Not for me: I always said Donald Trump had a strong chance to win the presidency in a country where tens of millions of people are economically insecure, racist and/or sexist. The far right impulse has always been strong in American politics. But Trump has shocked the media and political establishment by pulling a come-from-behind victory over the deeply flawed right-wing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Now we, and the world, must brace for the arrival of protofascism in the Oval Office, enabled by Republican rule over both houses of Congress.
What Do We Do Now?
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
43 Comments. Leave new
HRC supporters: Just to repeat myself. You did this. You would not be told. You would not listen. You wanted “girl power” and “first woman president” and to hell with Bernie Sanders because he’s crazy to want universal healthcare and a $15/hour minimum wage and so are his crazy supporters, so it’s okay for the DNC to help the Clinton campaign because HRC no longer things blacks should be brought to heel. She’s “evolved” on it. Just like gay marriage, which her demographics people tell her she now loves because it will get her some key contributors.
Incrementalism. Little steps. Just like the past 35 years. Just wait a little more. Just be patient. Just shut the hell up and suffer quietly, I have to go to Hillary’s wine social and give her a $50,000 check so I can have a plate of reheated chicken.
Congrats, Team Hillary. You did this. Everything that happens because of Trump is on you.
That’s exactly right. There will be a civil war within the American Left now. Time for DINOs like the Clintonistas to fuck off now.
Ted,
DINO isn’t the issue, all Democrats who have any sort of involvement with party leadership have to fuck off. Real Democrats are just as much of a problem, since they have no interest in change. There are of course some people who consider themselves Democrats who can become part of the new movement, but they’ll have to dump the notion that they’re Democrats first.
«There will be a civil war within the American Left now.» «American Left» ? The very definition of an oxymoron, particularly if one includes, as Ted seems to do, the «Clintonistas». If the percentage of votes garnered by Ms Stein – 1 % – is a reasonable measure of the strength of the Left in the United States, then this «civil war» seems more likely to be a tempest in a tea cup….
I fear creating a Left in the US is going to be a long hard slog, especially if those who attempt to do so wish to take the primrose path of using what remains of the Democratic Party….
Henri
Ted,
You raise a point I’ve been chewing over these past few days. Do you see the “new order” as something-something on the Right and a genuine Progressive group on the Left? It seems that the centrists have imploded completely. Perhaps a “be on the lookout” for the new progressivists who will be able to take over the Left is in order. …
I only hope the Progressive wing starts from a position of strength, no Clintonesque “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” bullshit.
I sent many messages like this to Team Hillary (mine used nastier language, because I feel viscerally on this issue). They crammed her down our throats, with the idea that we’d vote for whomever they told us to; even when most people clearly had other ideas and other candidates, they were insistent that it must be her. Both candidates, in fact, ended up feeling like being on the receiving end of a two-year long date rape.
do you really think any hillary supporters read ted? you’re preaching to the choir. which is kind of the problem. everyone (including ted) is so dismissive and condescending to anyone who doesn’t agree with them a hundred percent that no one ever listens to what anyone else has to say. you may be totally right on the issues but it doesn’t matter if no one even hears what you’re saying. sometimes it’s how you say something not what you say.
I don’t think Ted is condescending at all. He just gives his opinion. Part of that is that most people are wrong, which they are. Part of educating is first getting them to realize that. By explaining why they’re wrong. Can’t tell them they’re right, since they’re not.
If you read the gocomics comments, a LOT of Hillary supporters read Ted and blame him (and Dowd) for Trump’s winning the Electoral College (even though Trump lost the vote). They’ve been condemning Ted for years for being too far to the Left, and not a good neo-liberal like Clinton(s)/Blair/Obama.
(In the UK, the new and greatly improved Guardian says that Labour MUST return to Blair neo-liberalism, that Corbyn liberals are a complete disaster, than which the Conservatives are much better.)
pork is quite right. If you really want to persuade people you have first to convince them you’re on their side as opposed to being so stuck up your own ass. Then people are more open to be led. Instead of it being all about who is wrong or right. A conversation instead of an argument. People don’t like admitting they are wrong. Fortunately, they don’t have to in order to be persuaded. It is simply not requisite to the process. Try a little humility and understanding rather than the indignation and disbelief…I won’t hold my breath.
