Democrats are rightly going through a period of self-analysis after the recent election.  While the results were somewhat mixed -- Hillary Clinton did get more than two million votes than Donald Trump, the Dems did pick up six Congressional and two Senate seats -- everyone agrees that the disappointing overall performance demands that the party make changes.  But what changes?

Democrats have a wide range of views on why they lost.  It's clear to them that Republicans appealed to people's fears, especially on issues of race, immigration, and the economy.  They generally agree that it was a "change" election and that Hillary represented the political "establishment"  Finally, there's a general sense that Democrats failed to address the concerns of white working-class voters in traditional "blue" states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  

Beyond that, the party is split.  Convinced that he would have beaten Donald Trump, the Bernie Sanders wing of the party are convinced that it must move left, but it's hard to know what that means at this point. Free higher public education, of course.  And universal health care, sure.  But it's never been clear that promises to break up the banks and attacks on the 1% held great hope for creating jobs -- at least not as much as hope as Donald Trump offered.

In the first major battle for control of the party's direction, Ohio Representative Tim Ryan put up an impressive, albeit losing, challenge to Nancy Pelosi's leadership in the House.  It's probably overstating it, but Ryan seems to represent those white working voters, while Pelosi comes from the urban "elite" wing of the party.

The next major battle will be for the leadership of the Democratic National Committee.  Congressman Keith Ellison seems to be the front-runner.  While he seems to be a good guy and represents the party well on television, it's not clear that a black Muslim with a full-time Congressional job is the ideal candidate to reach disaffected white voters.  He speaks about creating jobs, but not how.  He also focuses on promoting a progressive agenda and activating the party's "grass roots," which may be dissonant to white working class ears.  Why would he be attractive to voters who voted on racial, anti-immigrant, and economic fears?

Ellison's main opponent seems to be Howard Dean, who already has a record of success in leading the Democratic Party, and in particular in promoting a 50-state strategy, something the Democrats need now more than ever.  In opposing the war in Iraq, he was on the left of the party, but he seems to be regarded as part of the establishment these days.

Democrats shouldn't abandon their commitment to progressive policies.  But they should remind that if the party keeps going left long it will eventually move in a circle.  That's not a way to go forward. 

These leadership positions do not definitively set the tone and policies for the future of the Democratic party, but they are significant.  If Democrats want to take back Congress in 2018, they should consider where the votes are, and what it would take to win them over.  The answer would seem to be in relatively conservative, economically depressed areas, that were once Democratic bastions but in recent year have obviously been voting for Republicans.  It's not merely a question of left or right, progressive or establishment.  Rather, they should be focusing on finding a practical approach that can win.  

Back in April, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that they were doing unique research that holds the possibility of developing new uses for coal in electronics, perhaps in conjunction solar panel and battery technology.  

It's hard to say how soon, if ever, the potential breakthroughs in understanding and harnessing coal's unique chemistry can become a reality.  But the research certainly seems promising, and there's every reason to pursue it.

Democrats can take advantage of this effort.  Massachusetts is essentially a Democratic state.  Right now, the Governor of West Virginia is a Democrat, as is the state's senior Senator.  That sounds like a potential political alliance, and possibly productive cooperation among Massachusetts and West Virginia academic institutions.  

Tom Steyer, looking to improve the environment, encourage progressive politics, and help working people who've lost their jobs in the coal fields?  Here's an investment for you.  

Democrats, want bragging rights without having to deal with Donald Trump?  Here's a model for the kinds of practical alliances and progressive local projects that can thrive despite a loss of federal support.

Donald Trump yesterday tweeted that he'd make an announcement about relinquishing his interests -- or at least his leadership -- of his "great" companies in mid-December.  "While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as president, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses."  

The key word is visually.  Not ethically.  Apparently, if its not visually a conflict, it's not a problem.  

Well, given how he ran his campaign, Trump is probably right.

 

 

If there's one thing at which the media excels, it's examining itself after some perceived failure.  And then after some generalized introspection and expressions of regret -- never a specific assertion of journalistic negligence or wrongdoing against a media figure or organization or a specific promise to improve its practices, its back to business as usual.  

