may be less than meets the eye.  Beto lost to a guy nobody likes, albeit this was Texas politics.  Beto's wife is a real estate heiress, whose family has engaged in the type of business activity which early on defined Trump, which you guys barely discuss in your latest discussions about Beto.  Just what is up with that?  And his record in Congress was somewhat sketchy for a guy who won't call himself "progressive" when people who watch you "serious" folks think he is a progressive.  I worry because I wonder why you "serious" people on television are hyping him?  It reminds me of the hype surrounding Obama in 2005 and 2006, when Ken Silverstein warned us about Obama in 2006 in his article, "Barack Obama, Inc." in Harpers' Magazine.  During the 2008 primaries, I used to call Hillary and Obama "HillObama," as I never understood why those who were partisans of Obama and Hillary hated each other so much...Remember the PUMAs? 

"Serious" Commentators on Cable News:  What the heck are you talking about?  See?  You are not only not serious, you are just so negative. You never see us saying anything negative.  Bernie's too old, don't you get that?  And he's a radical!   You are just a naive purist who will cause Trump to win again!

Otherwise Non-Racist, Sane People Who Watch Cable News:  See, Mitchell?  They are serious.  You are not.  You are naive.  And yes, you are most certainly a radical!  We only believe people who are serious...and who the people on television tell us are "moderate."  Yes, we agree with a lot of what Bernie says, and we know the majority of Americans agree with Sanders' positions, but you heard them say it on television:  Bernie's a radical!  A far leftist!  Nobody who is serious likes him!

Me:  Kids?  Save us.  Save yourselves.  Save the planet.  Please vote in 2020 even more than you did this time.  We have reached a Pogo moment.

Kids: Who or what is a "Pogo?"  Oh.  Just looked it up on Wiki.  Yeah, wow.  That's cool. Looks like when the guy who wrote Pogo did that comic strip about "We have met the enemy and he is us," he was talking about the environment, too.  Wow.  But hey, don't worry, old man.  There are more of us going to vote in 2020.  And with any luck, more of your generation and your parents' generation will be dead or too enfeebled to vote in 2020.  And hey, cheer up, maybe there will be a Season 4 for "Rick and Morty!"

People Who Watch Cable News (Racist, Non-Racist, Insane, Sane):  Who or what is a "Rick and Morty?"

Kids and Me:  Don't worry. It's a show.  But you wouldn't understand it even if you watched it.  This single episode tells us about the way racism works in a society, how racism is internalized where minority cops may sometimes be as bad as white racist cops, our society's anomie, our society's corruption--

Me: --and it takes The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" into realms of sublime irony.  And multi-verses.

Kids: And the end of the episode has Blonde Redhead's "For the Damaged Coda."  Awesome.

Me: Wow.  I had no idea.  Cool.  I loved that!

Otherwise Non-Racist, Sane People Who Watch Cable News:  These kids.  And you, too, Mitchell.  You are not serious!  You watch stupid cartoons on television, but you don't watch cable news like we do.  You don't keep up with what's going on.  Wait.  Another Trump Tweet!  Oh my God---

Kids and Me: (Face palm)

Dissolve as the Cable News Watchers go back to watching cable news--again.

Corbyn, Brexit, the British media, and the EU

It is too bad how The Guardian has so many reporters who do not like British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, and so have lost their ability to comprehend what should have been understood by most reporters and editors at The Guardian. Please read this article which followed this other article, which was an interview with Corbyn.

The headlines in The Guardian articles are misleading.  Corbyn does not want to say he is definitively for or against Brexit. Instead, Corbyn wants negotiation leverage if he assumes the prime minister position.  For years, Corbyn railed against the EU, not for the reason right wingers in Great Britain do, which is a xenophobic sort of nationalist reason. Corbyn's critique of the EU remains largely the same as Yanis Varoufakis' critique of the EU, which is the EU is worth supporting and developing, but too often has been led by those who are pro-austerity and who have pro-bankers' interests. See this interview (starting at the 20 minute mark) between the two men, where one sees how wise Corbyn is on the subject of the EU and Brexit, and how he speaks to the conflicting views of the majority of British citizens--if only the British media would allow people to listen.