> If you really want to persuade people you have first to convince them you’re on their side…
Priceless.
Trump convinced 59M people that he is on their side. A grifter who made his name by conning the gullible just pulled off his longest con yet.
His marks are euphoric right now, and that shows just how good he is. I remember the first car I bought. I negotiated such a great deal, I was euphoric. Right up until I found out I’d paid far more than it was worth.
I like you, kid, no foolin’. I’m gonna cut you such a deal. If – in two years – you still believe Trump is on your side, I’ll sell you the Trump Taj Mahal at a yuuuuge discount.
Cash only, and small bills please.
Knew you couldn’t resist that, CH.
«If you read the gocomics comments, a LOT of Hillary supporters read Ted and blame him (and Dowd) for Trump’s winning the Electoral College (even though Trump lost the vote).» And I who thought it was those dastardly Russians – with a little help from Messrs Assange & Comey – wot done it ! And of course, the new and greatly improved Guardian is entirely right and those who think – and post – differently will be «moderated» out of existence on the few commentary threads that remain there….
Henri
> Russians – with a little help from Messrs Assange & Comey
Assange, I can forgive. He’s just doing what he’s always done. I do wonder whether the Rooskies gave him the info – I don’t like the idea of an outside party influencing the election. We’ve already got enough *inside* parties influencing the election.
Speaking of inside parties: Comey. His revelation and retraction were expertly timed to disrupt things. Did he push it over the edge? Dunno, but he sure has hell shouldn’t have played it that way. An agent doing so would be dismissed; but the freakin’ director of the freakin’ FIB? I think that’s spelled ‘treason.’
They. gave. Trump. nukes.
Remember this, as they did with all the presidents ever since the “football” was developed … the president does not carry it, instead his Praetorian Guard sustains possession. T-rump could never just walk into the Oval Office and decide to nuke Albania. Nuke-use is a necessarily “closed-community” decision. T-rump will have his codes, but not all of them. The Praetorian Guard sustains it dominating, circumstantial control. T-rump wants to play “Capitalism.” Kankles was looking forward to being the Mastress of global depopulation.
T-rump will never autocratically start a nuclear Armageddon, the Praetorian Guard would terminate him first..
DanD
This. For people who claim to be more informed than the ignorant masses, saying Trump alone can launch nukes is quite an ironic misconception.
«For people who claim to be more informed than the ignorant masses, saying Trump alone can launch nukes is quite an ironic misconception.» Surely he will have to get permission from «Jack Heart» before launching those devices ?…
Henri
I’m sure Mr.Trump could find some true believers to assist him. Do B-52’s launch?
And the SA is already with him. “The generals are coming over”, says der Fuhrer.
The only thing T-rump had to “come from behind” on were “opinion polls” that tried to manufacture a Hillary preference, and a corporately whored-out MSM that invented that preference from whole cloth. Just noticing, DT could have clipped his toenails too short, and the bloviating talking heads would have interpreted that as evidence of “popular” rejection. Walter Cronkite doesn’t live here anymore, not even Dan Rather.
Kankles really was set up to fail. The internet popularly revealed that “The Big Dog” was just a Caucasian version of Bill Cosby. Now that’s a stinky albatross to hang around any candidates neck. I hope T-rump remains truthful and prosecutes the Murderer of Libya to the fullest.
DanD
The corporate media and the Democratic Party believed their own bullshit.
The Democratic Party believed they could ignore the mood of the electorate (or manufacture it) and still win the election.
The Democrats tried to force Hillary on the people, and the Republicans in disarray weren’t able to, and won because they yielded to the inevitable even if involuntarily.
The old tree that couldn’t bend in the wind was blown over and uprooted, while the sapling stood up again after being bent by the storm.
Un-fucking-believable. In 2004, the Daily Mirror famously asked “”How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” I said then, “well, if we didn’t learn our lesson in the last four years, then we obviously need another lesson.”
