Butchery and Botchery

#trumpswindle | #WhatTheyVotedFor

Chauncey DeVega inquires after a point close to the heart of the #trumpswindle:

What happens when Trump and the Republican Party are done feasting on the “white working class” and their other supporters? When the bones are picked clean, to whom will they turn for a meal? People of conscience know the answer even if it terrifies them.

If a budget is a kind of moral document and a statement of priorities, Trump has shown that he is an enemy of the American people and the common good—including his most stalwart supporters. If Trump is willing to betray them, all others should quake in fear at what he plans for his enemies in the process of “making America great again.”

The question echoes: To call for Main Street over Wall Street, why would anyone vote for Donald Trump? To call for empathy with the working classes, why would anyone vote for Donald Trump? To drain the swamp of entrenched interests, why would anyone vote for Donald Trump?

An Important Day

Today was supposed to be something of a good day. The question, then, is what tomorrow brings. Let us start, then, as Steve Benen did, with yesterday.

Recognizing the writing on the wall, Sanders’ aides conceded yesterday that the campaign will “reassess” its strategy going forward. While that’s often a euphemism for “quit,” that’s not the case here: Sanders isn’t prepared to walk away, but he is prepared to shift his focus in light of the recent results. Consider the statement his campaign issued last night:

“I congratulate Secretary Clinton on her victories tonight, and I look forward to issue-oriented campaigns in the 14 contests to come. […]

“The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want as president and what the agenda of the Democratic Party should be. That’s why we are in this race until the last vote is cast. That is why this campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change.”

Over the last couple of months, each of the Sanders campaign’s election-night statements have included at least one reference to his “path to the nomination.” This one did not. It wasn’t an accidental omission.

Sanders started the race as an issue-oriented candidate who didn’t expect to be the party’s nominee, and the recent results have brought him full circle. He’s not done fighting; he’s just going to fight for something new: he can’t catch Clinton through the ballot box, but he can “fight for a progressive party platform.”

This is the day, apparently, when the Democratic Party is supposed to come together and turn its eyes to November.

A Reflection on History, Standards, and the Establishment

“Hillary Clinton is indeed, as her critics claim, part of the “the establishment.” Like all women of lofty ambition, she is keenly and woefully aware that in 2016, less than a century out from women’s suffrage, pioneering into a space formerly only occupied by men requires an acceptance that gender constrains one to work within the system, rather than from outside of it.”

―Katie Massa Kennedy

Two generally grim thoughts arise and insist:

• The nagging feeling that my fellow liberals are about to blow our best opportunity in generations, and seemingly because the GOP has decided to run dangerously out on a limb, and we want a little bit of that spectacle for ourselves.

• The nagging feeling that it isn’t blindness toward history driving the liberal need to endanger this chance, but, rather, the proposition that some will do anything to keep a woman out of the White House.

The Rick Perry Show (Bedknobs and Bailouts)

So here’s a conundrum; Mark Hensch is a talented enough writer to land a job at The Hill, yet his article this morning, under the headline, “Perry: Americans want ‘fairness’ for Wall Street”, makes exactly no sense. Perhaps Mr. Hensch … er … um … right. You know―

Former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) said on Sunday that Americans are hungry for a government that treats them the same as big Wall Street firms.

“Americans want to see fairness in that,” Perry told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”

“What is wrong is Washington bailing out companies that make bad decisions,” he added, citing the federal bailout of firms during the 2008 financial crisis.

“In today’s world, a lot of Americans are out there saying, ‘What are these people on Wall Street getting rich for?’” Perry, a GOP presidential candidate, asked.

Perry cited his rural upbringing and humble background as proof he is relatable to the citizens he meets on the campaign trail.

“Americans are ready for a great success story,” he said. “We have a social compact with one generation to the next.”

―this is Rick Perry, after all.

To wit, is the Republican presidential candidate actually suggesting a (cough!) “government takeover” of personal debt?

Sure, we can go with, “Probably not”, but still, just what in the world is going on? And, you know, we can always blame Mr. Hensch, because in reviewing headline and content we find that cuffs and collar don’t match. But still, I’m not certain that’s the problem.

Because, in the end, this is still Rick Perry we’re talking about.

____________________

Hensch, Mark. “Perry: Americans want ‘fairness’ for Wall Street”. The Hill. 21 June 2015.