Corbyn wants to leverage Brexit negotiations to secure reforms within the EU, which is admittedly a daunting task. If, however, the Brits crawl back to the EU, existing EU policies, and what the bankers who control the EU will demand during the next, inevitable recession, will likely push Great Britain further toward a status of a PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) nation. Corbyn, like Bernie Sanders here in the US, often bristles at corporate media triviality which has the effect of obscuring pressing policy issues affecting millions of people.  The interview is well worth reading as one sees, in the interview, his bristling at the latest trivial things the British media is covering.

Knowing how much the British media owners (and, in the case of the BBC, executive officers) which media ownership unfortunately includes The Guardian, do not like Corbyn, and never have (Chapter 10 of the Nunns book linked to here), the British media is now expected to promote the nation's "third" party, The Liberal Democratic Party, whose leaders will promise to be good little boys and girls to the European bankers-parents. We can expect to see British media propaganda over the next months calling The Liberal Democratic Party leaders "responsible and serious" through their wanting to "steadfastly remain" with the EU, though their idea of "remain" is to allow the EU's banker interests to continue to predominate. This is a dangerous time for the British electorate, as the Liberal Democrats will end up pursuing much of the same austerity policies as the Tories, and, as the nation continues to suffer, the Liberal Democrats will be more willing to privatize important public institutions. 

Again, the British media has always hated Corbyn. They perceive, correctly, Corbyn is not "one of us," meaning them. This is partly why the British media never misses a trick to trivialize and criticize Corbyn. This also explains the breathless headline in The Guardian, when, in other circumstances, The Guardian's editors would know better. For those Labour MPs who are wavering about Corbyn's position on the EU, they better get their acts together, watch the interview Varoufakis does with Corbyn from a few months ago, greet and remind their constituents as to how the EU treated nations such as Greece, and make sure they stand with Corbyn, whose election to prime minister will present an historic opportunity for cross-border agitation against the EU banker interests. The EU can be a wonderful institution which can truly lead to a peaceful unification of Europe, and, in the process, help people across the continent--and our planet. However, right now, too many in the "Remain" position are forgetting how the EU's current bankers' perspective has helped fuel a rise in fascism, and xenophobic, nationalist parties, throughout much of the continent--something even someone at The Guardian has noticed. 

Oh well. I am not currently optimistic a sufficient number of Brits will listen to the above perspective, just as I found many Greeks did not have the stomach for a "general strike" approach to the EU when Varoufakis was trying to rally Greek citizens.

UPDATE January 4, 2019:  Bernard Porter, who has written books on the British empire (see here and here), has written a post dated December 28, 2018 at the London Review of Books website, showing he essentially agrees with me.  At least someone who understands British society and politics still has some comprehension and politically strategic abilities. :)

The Washington Consensus is what led us to Trump

It is too bad this post-2018 elections analysis from Michael Tomasky is behind the subscription wall at the New York Review of Books. Tomasky is a liberal-left leaning corporate media pundit (he originally wrote for The Village Voice), which means he has read some Noam Chomsky, but is unable to apply Chomsky's insights. Tomasky was one of those who thought Hillary Clinton would defeat Trump, and, during the 2015-2016 Democratic Party primary, had a hard time dealing with the  implications of the Bernie Sanders candidacy. No matter, as Tomasky has written the best analysis from a corporate media pundit, largely because he recognized the blue wave moment, the way in which Republicans suppressed votes in various States, and, conversely, the rural-urban divide in voting patterns across the nation. Tomasky restates, in a compelling manner, the "city mouse/country mouse" dichotomy. And here is another analysis of this rural/suburban-urban divide, which the online magazine, Axios, has highlighted.  My critique of the city/country mouse divide is embedded in this post, where I show how people are more united than we think on issue after issue which Bernie Sanders has done so much to raise, and how we push the dichotomy of rural v. urban/suburban to our electoral peril in various States in our nation.

But let's explore this analysis in the context of former President Barack Obama recent admissions to a fawning elite group in Texas. Specifically, here is Obama admitting what he never wanted to admit when he ran for office in 2008 and again in 2012, or while in office: That the Washington Consensus was one which promoted globalization, and how that consensus leadership watched with indifference the decline in many former industrial areas of the nation and rural areas of our nation.  This is extraordinary because it shows Obama knew what Noam Chomsky, and also Ralph Nader, the Institute for Policy Studies' John Cavanaugh, Public Citizen's Lori Wallach, and labor oriented economists like Robert Kuttner and Thea Lea, and others, understood, and yet...Obama refused to admit any of this while he held and exercised power, and refused to do anything about it, which is most damning.*  