Yet with 8 years of Bushit, a right-wing dominated congress, and a stacked supreme court we collectively didn’t learn a god damned thing.
Even if Hillary Clinton had won, we could have had the same exact conversation. How could anyone have voted for either one of them?
Yeah, no kidding.
> How could anyone have voted for either one of them?
They were told to.
The D’s and R’s have successfully divided the market. When was the last time someone won by more than a few percentage points of the popular vote? The electoral college makes it look like a landslide when in reality it’s a photo finish.
Each party conditions its members to think in terms of “you gotta vote for Jack Johnson, ‘cuz otherwise it’s the same as voting for John Jackson” That’s a thoroughly specious argument, but it only works when there are exactly two real choices.
Each party is great at fund raising and has the full support of the media – so the only way you can even play the game is if you play *their* game. How far would Bernie have made it running as a Socialist? He couldn’t have appeared on the Democratic debates, the media would have given him even less coverage, and nobody would know his name any more than they do Alyson Kennedy’s.
Indeed. May I suggest that a major part of the answer is that so-called third-party candidates are almost unknown to large sections of the US population and that many of those who do know of them and agree and sympathise with their positions are so influenced by «lesser-of-two-evils» ideology that they don’t dare vote for them, for fear of wasting their votes ?…
What could be a bigger waste of a vote than voting for either Ms Clinton or Mr Trump ?…
Henri
«Comey. His revelation and retraction were expertly timed to disrupt things. Did he push it over the edge? Dunno, but he sure has hell shouldn’t have played it that way. An agent doing so would be dismissed; but the freakin’ director of the freakin’ FIB? I think that’s spelled ‘treason.’» «Treason» against whom or what ? Against Ms Clinton ? Perhaps, but I suggest that she would do better to simply own her failure, rather than attempting – either directly or indirectly, through surrogates – to blame all and sundry, rather than herself, for it….
The interesting thing about the FBI here is not so much the fact that it announced that Ms Clinton was under investigation for her and her staff’s handling of emails, but rather the announcement that the agency had recommended the US Department of (In)Justice not to bring charges against her. Are such recommendations usually publicised ?…
Henri
> «Treason» against whom or what ?
Against the Untied States of America. [sic]
As with another thread of this discussion – government agents should not be in the business of determining who can be in the government. He could have just as easily announced that the feds were investigating Trump “University.”
Speaking of which, I see that Trump’s shysters have requested that the University suit be postponed until after Trump’s sworn in. Ironic, no?
«> «Treason» against whom or what ?
Against the Untied States of America.
…
He could have just as easily announced that the feds were investigating Trump “University.” » Well, I must admit that «Trump “University”» is indeed a vital matter of national security, against which the issue of Ms Clinton’s handling of her emails during her tenure as US Secretary of State pales by comparison….
Should the fact that on 5 July this year, the FBI recommended to the US Department of (In)Justice that Ms Clinton not be indicted (despite her being «extremely careless») been held secret ? Should, after the discovery of the relevance of the Anthony Wiener emails to the earlier investigation, the FBI have refrained from writing to eight Congressional committees on 28 October informing them of this fact ? Should Mr Comey on 6 November have refrained from writing to the committee chairmen to inform them that, after investigating the new trove of over 600 000 emails, the FBI would not change its recommendation against indicting Ms Clinton ?…
Should all of these statements have been held from the public ? If not all, which of them should have been released ?…
That Mr Trump’s shysters act in what they believe to be his best interests is hardly surprising, no more so than that Ms Clinton’s shysters act in hers. But we were talking about the FBI….
For what it’s worth, I submit that a jail cell would be the most fitting place for both these two charming individuals. Perhaps, in order to make the punishment fit the crime(s), they could get cells next to each other ?…
Henri
The larger question is, “Should a high-ranking member of the law enforcement community use his powers to influence an election?”
I say no, what say ye?
«If you can rephrase your post minus the petty insults I may decide to answer.» Ah, you will have to pardon me, «CrazyH», I had, during a momentary lapse, forgotten that I was replying to so thin-skinned an interlocutor ! But surely the punishment should be proportional to the crime – so condign a punishment as not receiving a (relevant) reply from so knowledgeable a poster as yourself is surely disproportional to my indiscretion, however grievous it may be….
