Speakfaithfully

These two and the economic ideology they represent paved the way for Trump.

While I have criticized the Green Party and see our future under Trump and the GOP as very bleak, most of my anger from the election of 2016 is actually at the Democratic Party. The Democratic party claims to be the liberal, progressive party that takes care of the average person and is concerned about the fate of the marginalized. The Democrats were running against the least favorable presidential candidate of all time that voters from both major political parties had major reservations about. This election was theirs to lose as it appeared a ham sandwich could have run against Trump and won.

And yet by a mixture of their hubris, Machiavellian strategies, and corruption they lost the election. While the many reasons that led to this historic loss deserve consideration, I believe the fundamental reason the Democrats lost (and have lost big in the last eight years) is their defense of the status quo. By the “status quo” I mean both the present circumstances that exist in the U.S. and the current direction and speed the U.S. is drifting in as guided by neoliberal capitalism. The Democratic Party’s commitment to this status quo cost them the Presidential election for some fairly simple reasons. The status quo is miserable for many, anti-establishment sentiment was a strong factor in this election, and their chosen candidate could not have better represented business as usual in D.C.

The Status Quo is Horrible for Many Americans 

People across the United States, from all kinds of identities, communities, and political leanings are upset about the status quo.

Liberals and progressives voted for Obama who ran on a “Hope and Change” platform. The Democrats have delivered very little of the change many liberals hoped for. However, most people, conservative and liberal alike, are upset for reasons closer to home: most worry about their own material conditions and financial futures. Exit polling showed that 52% of voters listed the economy as the most pressing challenge faced by the United States. Years after the recession of 2008, people are still very worried about their ability to provide for themselves, their families and pursue the American dream.

Democratic Party’s Allegiance to Capitalism Makes them Culpable in this Misery

Whatever they think about LGBT issues, immigration, women’s rights or multiculturalism, etc. Democrats are capitalists and this means that average people will be oppressed by the wealthy elite under any Democratic Party regime. The neoliberal capitalistic economics of the Democrats, adopted during the Bill Clinton years, is a form of “trickle-down-economics” they often mock the GOP for supporting. The deregulation of the banking industry under Bill Clinton rather directly enabled the 2008 recession. Democratic commitment to neoliberal capitalism hindered any real or half-hearted attempt to help the average U.S. citizen in the wake of the recession.

While the Democrats love to tout the jobs Obama added to the economy during his tenure, any analysis of the economy deeper than reading a meme on Facebook revealed things are very bad. 94% of the new jobs added under Obama were part-time and temporary jobs. Incomes for the 99% fell. As of 2014 statistics and analysis, the recession never ended for Black and Brown families. While Dodd-Frank was enacted, its ability to protect us from another financial collapse was debatable. (This is now a moot point to debate since it was repealed.) The banks were bailed out and banksters who looted the wealth of the world were protected by the Obama admin and walked free while average people lost their homes or were locked up for the smallest of infractions. Under Obama, health insurance costs rose year after year, as did college tuition. The middle class has shrunk and in a dramatic reversal of decades of precedent, the current generation of young adults will likely make less than their parents.

Understandable Anti-Establishment Fervor

Given these conditions, it is no surprise then that in the election season there was a strong anti-establishment fervor. Many citizens are sick and tired of the increasingly miserable status quo and yearn for someone who can bring change to our government and society. A majority of voters listed the ability to bring about change as the top quality they looked for in a President. People flocked to hear anti-establishment candidates like Trump and Sanders. Both candidates made it clear that they saw people’s suffering and wanted to bring change, but explained the root cause of their suffering and the proposed solutions differently. Trump played upon white anxieties, anti-immigrant sentiment, fears of terrorism, and racism to fuel his populist and nativist rise. Sanders identified the oppressors exploiting America as the wealthy elite, banks and corporate institutions that had rigged the system against the average person.

The Democratic Party Insisted on Defending the Status Quo 

The Democratic Party intentionally disregarded people’s hatred for the status quo. While Democratic, Republican, Independent and unaffiliated voters were calling for radical change the Democratic establishment loudly and clearly said “no” by their rhetoric and choices in the 2016 election cycle.

The DNC/HRC Campaign argued that now was not the time for dramatic change in a more progressive direction . They argued that the status quo was already progressive “enough” despite clear economic indications it was not working for most citizens. They argued that Trump was such an existential threat to the nation that the party could not risk running Sanders, a candidate who railed against the status quo. The DNC claimed that it was far better to protect the way things are than to shoot for the moon and end up with nothing. Any proposals the DNC/HRC Campaign offered to address issues many citizens were concerned with were constrained by their commitment to neoliberal capitalism. Constrained by this ideological commitment these proposals, like their predecessors in the last eight years, fell far short of the dramatic change many increasingly see as necessary.