In 2016, I took the time to re-read the works of the great 20th Century American historian, Richard Hofstadter.  He was born in 1916 (the same year as my mother's parents, trivially enough) and his centennial was 2016 (Hofstadter died of a heart attack in the fall of 1970).  One of the books I re-read was The Age of Reform, which is about the period in American history of 1870-1935. The book reveals how the growing industrialism in the United States displaced and left behind rural areas and farmers across the land, and how this resulted in a political backlash historians have referred to as a populist "revolt."  Hofstadter also inter-splices the labor-management wars of that era, and how the rising proletariat/industrial workers were also in revolt.  But all the while, because Hofstadter was writing in the shadow of the New Deal, he had less than what I think is required sympathy for the populists, highlighting their ignorance and willingness to embrace racism and anti-Semitism, and assuming our leaders had learned the lessons he was imparting. To read him now, and with a Chomskyian interpretation, is to recognize Hoftstadter's overall brilliance, but also Hofstadter's limitations in terms of how one should see the populist rural and urban unrest of that period--and to see how important a guide Hofstadter's book remains for our current era.**

It is telling to me how Obama's statements have not been well-publicized in our corporate media.  I doubt there was any significant discussion of Obama's statements on MSNBC, for example, and certainly not, CNN--and if there was, it was only to highlight how smart Obama is compared to the ignoramus currently occupying the White House.  I can bet there has been no critique of the remarks in any way that would resemble the type of critique one only gets reading intellectually left political journals--and people wonder why I so support social media while recognizing its dangers.  What is also revealing is how Obama describes the immediate post-WWII consensus among the elites in our nation.  Obama only sees the bright side, and not the dark side, of that consensus.  We like to focus on the Marshall Plan, which admittedly helped millions in Western Europe.  Yet, we refuse to realize the flip side of that consensus was one which was terribly racist and imperialistic against the rest of the people around the globe.  The U.S. literally recruited Nazis to help us formulate our foreign policy (it is not only the scientists we recruited) and formulated a doctrine designed to arm right wing dictators in what we called "Third World" nations.  We spoke of spreading democracy against Communism, but what we ended up promoting most of the time was fascism and religious fundamentalism.  We should be even more precise: The U.S. fanned Christian religious fundamentalism at home, fostered Jewish religious fundamentalism in Israel, and Islamic religious fundamentalism against pan-Arabists, who had as much Alexander Hamilton nation-building within their worldview as anything else we may have otherwise found unpalatable.  As I am fond of citing, here is Egyptian President Gamel Abdul Nasser in the mid 1960s making light of the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and how silly it would have been to force Muslim women in Egypt to wear a hijab.  During that time in which Nasser was speaking, U.S. media, and the Washington Consensus the U.S. media dutifully followed, portrayed Nasser as the Devil Incarnate.  However, was Nasser really worse than the dictators we armed in Central and South America, or even the dictators we were forcibly holding up in Vietnam and Laos?  We never ask the question this way on corporate media television and radio, as asking the question would expose the propaganda behind "we're fighting for democracy against godless Communism," something my generation and my parents' generation bought into in large numbers, and still can't get their heads around. As for Nasser's hatred of Israel, Michael Oren, in the paperback version of his masterful book on the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, wistfully sees far more nuance regarding Nasser (see pages 334-335 of the book, which is part of an interview with Oren in the paperback edition).  The point here is that the War Against Vietnam, the systemic murder of priests and nuns, and civil society people, in Central and South America in the 1970s and 1980s, and that embrace of Wahhabist Islamic fundamentalism were features, not bugs, of American foreign policy.

The saddest, though most hopeful, part is our children and grandchildren have learned more about the malevolence of American foreign policy from Iron Man films and Captain America: Winter Soldier than they would in a lifetime of watching cable news, listening to talk radio, or the consensus news of Cronkite/Huntley-Brinkley, which has remained the propaganda of choice for Baby Boomers and oldsters for over 60 years.  See my blog post essay on superhero films and this snippet from the Captain America: Winter Soldier film.  Yes, if we read Christopher Simpson's Blowback, one learns all about "Operation: Paperclip" and the extensive recruitment of Nazis after World War II.  While the film snippet says it was scientists, it was far more than scientists, as Simpson's book details.

