Home | About | Donate

We Must Defeat Trump

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/23/we-must-defeat-trump

1 Like

Trump is a disaster and so are the oligarchs that rule the democratic party and keep the party divided against the interests of money against the people.

It is this divide driven by the oligarchs that has brought us Trump. The oligarchs within the Democratic party must go if there is ever to be unity.

4 Likes

Read the petition “More Than Four” here http://chng.it/qGfJRXVpRs for an amazing rebuttal of this ultimate lesser-evilism argument.

As the petition declares:

“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they [don’t] have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”
–Nancy Pelosi

The attacks begun by Nancy Pelosi and moderate Democrats have now been exploited by the President and his supporters: Progressives are communists. Progressives don’t love America. Progressives should go back where they came from.
Once again the left is being marginalized, and once again, progressive are being taken for granted by the Democratic leadership. It’s the Spirit of 2016 all over again, and it appears that in 2020 we will be forced to choose between the “lesser of two evils.”
Since so few speak for us, it is time for us to speak for ourselves. We must end the duopoly corruption of both political parties–not merely remove Trump. Trump is America’s ugly baby, and our political system and culture have birthed him. The enemy of progress is the system, not only the man.
Because we need a new politics, a new set of values that reflect the best in America, we will not accept a corporatist neocon Democratic candidate who will continue our enslavement by the Military Industrial Complex and the 1%.
This time around, our votes need to be earned, not extorted. At present, only a few 2020 candidates have had the courage to take progressive stands on the issues.There is still time for each candidate to amend, to include, to be bold. Those few that do so between now and the election can receive our support. Those who do not will be on their own.
Take it or leave it Democrats. We offer our support in the spirit of European coalition building, political give and take, and inclusion. Join with us and we will help you to be successful.

3 Likes

“…it’s time to suspend programmatic and ideological arguments, and for the Democratic party’s left to calm down, subordinate all of its concerns to the defeat of Trump, and to rally behind an experienced, popular, moderate, and centrist candidate, the kind of candidate who can appeal to Republicans,…”

At that point I stopped reading. Mr. Isaac obviously learned nothing from the Democrats defeat in 2016. The Democrats don’t need to appeal to Republicans. In fact trying to do so is likely to guarantee another loss. The Democrats need to appeal to the Democrats and independents who stayed home in droves or voted Green because Hillary was such a deplorable candidate. If the Democrats lose again it will be because the Democratic establishment thinks like Mr. Isaac.

Appeal to Republicans? Are they and he nuts? Right now it actually looks like they are.

3 Likes

Who is this dude talking to?. Why must Nancy and the Dino’s think we have do everything their way?. This article is just another example of how they try to manipulate (we the people). I for one say STFU. Good grief!. WE PROGRESSIVES WILL NOT BE DEINED YET AGAIN!. It’s way past time for change. Change that will effect all americans in a positive manner. Change that (we the people) can and will be proud of. Change that will allow us to go forward as a American people. Change that will solidify our democracy for now and ever.

3 Likes

I agree completely, and I stopped reading at the same place. For some reason I later forced myself to read the whole column, knowing that it would be painful.

After rereading the column slowly, I think that the part that you quote is Isaac’s summary of the articles by Friedman, Dowd, etc. Isaac writes 'The point is simple … ’ when he means 'Their point is simple … ’ He later writes that he disagrees with them.

That’s as far as I can go in defending this writer, because his disagreement is bogus. For the rest of this much too long column, Isaac straddles the fence between progressives and the D establishment and then comes down firmly on the establishment side. He expresses sympathy for both sides of the D party split to appear progressive, then at every turn he tells the progressives to suspend their demands and support the establishment. He condemns Trump without ever acknowledging the remarkable teamwork of Pelosi, Schumer, and Trump. This is just more LOTE.

5 Likes

We don’t need a test in a swing district to find out whether voters support progressive policies and candidates - because we had a test in 2008. Trojan horse Obama promised accountability and health care reform, and voter turnout spiked. Two years later, voters saw through Obama’s lies and they stayed home in disgust at the Democrats. Case closed.

4 Likes

This piece made my head hurt, all of the bouncing back and forth. The situation in 2020 is really simple, and unfortunately in the hands of the dem party.
If anyone but Sanders or Gabbard is on the ticket, Trump will win.
Some will say what about Warren? She has already walked back M4A (though few in the media reported it), by election time, the independents will realize she’s a capitalist, and they will stay home, or vote for Trump.

1 Like

If Bernie gets the nomination or Warren, I will vote for the Democratic Party, but never for Biden or any of the other Wall Street owned Democrats. If anything recent articles have shown that Pelosi and Shumer minus the hatred have entrenched the Democratic Party as nothing more than Trump toadies and sycophants. This article continues to entrench the oligarchy under a either/or ideology of fear mongering. Trump is certainly a contagion on the country but take away his fear mongering and what one has left is corporate hegemony pure and simple and no amount of whining about Trump is going to change the assaults on progressivism by the Democratic elite who are always in bed with money and their CEO HANDLERS. This is just another attempt to use fear to perpetuate Wall Street’s agenda.