The Democratic Party Insisted on Running A Status Quo Candidate

The DNC also insisted on running Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the status quo. Clinton was appointed as the nominee long before any Democrat cast a vote in a primary and the DNC operated as an extension of the HRC campaign throughout the primaries. The DNC systemically undermined Sanders and favored Clinton, in violation of their own ethics and the democratic process of the primaries. Polling data made it clear that in a direct match-up Sanders would win over Trump and was far more popular than Clinton and yet despite claiming everything needed to be done to stop Trump, the DNC continued to insist on the candidate least likely to defeat Trump. Sanders’ wins in the Democratic primary in battleground states, despite the DNC’s bias towards Clinton, were clear warning signs that Clinton was vulnerable and her election was not inevitable. While it is not surprising that a DNC stacked with Clinton loyalists would favor Clinton, the unethical and corrupt lengths the DNC went to tilt the vote in favor of Clinton, and the fact that they did this despite the signs that this might cost them the election, is alarming.

While one might debate the merits of polling data, Sander’s potential in a general election, the benefits of hindsight and Clinton’s strengths and weaknesses, one thing cannot be denied: Clinton was and is an establishment candidate that represents the status quo. Clinton is a career politician, the wife of a previous President and a D.C. insider who has been personally enriched by her political power for years. This meant she was exactly the wrong type of candidate to capture the anti-establishment fervor of the past election season or run against it. While Sanders was far more electable than Clinton, and would have capitalized on this anti-establishment energy instead of running against it, the Democratic Party knowingly committed themselves to a far less feasible candidate because that candidate would preserve the status quo.

The Swan Song of the HRC Campaign

Perhaps the greatest example of Democratic Party’s devotion to the status quo under neoliberal capitalism was their adoption of the slogan, “America is already Great.” It was precisely at this moment in the campaign that I personally assumed a Trump presidency was likely if not inevitable. Elite, wealthy, comfortable Democrats were telling people suffering under the status quo, a status quo that Democrats had a hand in making and preserving, that things were already great. While there were more nuanced discussions about “work that needed to be done” this slogan broadcast to the American public that the Democratic Party was disconnected from their reality. Even worse, the Democrats viewed the grueling circumstances of average people as something to be celebrated as “great.” This incensed Trump supporters who already felt overlooked and discouraged Democratic voters who felt Democrats leaders were telling them to settle for what they desperately wanted to see changed.

Nevertheless, they persisted.

The status quo is increasingly miserable for most U.S. citizens, and we get that at a visceral level if not in a nuanced and well-thought out way. The Democrats know this. Polling data, economic data, and social data that Democratic strategist, think-tanks and leaders all have access to and obsess over make this abundantly clear. They are not ignorant. They did not “just miss” this. The Democrats know that continuing to preserve the status quo of neoliberal capitalism makes them increasingly unpopular. The Democrats know they must attempt to obscure these facts or find/create a greater evil to focus voters on in order to remain politically viable.

Nevertheless, they persisted (and continue to persist) in defending the status quo and attempting to distract from this underlying reality. This is probably due to the very simple reason that the status quo benefits the Democrats in many ways and they are more concerned about representing the financial interests that enrich them personally and fund their political campaigns than they are actually representing the interests of their constituents.

Sanders financial support from small donors proved that if politicians take the side of the people, the people will take care of the fundraising necessary. This means the Democratic loyalty to the status quo in D.C. is a choice, not a problematic necessity of U.S. politics. Additionally, the fate of the Democrats in the last eight years should make it clear that the coercive tactic of “lesser evilism” has lost its power. It appears the lives of many voters are so bad under Democrats the threat, “it would be worse under the GOP” has lost its edge. If the Democrats desire to remain a politically viable party, they need to attend to the needs of the people they claim to represent, not remain committed to an economic ideology that enables the exploitation of many and corrupts what is left of our democracy.

Unity In Revolutionary Movements

According to some who study revolutions, there are at least two basic types of revolutionary guerrilla movements that are differentiated by their origins. One type of movement arises when one social group (such as peasants and workers) rises up against their oppressors that exist in the same society (such as land-owners and capitalists). The other type of movement arises when an outside invader occupies a country and a resistance movement including everyone from the occupied society naturally and spontaneously develops. These two basic types of guerrilla movements have notable differences, among them are the challenges they face to internal cohesiveness and unity.

In the movements that arise from internal oppression within a society, the cohesiveness of the movement is relatively easy to establish. This is because the guerrilla movement is made up of people with many shared identities, experiences, motivations and overall goals; the members of the movement experienced the same oppression and are rising up to end it.

In the second type of movement that stems from foreign occupation, the cohesiveness and unity of the movement can be difficult to establish. This is because the guerrilla movement is made of up different groups that have been forced to align by the occupation that threatens all groups. This means the movement will be made up of people with different identities, experiences, motivations and overall goals. It may very well even include groups that are antagonistic or oppressive to other groups in the resistance.

The Trump and GOP Occupation of our Government

In many ways those of us on the Left in the United States have experienced the election of Trump and GOP retention of control in Congress and future control of the Supreme Court as a foreign occupation. While those in power share our nationality, they are “foreign” in that their agenda is consistently opposed to our interests and we understand the GOP as fundamentally hostile to us. While those in power were elected, we are all being forced to accept an agenda that even a minority of those who voted for Trump fully and actively support.