People wonder why I keep harping on supporting Bernie Sanders in 2020, and strongly supported Sanders as the best candidate for president in 2015-2016.  The reason is Bernie Sanders knows how to speak to rural white America in a manner where many of them properly find him credible and genuinely interested in helping them.***  He speaks to their best values, while Republicans and Trump speak to their worst values.  Some have cynically criticized Sanders for this very reason, as if Sanders is not a pro-Black Lives Matter person, when the fact is he stood more with those seeking to change the systemic racism in the criminal justice system than nearly any other politician in the past forty years. Sanders' worldview speaks to the best among the supposedly divided city and country folks.  And this time around, Sanders has something he lacked the first time he ran for president, which is name recognition and national popularity unique among current American politicians.  

* The majority of Americans have largely and consistently been wary and not supportive of the globalist trade deals the American elite, with the important assistance from American corporate media, foisted on the nation.  See, for starters, Harper's writer, John MacArthur's, outstanding journalistic history of the "selling" of the NAFTA and WTO.

**Those who know Hofstadter's work may be surprised I am not citing his work on what he called paranoid worldviews in American history and politics. However, I find that long essay fairly overwrought for its trying to tie in the Populist movement, which, while it had certain elements of right wing paranoid groups that formed in the 20th Century, were still far more economically radical and had an economic basis.  Hoftstadter is correct to connect loss of white status to the rise of paranoid right, and Hofstadter's paranoid style essays bear more re-reading in the age of Trump.  He was still a product of his time, and in parts reads far too complacent in his assumption the Washington Consensus would continue to save our republic. That of course is not his fault, as he cannot be expected to be fully clairvoyant.  I adore Hofstadter and should not have been as dismissive of the paranoid style essays he wrote in the 1950s and 1960s.  Right now, they look like prophecy in lots of ways.  (UPDATED: July 17, 2019).

*** I got a kick out of how this former mine worker, in the West Virginia town hall discussion Chris Hayes of MSNBC had Bernie appear at, talked about Bernie being a senator from the "northeast" who cared more about him and others in West Virginia than Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell.  It reminded me of the first episode of Trial and Error where the wealthy brother-in-law wants to hire a "northeastern" lawyer, a euphemism for "Jew."  Back in the 1960s, in places such as the American South and in West Virginia, one heard New York described as "Jew York."  Again, I get there is sometimes racism and anti-Semitism among some white folks in rural areas especially.  However, we should speak to their positive values and re-affirm our best values for inclusiveness and pluralism in a manner which shows them they will no longer be left behind.  People are complicated and have multiple motivations and viewpoints.  

Republican officeholders love a federal government shutdown

What we should always keep in mind is these current Republican officeholders love shutting down the federal government. This is Confederacy 101 and is not a bug, but a feature of their view toward governmental institutions. Also, where there are cruel outcomes from this latest government shutdown, such as governmental employees not getting paid during the holidays, these Republican officeholders revel in that cruel outcome. It is pre-Ghost Visit Scrooge meets Jefferson Davis.

This is why I have said, as a whole, modern Republican officeholders are no longer interested in governance. There is now a difference between Republicans and Democrats that would have been unheard of two or three generations ago. My Father used to say, when he was in municipal government during the 1960s: "There is no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage or clean the streets." Now, there is a difference.

This is about more than the delusion of our government building a wall along the Mexican-US border that somehow significantly lowers the number of incoming undocumented immigrants from Mexico and locations south of Mexico.* This is also about how, once again, Republican officeholders have revealed themselves as reckless and petulant, and have no real interest in effective governance.

*It is delusional on multiple levels: First, a high plurality of undocumented workers come by plane or boats now, and a majority of "illegals" are those who overstay their visas, meaning they had legally entered our country.  Second, with Obando elected president in Mexico, it is more likely there will be a major infrastructure redevelopment program in Mexico, which will keep people in Mexico, and maybe start a movement of Mexicans living here returning to Mexico. Third, many Americans who own property along the border are wary or opposed to building a wall, as they see a government built wall on their property as an interference with their private property rights. This is in addition to the delusions which motivate the desire to build a wall, where those so deluded ignore how undocumented workers pay more taxes to the government than the benefits such immigrants receive from our government, and how employer exploitation of undocumented workers contributes to lower consumer prices as greedy employers give consumers a sliver of the profits employers reap from that exploitation. As with those who are members of the Fetus Cult, my question for those obsessed with "illegal immigration" is, Why is "illegal" immigration your priority, especially when we realize we do not have enough workers here if we were to embark on a much needed infrastructure re-development program?