Now The New York Times is wondering how, or if, news organizations should cover Donald Trump's tweets as important breaking news.  Of course they should -- it's what he wants, it's easy, and it's utterly meaningless.  What could be better for an American public that can't tell the different between reality and a reality show?

But if the Times is serious, and if it can get some general agreement among other media organizations, it really should give those tweets just as much coverage as they deserve:  A tweet in return.

It should be clear by now that Donald Trump's words mean nothing.  They don't serve to convey real information or real understanding of the President-elect.  They serve only to manipulate a voracious media and a gullible public.  

Donald Trump gets Carrier corporation to "save" 1000 jobs in Indiana, gets three days of positive news coverage, and satisfies his base that he's already making good on his promises.

Few know or care about the details of the Carrier.  What did Indiana Governor Pence promise to the company?  What did President-elect promise -- or threaten?  Does it matter that Trump railed against state incentives during the campaign?

Donald Trump gets credit for the stock market's exuberant rise after his election.  No one seems to notice or care that it's only slightly higher than it's peak under President Obama.  Has the President ever gotten credit for it's rise?  Maybe by some, but cursing Wall Street has been a bipartisan effort during his administration.

President Obama saves the American automobile industry, gasoline prices are low, real wages are beginning to rise after years of decline, and the people of Michigan tell Democrats to go to hell.  But then, even most Democrats are far more comfortable complaining about income inequality than they are about the economic recovery of the last eight years.  

Granted, the President's record of achievement on the economy has not been an unmitigated success, and the public's memory is short.  But he would have been helped with better media coverage.

For eight years, Democratic carping has encouraged the very sourness that helped elect Trump.  Yes, things aren't great among working-class voters in the heartland, but they are a lot better than they were.  That should have meant a better Democratic showing in traditionally blue states.  But Democrats have so downplayed expectations that the public had lost their hope.  

There are a lot of lessons here for Democrats, among them how to milk a story:  Build up a challenge and create some drama over what and when the challenge will be resolved.  When you come running to the rescue, the media will come running to you.  Make promises, make it look like you're accomplishing something, and the people will reward you.  Most important, make sure you're the only story in town.

He sets the media agenda.  He sets the public mood.

In some respects, people expect so little from Donald Trump that anything he does will be a pleasant surprise.  But the economy may grow, simply based on how Donald Trump has changed the public's perceptions.  He's got it good:  his supporters want economic growth, and so do his detractors.  The public will welcome whatever he does -- or seems to do.  Skeptics will just be seen as spoil-sports.  

Democrats can't just talk about his hypocrisy or hope for his failure.  They have to offer an agenda, make real promises, hold the media hostage to their ideas, and make their local accomplishments national stories.  And don't let anyone take credit for ideas that are yours.  

  

At the Democratic National Convention, someone, maybe General John Allen, said something to the effect that Hillary Clinton was "Ready to Serve, and Ready to Lead."  

It's a good expression.  It evokes the idea of military service, of being a public servant, of doing the people's will.  At the same time, it makes clear that she's the one in the vanguard, and that the rest of us should follow her example.

Most of all, it fits on a bumper sticker.  The campaign should use it.

Donald Trump ran his primary campaign in large part by quickly defining his opponents with names and descriptions:  "Little Marco Rubio."  "Low-Energy Jeb Bush."  "Lyin' Ted Cruz."  He insulted their wives and their manhood, their integrity and in the case of Carly Fiorina, her looks.  It seemed to work.  Though he never got much more than 40% of the Republican vote, it was enough to dismiss the field as "losers" and win. 

Now Donald is facing a general election opponent he quickly called "Crooked Hillary."  And he can't seem to help refer to her aggressive surrogate, Senator Elizabeth Warren, as "Pocahontas," based on her assertion that she has native American ancestry.  After former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the richest men in the world, spoke out against him at the Democratic National Convention, he called him "little," though it's not clear that it will stick on a self-made man who can buy and sell him.