It is no surprise then that like a foreign occupation, the advent of the current government has inspired a resistance movement that naturally and spontaneously developed. Like a resistance inspired by foreign occupation, our resistance shares the same challenges to unity and cohesiveness. Many different groups from within our society have been forced to align because of the danger we see in Trump and the GOP. This new resistance movement is made up of people with many different identities, experiences, motivations, and goals as well as many groups that are antagonistic and oppressive towards one another.

If we can learn anything from revolutionary theory in this moment, it is while this resistance is encouraging, its origin means that it will be challenging to establish cohesiveness and unity within our ranks. These challenges need to be addressed quite intentionally if we are to make significant progress. While there are a myriad of specific challenges to be addressed, there are a number of things I think we should keep in mind as we attempt to build unity within this resistance.

Do not use the Threat of Trump to Silence Dissent

There wasn’t even a disagree button…talk about silencing dissent.

The Clinton campaign worked to engineer the threat of a Trump presidency. After Trump won the primary, they then attempted to flatten any criticism of the Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton with the threat of a Trump presidency. “Do you want Trump to win!?” became an acceptable response to valid concerns about Clinton’s candidacy, Democratic policy and the direction of the party overall. “Lesser-evilism” was a core strategy of Clinton’s campaign from the beginning and the greater evil was Trump.

While Clinton ended up winning the popular vote, buoyed by millions of voters who voted to stop Trump despite misgivings about Clinton, I do not think this tactic succeeded as she lost the election, as did many other Democrats in Congressional races. It shielded the Democratic Party from examining their own weaknesses and areas where they can and should change, undermining them in the long-run. It sowed resentment on the Left as many recognized the coercive tactic for what it was.

Such an approach is not going to inspire unity after the election anymore than it did before the election. So while we recognize the threat of Trump has arrived, it should not be used to silent dissent within the Left or evade responsibility for problems with individuals or groups that are within the Left. Statements like, “Stop criticizing X, or you’re going to breed disunity and Trump will stay in power!” has no place in our resistance.

Leftists who have been engaged need to patiently educate the new arrivals:

Undocumented trans activist Jennicet Gutierrez heckling Obama over the plight of undocumented LGBT people. She was shouted down by documented LGBT activists who wanted to celebrate Obama and marriage equality.

Many of the Left have felt threatened or marginalized by the State or our society, even  under Obama, and have been actively organizing and working on these issues for years. Many of us recognize that Trump’s policies are an escalation of the already problematic and unjust status quo, and not some break with a normally just society.  It is tempting for such people to scoff at or harshly criticize the liberals who are now suddenly active because they now feel threatened as well. A recent concrete example of this are the Women’s Marchers who marked this election as the first time they felt threatened and their need to “do something.” It is not unfair to ask, “Where have you been the last several years on these issues?” However, we should temper rightly deserved criticism and challenge with patience.

All of us, at one point or another, on one issue or another, can point to a time when we were not aware of injustices that needed to be addressed, how we might be complicit in them, or how to best address them. This is still an ongoing conversation and learning process for all of us if we are honest. This is especially true of injustice that doesn’t impact us, or people from our community or the identities we claim.

While it is fair and important to bring people to task for their ignorance, inactivity or partisan morality, it is perhaps best to direct it all towards the overall goal of continuing education and engagement not “winning” points against others in the resistance. If the resistance devolves into “Oppression Olympics,” privilege-bashing parties, or arguments about who is was “woke” first, then it is going to be fruitless resistance.

If there ever was a time for those previously engaged in activism to educate others, it is now. Millions of people are upset and asking about how to oppose Trump, how to get engaged, and how to help improve our society and oppose injustice. This is a good thing that seasoned organizers should be taking full advantage of. As Kwame Ture once said, “The job of the conscious is to make the unconscious conscious,” and now is an ideal time for that.

Overall left-leaning activists who have been engaged in this work for years, need to temper their understandable annoyance and frustration with new arrivals as they take their first steps and grow in their thinking and praxis. We have to bear with one another at times if we are going to build with one another long-term.

New arrivals need to be humble, introspective and teachable.

Those fresh to the fight for justice need to temper their enthusiasm, righteous indignation and passion with humility. My own political journey from hard-line right-winger to where I am today was long and filled with mistakes. I cringe at some of the things I said and did, even when I thought I had “arrived” at a far more progressive place in my thinking and praxis. I share this because this is a common experience as people grow in their understanding of injustice and resistance to it.

It is important that new arrivals strive to be humble and teachable as they engage seriously in politics, perhaps for the first time. New arrivals should not assume because you are active now, that’s the end of their political journey. New arrivals should not assume that because they were not politically active or outraged before, that others were not. New arrivals should not place themselves at the center of attention, even when and where they are the majority. New arrivals should not shout down the concerns or shut out the criticism from other groups they are aligned with.