Henri
You, sir, are a pompous buffoon with delusions of mediocrity. A pseudointellectual bubblehead whose vacuous “contributions” are typed with a single undersized finger on a keyboard sodden with un mélange de semi-fluides inidentifiables; second-hand thésaurus precariously balanced auf der rechten Knie, book of foreign words & phrases auf der linken Seite. You were conceived on the same dim street corner where your parents réndèzvöüsẻd for the first and only time. The solitary positive outcome of that brief encounter was that your mother learned to steal only the name brand ondumscay.
«You, sir, are a pompous buffoon with delusions of mediocrity.» Always a pleasure to read your well-considered posts, «CrazyH» and thank you especially for presuming to comment on my mother – not atypical of the sort of response one can expect when one has offended a hypersensitive person like yourself. I have no problem with your ignorance ; it is rather your oft-demonstrated inability and unwillingness to learn that I find so disgusting. Do continue, as I strongly suspect you will, to demonstrate both these traits on this thread ; rest assured that you will receive a response…. 😉
Henri
Henri – I have repeatedly told you that I don’t want to play this game with you. You seem incapable of having a conversation about a disagreement without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
If you were truly the intellectual you pretend to be, you would be able to defend your propositions with facts and logic, instead you use red herrings, non-sequiturs, and evasions. Should your audience be unimpressed by your display of “brilliance,” you resort to insults.
It’s all rather tiresome.
«The larger question is, “Should a high-ranking member of the law enforcement community use his powers to influence an election?”» I note, CrazyH, that you avoid discussing the specific issues I raise. What you don’t seem to recognise is that failure to act on the part of «a high-ranking member of the law enforcement community» – or, for example, a major newspaper – is equally likely «to influence an election» as acting. A simple yea or nay to acting doesn’t cut it….
Henri
> I note, CrazyH, that you avoid discussing the specific issues I raise.
I note, Henri, that you avoid answering the larger question I ask. First we decide upon guiding principals, then we can discuss specific cases.
Since you seem to be defending this one, specific case, I must conclude that you are in favor of allowing law enforcement officials to influence the election in general.
I am not regardless of the target.
«I note, Henri, that you avoid answering the larger question I ask. First we decide upon guiding principals [sic !], then we can discuss specific cases.» No, CrazyH, that’s not the case – the general principles can only be elucidated from the specific case, otherwise we have no way of knowing, in this case, what is to be understood by a question like «[s]hould a high-ranking member of the law enforcement community use his powers to influence an election?» The point is that for a person like Mr Comey, not acting is as likely to influence elections as acting is. But since you are determined not to understand this fact, you certainly will continue to fail to do so….
So it goes….
Henri
Now play nice, Henri. If you can rephrase your post minus the petty insults I may decide to answer.
I am a HRC voter and I read and appreciate Ted. Keep up the eternal vigilance my friend!
You are the kind of HRC voter the US desperately needs a lot more of.
The ironic thing is that the victorious proto-fascist seems (please note the modal verb cop out) less likely to start wars of aggression abroad than the defeated neocon warmonger corruption Queen, who, to my mind, has a greater claim to das Eiserne Kreuz….
Henri
Hillary’s words and actions pretty much prove she’d have started a war with Russia. Her advisers (and a LOT of commentators on newspaper articles and comics) said that the current Russian military is on a par with Libya, and regime change in Russia would be as easy as, or easier than, regime change in Libya, and could be done with absolutely no risk to Americans. Were these idiots right? (I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.)
Trump’s words are all contradictory. He’s slain more (Emerson) hobgoblins than Gandalf slew (Middle Earth) hobgoblins. But Trump’s main theme is strict isolationism (and I hope that’s what he’ll really do). I was taught in school that US isolationism was the main cause of WWI and WWII (but I don’t believe what I was taught any more). I don’t think isolationism is good, just that it’s better than droning brown people and getting accolades from the MSM for keeping the West safe.