Elizabeth Warren seems to have gotten under Donald's skin with her sharp attacks against him, attacks that come close to questioning his manhood.  Bill Maher refers to him as that "whiny little bitch" and has called him a pussy.  Even Hillary referred to his thin-skinned tweets.

Personally, I think the public should think of him as a pussy.  But I'm tempted to use a schoolyard taunt, possibly offensive to the gay community but without real sexual connotation:  "little faggot."  A guy who acts like a bully but doesn't have the strength or courage to back up his threats.  A weak, sniveling, gutless .

Or, thinking of my father, I think of Donald as a "gutless wonder."  A guy who talks tough, may even send others to be tough for him, but never has the courage to put himself at risk. 

Maybe it doesn't matter what name we use for The Donald.  Or maybe we should use all of them.  But we've got to get the public to realize that his guy is a fraud, an entertainer, a master showman, but bereft of any knowledge, wisdom, moral character.  He's a pussy.  A fraud.  A little faggot willing to put your families' lives at risk for his own fragile pride.

We'll be back with more ideas on this subject.

Criticism of Bill Clinton when President was pervasive, bipartisan, and contradictory.  

On the left, he was considered a creature of the business community, a compromiser, a man with no political or moral backbone.  On the right, he was considered both lacking in principle and a committed leftist.  He was considered a master political strategist, and reviled for "triangulating" issues.

Barack Obama also seems to have been attacked by both left and right.  Against objective data, both also agree that the current state of our country is disastrous.  The left doesn't like his drone strikes, the surveillance that has likely increased during his tenure, the continued use of Guantanamo has a prison for suspected terrorists.  The right says that the economy is a disaster and that we're more at risk than ever.

And now we come to Hillary.  A woman seen by the right as being without principle, but also devoted to left wing values.  A woman seen by the right as being without principle, but a creature of the military and business communities.  Forgotten is her previous reputation as an anti-military during the early years of her husband's presidency.  Forgotten is her advocacy of universal health care.  

Perhaps both left and right are projecting their own values on to candidates whose "brands" are too nuanced to categorize but easy too caricature.  

A gay person who votes for Trump is like a Jew voting for Hitler.  

Uncritical, non-stop coverage of his campaign rallies has propelled Donald Trump to the Republican nomination for President of the United States.  

Credit it where it's due; The Donald is a consummate showman.  He knows what the people want, and he knows how to get the media to bring it to them for free.

Moreover, he knows that the media will then analyze him as a phenomenon, and bring him even greater attention.  He can pretty much say what he wants, no matter how outrageous, no matter how untrue, no matter how contradictory.  As long it's in keeping with his persona, in the vaguely political realm, he can just make stuff up and count on no one remembering what he said just five minutes ago.

And the media, particularly cable, dutifully reports what his lies and his boasts, takes it seriously, and presents it as an equal counterpoint to his opponents -- and reality.  

He's a demagogue, of course.  And he's learned well Joseph Goebbels "Big Lie" technique.  But he's also a fabulist in the sense of Baron Munchausen, a fictional character who enthralls audiences with his impossible tales of spectacular achievements.  

Or perhaps we give him too much credit, and simply say he's a bullshit artist, the kind of guy you can find in every working-class bar in America.  Like Cliff Klavan, the know-it-all postman on the Cheers TV series, he is a font of useless and often untrue information, spouts nonsense with total self-assurance, bedazzles his beer-drinking buddies with tales of derring-do.  Until they tire of his shtick and shut him up.

It's time.  Someone needs to call him out.  Ideally, it would be someone of unquestionable authority, but in this cynical age that leaves out political and media figures.  Political opponents have raised doubts about even the Pope's political pronouncements.  Conservatives even dismiss hugely wealthy figures like Mike Bloomberg for their liberal views on guns and public health.  

But if Bloomberg, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates, were to point out that they really can buy and sell Trump, or actually set out to do it, they might incite him to panic, and raise serious doubts in the minds of his supporters.  

There's one other possibility -- if an ordinary person, a person with no political ambition or pretense, were to somehow face him down, he might well be neutered for all the world to see.  

He's a barroom bully, without the courage or resources to back up his boasts and his threats.  He needs to be shamed and forced to leave the public stage.