1 Like

And even Warren I am having serious second thoughts about. Between mainstream corporate media starting to warm up to her and the rumors that she is using loopholes to take big donor cash even before the general I really don’t think she can be trusted. Sure she is not a Hillary or Biden but when I see her I see similar to the smooth talking Obama that helped deteriorate this country to the point where a proto-fascist like Trump can even take the presidency.

Warren is light years ahead of crooked Donald. Recent articles on CD have asserted that Wall Street has rejected both Warren and Sanders as the nominee outright. Warren is not perfect by any means but - like Sanders - she has been inimical to Wall Street her entire career.

2 Likes

I agree that is she much better than Trump. Like you I will likely vote for Warren should she become nominated. I just hope she doesn’t turn out to be a wet blanket like Obama was and lead to another Trump after her.

1 Like

The Democratic Party leadership has guaranteed that there will be no massive turnout. These right wing Democrats exist to hold the line against progressive reform.

You have to give the voter something to be exited about, something to turn out for. That is progressive policy—Medicare for All, paid college tuition and winding down this unnecessary perpetual war.

1 Like

This article was a joke, right?

Well, here’s how to make the joke even funnier: Do as the author proscribes and run to the right to attract moderate Republicans…then blame the left when you lose again.

You can never stop mining that scenario for comedy gold, Mr. Isaac, just ask Chuck Schumer:

“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

3 Likes

“We don’t need a test in a swing district to find out whether voters support progressive policies and candidates - because we had a test in 2008.”

There is more evidence:

  1. Sanders/primary to Trump/general voters w/o a candidate progressive on economy in critical swing states:
    [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study]

  2. The fabled ‘swing voter’ is conservative on social issues, progressive on economic ones; giving up on economic issues loses Democratic votes:
    [https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/13/what-swings-swing-voter]

  3. Contradicting many mainstream news articles, it has been persuasively argued that not racism but economic issues were the crucial issues that turned voters to Trump…:
    [https://theintercept.com/2018/10/31/donald-trump-2016-election-economic-distress/]

  4. …a point reinforced by recalling Trump’s ‘economic grievance’ themes in 2016: “The Biggest Legacy of the Financial Crisis is the Trump Presidency”:
    [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/the-biggest-legacy-of-the-financial-crisis-is-the-trump-presidency]

1 Like

Yeah, the point I’m getting from the article is something like… Well, you can burn the house down in 2 years (Trump) or 10 (Pelosi). Neither help you build a house (Bernie). It’s the same story we’ve heard… get the devil you know in, then work on reforming… which is problematic because the most reform I’ve ever seen (of people, not laws) is when Trump is in office. If Clinton was elected, how much longer would it take for the majority of people to want to build a house, rather than destroy it (or know they were destroying it). Maybe the big (hyperbolic) difference is one approach risks a slow death, the other a civil war.

Isaac claims that Murphy - the journalist critic of AOC-staffer Chakrabarti - “is not an enemy of the left.”

But, heavens, of course she’s not, Isaac!

Really, Murphy is just trying to save AOC from herself when she argues that progressives’ “open warfare with the speaker” was the real cause of Trump’s racist attacks on “the squad”:

"It’s hard to believe that AOC wanted the last two weeks to go as they have — with open warfare with the speaker and an intraparty fight so explosive that President Donald Trump jumped right into the middle of it by telling her and the rest of ‘the squad’ to ‘go back where they came from.’
[https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/does-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-need-a-chief-of-change-or-a-change-of-staff]

“The survival of even the most circumscribed democracy is unimaginable if Trump is reelected in 2020 and serves a second four-year term.”

Advance thanks for substantiating your unsupported claim, since it underpins your entire argument.

Slow death is preferable to a fast, violent one.

I suppose Isaac’s free to rave on. But it is deeply off-putting to see how far party pundits will go for excuses to avoid doing the party laundry.

Of course it is much easier to attack Trump than to support a candidate or work towards meaningful change in one’s own party. There’s no shortage of colorful moments. And of course it couldn’t be more convenient that corruption in DC should all come down to one guy.

Pundits have hauled out this “not the time to split the party” bilge every election year since at least 1960. Why does this principle not suggest that a reasonably popular candidate ought to be chosen instead of thwarted?

As a longtime Democrat, the offspring of Democrats, and the grandchild of Democrats, I have found problems in the Republican camp always too grotesquely obvious to spend a lot of time reviewing. I have been long in recognizing the extent of the darkness in what was my own party. These sorts of craven excuses for not doing the laundry and taking out the trash could not more effectively push the rot in my face were Isaac to wake up and realize how he comes across.

No, Isaac’s wrong. It is time and past time to make a challenge to the party orthodoxy that worked to install Trump as its opposition in '16, could not defeat him, and will not meaningfully alter its processes.

We cannot have a presidential election without a candidate. We cannot have a candidate without a nomination. The party can hand elections back to its voting base or rot.

2 Likes