New arrivals also need to seriously question why they were complacent before when so many others were negatively impacted by polices they ignored or even defended. Such people need to ask very difficult questions of themselves. Why did I initially support the invasion of Iraq that left hundreds of thousands dead and led to the rise of IS? Why did many white women stay home when undocumented women, women of color, and LGBT women need their support over the last several year but then suddenly march after Trump’s inauguration? Why are the Meryl Streep’s of this world silent on the violence represented by Clinton and Obama but vocal in opposition to the violence represented by Trump?  Why were mass demonstrations against the banning of Muslim refugees organized but no mass demonstrations against the Democratic led bombing campaigns and wars that made many Muslims refugees? Why was corruption and nepotism excusable under Clinton, but now not under Trump? Why is Trump’s racist rhetoric more alarming than the racist impact of many status quo policies (including those supported by the Democrats)? These questions, and the answers to them, should not and cannot be avoided.

New Arrivals should not just engage in introspection but seek to actively learn from those who have been active for years. New arrivals should not put their comfort above the criticism they receive from others about their present actions and past inaction. Sometimes criticism that we need to hear comes from a gentle nudge by those more experienced than us, or a stern rebuke, but we can and should grow from both. I encourage many of the new arrivals to this resistance to seek out people who have been active for years that are willing to educate you on issues you have not previously considered.

Intentionally Address Inter-Group Conflict Instead of Ignoring It

Filipino farm workers and Mexican farm workers were often pitted against each other by land owners and used to break each others strikes. Unity had to be built and these conflicts could not be avoided before success was achieved.

Inter-group conflict does not just exist in this new resistance between seasoned activists and new arrivals. By the members that make up our impromptu resistance, it is primed to rapidly dissolve over long-standing issues and the intersection between our various identities the oppression and privileges they represent.

There are White Trump resisters who are anti-Black.  There are Black Trump resisters who are homophobic. There are LGBT Trump resisters who are unconcerned with the oppression of the undocumented. There are undocumented Trump resisters who care little about the bombings of Muslim countries. There are Muslim Trump resisters who scorn Asians for their model minority status. There are Asian Trump resisters who ignore the plight of the poor. There are poor Trump resisters who are anti-Indigenous and thoroughly colonial in their mentality. Etc.

The unity forced on our groups by the threat of Trump and the GOP is cheap and temporary. There are many inter-group conflicts that could take years if not decades to fully address but we cannot shy away from this task. It is tempting to seek to avoid these conflicts, perhaps by trying to focus on the threat posed to everyone by Trump and the GOP, or ignoring or explaining away these conflicts. But this simply will not do.

Part of our work moving forward is to turn this cheap unity of necessity and convenience into a robust unity that can shape a more just society. This lasting unity can only be realized if we acknowledge our past and present conflicts and work to resolve them.

Building Real Unity in This Resistance Will be Hard but it is Necessary

It is going to be way harder than this stock photo.

Unity of our movement will be hard to build.  It require patience, empathy, and putting ourselves into a listening and learning posture more often than not. This is not easy to do. This is especially not easy to do with Trump and the GOP constantly pushing their limits. However, this is a worthy and necessary goal. If we fail to develop a unified resistance movement our resistance is likely to be ineffectual in stopping or Trump or will only manage to return us to the status quo, which is where a large number of progressives feel the oppression in the U.S. is at tolerable levels.

His actual slogan should be, “Make the Poor and Marginalized Suffer More”

I’m tempted to not even write this post as the first few steps of the Trump presidency and those in the coming weeks and months will make my point better than I can. However, for the record, I believe Trump and the GOP controlling our government for the next several years will be bad for just about every average person (the 99%) and really good for corporate and financial interests (the 1%). I say this for a number of reasons.

The overall GOP agenda is hurtful to the average person, and to marginalized communities especially.

While Trump’s campaign slogan was to “Make America Great Again” the GOP agenda solves problems that do not exist, endanger the public, and enrich the already wealthy. It is hard to see how any of this will “Make America Great Again”

First, the GOP supports our continued reliance on dirty energy sources in general and the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines in specific.  This ignores abundantly available scientific evidence for human-caused climate change and the dangers of it that have been acknowledged even by the likes of Exxon and the DoD. This ignores the fact that renewable energy is becoming more profitable and employing more people than the oil and coal industry, creating jobs at 12 times the rate of any other sector. This ignores the fact that the coal industry’s decline is irreversible and will be long-term. This ignores the fact that the pipelines will not impact consumer costs. (The Keystone XL pipeline is shipping Canadian oil to Chinese consumers, and the Dakota Access Pipeline is cutting transportation costs for the companies behind the Bakken Shale fracking operations. Neither of this will result in gas prices at the pump being lower.) This ignores the fact that jobs that are created with pipeline construction are temporary and dangerous. The GOP is so in the tank for dirty energy that they have even pushed legislation to allow for oil exploration in national parks, though this was stopped by hunters and conservationists. While pursuing this agenda regarding U.S. energy may enrich large wealthy corporations that lobby and donate to the GOP, it endangers the average person economically and environmentally.

Second, the GOP is pursuing legislation that solves no problem or will fail to solve the problem they claim to be addressing. There are a number of transgender bathroom bills being supported by GOP representatives that solve no problem. There are not enough examples of transgender persons acting inappropriately in bathrooms, let alone a systemic problem with it, to warrant any legislation. The GOP has supported a ban on refugees from countries that have never attacked us, based on the fear that terrorist disguised as refugees might infiltrate our borders. Aside from two non-fatal attacks by people from the nations impacted by this ban, there have been no fatal attacks (terrorist or otherwise) from nationals of those countries. Additionally many more U.S. citizens are killed a host of domestic issues than by Islamic terrorism. Since 9/11, foreign terrorists have killed a U.S. citizen at the rate of about one per year. The greater terrorist threat we face is home-grown domestic terror threats from white-wing extremists which Trump and the GOP are going to ignore. Another example of this legislation is the border wall with Mexico.This will cost billions of dollars, even by the most conservative estimate, and it is clear the U.S. taxpayer will be paying for it. While undocumented immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed, building a wall is highly unlikely to resolve the issue driven by a host of social, economic and political factors. The GOP is pursuing legislation that solves fictional problems that does not exist, and is pursuing bad legislation that does not solve problems that actually do exist. This hurts the average person by wasting tax-payer money and adding unnecessary divisive legislation that is often discriminatory in nature.

Third, as the GOP is pushing pointless legislation it is paradoxically pursuing an agenda of deregulation, citing excessive government overreach and burdensome and needless legislation.  While some government regulation is without a doubt useless or even hurtful, they seem to be focusing on revoking laws that help us, keep us safe, or have widespread public support. For example they removed laws that prevented the severally mentally ill from purchasing firearms.  They have removed legislation that prevented coal companies from dumping coal ash into rivers. They are also intent on ending net-neutrality rules regarding the internet. By removing legislation in the name of “fighting federal over-reach” they are putting most people at the mercy of large corporations; many of these restrictions protected the average citizen from price gouging or environmental poisoning by companies looking to cut costs by taking short cuts and improperly dumping waste products from their industries.

Fourth, the GOP is pursuing tax reform that overwhelming benefit the wealthy elite. The GOP has continued to push for an end to the estate tax which would benefit only the richest in our society.  They are also angling to give corporations who have dodged taxes for years by stashing it abroad the option to bring it home to the U.S. at very low tax rates.  This is hurtful to everyone as it allows wealth to concentrate into the hands of the already incredibly wealthy, which they then in turn use to buy the loyalty of politicians so they can pass legislation that is enriching to them but is at odds with the interest of the average citizen.

Fifth, while Trump struck an isolationist foreign policy tone during his campaign, the GOP foreign policy has remained largely intact. In many ways the GOP is continuing the foreign policy of Bush and Obama, with the resurrection of the worst of Bush-era tactics. Trump has already provoked China, a near-peer nuclear super powers, and his closest adviser believes a war with China is coming within the next couple of years. Trump has authorized military strikes in countries we are not technically at war with, killing a number of civilians, including children, in the process. This militaristic foreign policy is hurtful to all of us.  Defense spending eats the majority of our budget, leaving little for other more beneficial social programs. Our endless Global War on Terror has not made us or the world any safer.  Any potential war with a near-peer nuclear super-power would leave millions dead and accomplish what exactly?  Also, any war involves the risk of death, disability, disease and displacement to the average person; it is not the wealthy who fight or stand to lose anything in these wars, it is the rest of us.

Sixth, the GOP will attempt to advance its policies around culture-war wedge issues, especially in regards to abortion and marriage equality. Beyond hurting the groups directly impacted by the imposition of “Christian values” through legislation, these types of legislation are also often counter-productive. This can perhaps be best seen in the looming actions regarding abortion. While appointing a Supreme Court judge that is pro-life may sound good, this judge is also very pro-corporation which will end up hurting the average person as the Supreme Court becomes more tilted towards the wealthy elite. Banning abortions, defunding abortion providers, defunding sex-education or supporting only abstinence only sex-education, and making it harder to access abortion are also not effective ways to decrease abortion rates. Increased sex-education and access to contraceptives (especially long-acting-reversible-contraceptives) are far better ways to lower unwanted pregnancies and abortions (and respect the rights of others in our pluralistic democracy). Pursuing a hard-line agenda on wedge issues hurts everyone as the pursuit of wedge issues deepens divisions in our country, making us easier marks for the wealthy elite, and are often not the best ways to pursue our goals.

Trump has set up a cabinet of the 1% for the 1%

These people will help shape the future of our nation for their benefit.

Beyond the general direction of the GOP agenda Trump’s cabinet picks and close advisers do not bode well for us either. As his team assembled I felt like it was the #LegionOfDoom assembling, but with more money, more conflicts of interest and less competence.

Trump’s cabinet picks are marred by a mixture of deep financial conflicts of interest (DeVos, Tillerson and Price), racism (Sessions and Bannon) incompetence and a lack of government experience (Carson), torture apologists (Pompeo), with a number of them being clearly antagonistic to the very job they are supposed to do (Puzder, Pruitt and Perry) and a number coming from the very swamps Trump promised to drain (like Mnuchin, Ross, Cohn, and others joining his administration).

Given the number of corporate leaders and financial elites Trump has included in his administration at the highest levels, it is no surprise that this is the richest cabinet ever assembled. It should shock no one that this cabinet is already pursuing legislation that financially benefits the wealthy elite but puts the world at greater risk for another financial crisis. In many ways instead of “draining the swamp” of financial interests poisoning our democracy, Trump abandoned all pretense and put them in direct power instead of making them maintain the facade of a functioning Democracy by using lobbyists. This is a rank betrayal of any Trump supporters who hoped he would reign in corruption in D.C.

Trump and the GOP agenda will be a disaster for most people.

These trends are not going to reverse under Trump.

Overall, the GOP agenda appears to be a problematic mix of ineffective solutions to real problems that face us, hurtful solutions to non-existent problems, and legislation that will enrich the already extremely wealthy. Trumps advisers and cabinet members for the most part are problematic members of the 1% who will use their new positions to undermine the very roles they are supposed to fill in order to enrich themselves and their peers at great cost to the American people. The net impact of their agenda in the coming years will not “Make America Great Again” (however that was envisioned) but continue enriching the elite at great cost to the rest of us.

Artist’s rendition of the progressive wilderness ahead.

Barring some unlikely scenarios, the GOP will effectively be in control of all branches of government for at least the next two years. Progressive citizens can protest this all we want, but even if we were completely unified (which we are not) our representatives are numerically incapable of blocking Trump or the Congress from passing regressive legislation or appointees that will hurt many communities we care about.

How those opposed to the GOP agenda respond in the coming weeks, months, and two years before the next Congressional election is critical. In 2018 there is a chance to challenge the GOP control of Congress. Not only is this important as it is the most potent and feasible way to change the balance of power in the federal government, but it will have a great impact on the re-drawing of districts after the census of 2020. If the GOP retains control in 2018 in Congress, they could re-district the nation in ways favorable to GOP candidates, helping to shore up their chances in future elections.

While I am encouraged by the responses to some of Trump’s actions that have happened already, I am thinking more broadly and more-long term about how progressives can flip the balance of power. I am also thinking about what progressives can work towards rather than always being reacting to the GOP’s actions. Over the next two years (and beyond) I want to commit my finite energy and resources to the most effective and promising ways to oppose the regressive GOP legislation, so I have been thinking about this a lot. In this long, multi-page post (use the numbers at the bottom to change pages) I wanted to share my thoughts at length as I’m sure others are in the same boat.

Looking forward I see a few broad options available to progressives, some of which are more viable than others, and none of them are really good or easy.

Numerous articles have circulated  accusing the Green Party and Jill Stein for costing Clinton the election. These have not just been fringe ramblings of disgruntled relatives and friends on Facebook, but published stories in respected media outlets. This has spawned many memes and accusations labeling Stein as everything from the “Ralph Nader of 2016” to a puppet for Putin who doomed us to President Trump and the consequences of that presidency. The problem is these accusations are false and even a rudimentary examination of available data reveals that.

This Accusation Is Based on a Faulty Assumption

First, this entire argument is founded on the assumption Green Party votes are owed to the candidate from another party. We are being blamed for failing to vote for the candidate from another political party. It is not the Green Party’s responsibility to elect the candidate from another party, it is our responsibility to campaign for our candidates. It is our fault Stein did not win. It is not our fault Clinton did not win. The Democratic party does not have ownership of my vote and I did not wrongfully give that vote to someone else.

If the Democratic Party (or the Green Party, or any party for that matter) wants more votes, they need to organize and engage with voters and convince them that their party has the voter’s interests at heart. They need to communicate how the party’s proposals for the future and past track record deserve to be voted for. 

Some argue that the Green Party voters should have recognized the dire stakes in this election, and registered and voted as Democrats, despite their reservations about Clinton and the Democratic Party, because the Democrats align with them on so many issues and Trump posed such a threat to those values.

However, Democrats were not convincing enough in their outreach to Green Party voters to win us over. They were equally unable to convince the millions of Americans who did not vote or other Independents who were up for grabs. This is all not the fault of the Green Party as it is not the Green Party’s job to convince people to vote for another party’s candidate or to be more amenable to arguments to defect from their party.

Publicly Available Data Contradicts This Accusation

Second, all of these accusations are contradicted by even a basic assessment of publicly available data. The total number of Green votes in swing states Clinton lost to Trump were only larger than Trump’s margin of victory in Wisconsin and Michigan. Even if Greens had supported Clinton and Clinton had won in these states, Clinton still would have lost the electoral college 258 to 280. Earlier assessments that votes for Stein were larger than Trump’s margin of victory in Pennsylvania were incorrect. That means that even if every Green voter, in every state where Green Party members could vote for Stein, had suddenly flipped their registration and voted for Clinton, Clinton still would have lost to Trump.

Additionally, many Green Party voters indicated that they would have stayed home, voted for Johnson, or even voted for Trump if Stein was not on the ballot. Therefore, it cannot be safely assumed that Green voters would have unanimously flocked to Clinton if Stein had never ran. Additionally, one cannot clearly argue that the mere existence of an alternative progressive party significantly decreases the Democrats chance for winning as many Green Voters would never vote for Democratic candidates even if the Green Party didn’t exist. 

Even if one insists on assuming that all Green voters would go to Democrats and all Libertarian voters would vote Republican if the other parties had stayed out the race completely, Trump’s margin of victory in the relevant states would have actually increased.

Stein’s Criticism of Clinton Likely Had No Impact on Support for Clinton

Third, sometimes the argument is made that Stein’s criticism of Clinton had a chilling effect on Democratic voters, either convincing them to be less vocal in their support for Clinton, to refuse to vote, or even to switch parties. I could not find data pertinent to the theory that Stein’s message swayed Democratic voters, but I find it highly unlikely this had any major impact on the election give what information is available to us. 

The Green Party earned less than 1% of the national votes, and it does not appear the Green Party has any significant influence over the American voters (and that is our fault). How could we be simultaneously influential enough with American voters to cost Clinton the election, but not influential enough to even be on the ballot in 50 states?

Additionally, Stein received a minute fraction of media exposure this entire election cycle. The media was encouraged to by HRC’s campaign and had financial interests in covering Trump’s controversial statements and it gave him, and to a lesser extent Clinton, the lion’s share of all coverage.  This means the message of Stein and the Green Party received little exposure, including any parts of our message that were critical of Clinton and the Democrats. The high point of coverage related to Stein happened when she achieved 3.9% of television mentions in comparison to other presidential candidates. For most of the election she received far less coverage than that. This spike was also during the recount effort Stein led, after the election had taken place. So even if Stein’s message was convincing enough to Democrats to get them to not vote for Clinton, one wonders how they even heard this message?

Democrats who insist on this argument then should ask why this message was convincing to enough Democrats to impact the election given such a small amount of exposure. What problems with Clinton did Stein highlight were so compelling that it soured support for Clinton, and do they persist in the Democratic Party and its candidates? Are they alleging Stein lied about Clinton’s record and many Democrats were gullible enough to fall for a message they barely heard mentioned?

This argument that Stein’s message lowered Democratic voter turnout is a speculative argument to make and a speculative argument to counter so perhaps future data might prove this claim correct, but I think this is highly improbable due to the many other factors in this election and what has already been considered.

Democrats Need to Stop Blaming External Factors and Accept Responsibility

The Green Party did not win, so we did not stop the Proto-facism of Trump or the Neo-liberalism of Clinton, and that is on us, but the Green Party did not cost the Democrats this election.These journalistic pieces leveling accusations at Stein are a vehicle for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for their loss, not journalism a meant to inform the public or further important political conversation. Any jabs or memes at the Green Party carrying the same accusation are equally without truth and simply an attempt to escape responsibility. As a member of the Green Party I refuse to be the fall-guy for the problems in the Democratic party, a party that I have absolutely nothing to do with.

For anyone serious about the Democratic Party’s future prospects, blaming the Green Party for Clinton’s loss is counter-productive. Democrats need to stop flailing around seeking to blame external factors for their failing party and engage in some serious introspection and self-criticism (as Green Party members need to do in regards to our own inability to win). The Green Party did not cost the Democrats this election this year, or the 70 Congressional seats, 910 State legislative seats and 11 Governors they have lost since Obama took office. The Democratic Party cannot keep dodging responsibility for the consequences of their actions and in-actions with voters and turn around their losing streak. It is one or the other.

Part of my admitted political laziness in the past has been failing to vote for a presidential candidate.  However, this year I registered with the Green Party and voted for Jill Stein. Now because I live in a state that is profoundly loyal to the Democratic party, I knew my vote had absolutely no chance of changing the outcome. I could have voted for Trump, myself, Stein or written in Sanders and the result would have been the same: Hillary Clinton would get my state’s electoral college support. This in turn was and is rather meaningless because I do not live in a swing state and my electoral college votes are a foregone conclusion, safely counted for the Democrats years in advance. While much of my remaining posts in this series will criticize Democrats and Republicans, I must own the fact that my vote for the Green Party did not even come close to challenging either the Proto-Fascism of Trump or the Neoliberal Imperialism of Clinton; I knew this, and voted for the Green Party anyway. 

The Green Party’s continued lack of relevance in 2016 should be instructive for my party and I think there is a lot we can learn from the results of this election (and past elections). We need to consider what changes we need to make in the future or we will remain irrelevant in 2018, 2020 and beyond.

The Party That Cannot Win The Presidency

In the last several years the Democrats have lost countless political races, surrendering an alarming amount of political territory and power to the Republicans. Clinton’s loss to the least favorable candidate in history was just the tip of the iceberg to a streak of losses across the nation in the last eight years. However, if Democrats are the party that cannot hold onto what they won, the Green Party is a party that cannot win. 

I love Stein for many reasons, but Stein did not win the election. Stein did not even come close to winning but the second least favorable candidate in history, Clinton, won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. While votes for the Green Party’s Presidential candidate have been steadily increasing since 2004, the 2016 turnout was nowhere near 2000’s results.

The context of this election was one of historic, perhaps unique, opportunity for the Green Party. After years of war and economic stagnation and misery the public was ripe for an anti-establishment candidate. Millions of people that shared most or all of our values were open to voting for someone that wasn’t a Democratic insider and were even pushed away from the Democratic party by revelations about its corruption. We should have won over many that ultimately voted for Trump and Clinton, especially the 20% of voters that thought neither candidate was trustworthy and the  39% of voters that wanted change more than anything. The Libertarian party out-performed us on all fronts as well, and saw historic highs in their voting turnout. Given this outcome we must ask ourselves why they did not consider the Green Party an option and this underscores the need for us to own and consider our abysmal number of votes.

The Party That Cannot Win Local Elections

Our fate in state and local elections is not different.Considering our congressional campaigns, our candidates also get less than 1% of the vote, and have earned about the same on a routine basis. As of October 2016 we only had 86 office holder and still have no candidates who have won a federal election.

When it came time to support my party I was ready to vote for Green Party members down the ballot, but to my dismay there was no Green candidate for my area. We had conceded the vote to the Democrats with no challenger.

The one local candidate I found that was running in my general area was nothing to get excited about. I’m sure they are a great person that values many of the same things I do, but they appeared anemic, disconnected and unconcerned with the dire situation around us. Perhaps this is because they appeared to be a wealthy white liberal living in a wealthy white area and they were clearly going to be okay regardless of who won the election. Even if this was case, that doesn’t prevent someone from acknowledging and communicating the dire stakes in the current political climate. The candidate did not do this effectively in my estimation and I was left with the impression that they did not really have any fire in their belly and may not have even been that interested in running or winning or serving.

These Dots Are Connected 

Our inability to win the Presidency is tied to our inability to win State and Local elections. We have not built sufficient political power at the lower levels of government.  Because we have not built political power from the bottom up we have produced no evidence that we can consistently win difficult campaigns, let alone push through legislation we support and govern effectively. While I think the Democratic party is deplorable (and I’ll explore that more in a later post) it cannot be denied that just about any progressive legislation or reform that made it into law was pushed by Democrats in power, not a Green in power. Green’s are not even close to having tangible political power with the exception of a handful of towns where the Green Party has the majority in the local city council. So why would anyone trust the Presidency to the Green Party without this? Even if Stein had won due to some fluke in 2016 she would have no Congressional support to get anything done.

The popularity of Sanders demonstrated that left-leaning citizens are willing to back a candidate that is not within the strict boundaries of their party, or even a long-time member. However, it appears clear they want to back someone who can win and someone who can deliver, and someone with experience with elected office. Operating as an Independent Sanders has won numerous campaigns and has passed legislation over many years, something we have not done. It should be no surprise that many who supported Sanders turned to Clinton and not Stein as their backup, regardless of what they thought of Clinton.

The Basic Roadmap for the Green Party

Considering the results of the 2016 election, and our past efforts, I think the way forward for the Green Party is relatively easy to see if we are willing to change tactics and accept the simple fact that the current strategy is not working.

First, we should stop running these pointless presidential campaigns until we have built power at the State and Local level. I understand the reasons we have run these campaigns (as essentially a PR vehicle for our Party, and to get the magical 5% of the national vote to be on the ballot in all states) but by running these presidential campaigns we are trying to build power from the top down, not the bottom up, which is contradictory to our grassroots identity. It is also not working. We have not seen the Green Party significantly grow in exposure or numbers since running these campaigns.

Second, we should focus all our money and effort in Democratic and liberal states with many political seats or those with weak Democratic candidates. These are states where we are most likely to find a voter base aligned with our values that we can win over to Green Party candidates.  We need to recruit members to run against every Democratic candidate in these states and at the city and state levels of government.We also need to run candidates who want to win, who are committed to our values, and who can work effectively in government.

Third, while Democrats are our main opponents in State and Local elections (as we are vying for the same voter base), after winning elections we need to actually work closely with Democrats. This will be a hard tightrope to walk but even if the Green Party eventually wins a number of Congressional seats we will need to work with Democrats (and even Republicans) to support effective legislation and prove we can govern. In many ways we need to turn the Congress into a more parliamentary system where we form a coalition with Democrats and support each other on issues where we are in agreement even as we maintain our differences and continue to compete in Congressional and Local elections.

Fourth, after, and only after, winning and growing State and Local power and years of proving our ability to govern, should we return to the Presidential race.

This Will Be Simple But Not Easy

While this may be a relatively straightforward overall strategy it will be incredibly difficult to pull off.  Even with excellent candidates many of these races will be difficult and will require a lot of organizing, excellent messaging, and an excellent campaign strategy.  All of this must be executed without corporate money as we face opponents who are flush with cash from the various industries bank-rolling them. While it will not be a walk in the park, I honestly don’t see any way forward for the Green Party without adopting an overall strategy similar to this. If we want to stay irrelevant we can stay the same, but if we are serious about building a viable Third Party option we need to do something different.