Royal Blue Flush? - The 2018 election is meaningless for progressives.

In past generations "liberalism" and "conservatism" were redefined to be descriptors of two diametrically opposed belief systems when in reality they are just two labels inherited from traditional British politics that represent differences in attitude on a small range of issues. In Britain conservative "Tories" represented the old aristocracy and church whereas liberal "Whigs" represented the new merchant and industrial class. Liberalism only became associated with elevated social spending in the USA and the Democratic Party due to the New Deal policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s under President Lyndon B. Johnson.

By contrast, progressives were once identified with a wing of the Republican Party under Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century that broke off in response to the cozy relationship between his successor William Howard Taft and big business plutocrats like the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company. As part of it's platform, the Progressive Party ("Bull Moose") stated:

"From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people."

A classic UK Liberal Party poster from the 1959 elections. Contrary to the message, the party was in steep decline by this time relative to Labour and the Conservatives.

In the succeeding decades however it has come to mean a political tendency that leans toward strong democratic socialism (or at least social democracy), environmental protections, and elements of state control of the economy. US Senator Robert M. LaFollette, Sr. of Wisconsin formed a new Progressive Party in 1924 and it was geared more toward the Midwestern farmers, feminist suffragettes and working class city dwellers. Finally, in 1948 former Vice President Henry A. Wallace of Iowa formed a new Progressive Party in order to promote the same New Deal policies as FDR that his successor Harry Truman had retreated from. Since Wallace's failed candidacy and the deepening of the Cold War fissures progressive politics has been largely swallowed by the Democratic Party as represented by its typical support from large unions and its own backing of a welfare state and maintaining the state sector as an efficient way to provide for the general welfare of the public.

Before Bernie

Under the Democratic presidents Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama these undertakings were supported, but their own initiatives were simply not as ambitious as were FDR's and LBJ's. In 2010 liberal MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow even went so far as to quip that Bill Clinton had been the "best Republican president ever" in an expression of frustration at Obama's concessions to the GOP on energy policy. Clinton famously declared in his 1996 State of the Union address that "the era of big government is over" and ahead of that year's election embarked on welfare reform initiatives Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, both southern Republicans, that were a transparent abandonment of the traditional Democratic platform since the 1930s. Anti-war Democrats also bristled at Clinton's Kosovo intervention and Obama's interventions in Libya and Yemen. In 2000 as a result of the Clinton-era compromises avowed progressives switched to the Green Party ticket of Ralph Nader giving him 2.7% and making him the scapegoat for the defeat of VP Al Gore's campaign to succeed Clinton.

In 2015 the independent democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced his bid to succeed Barack Obama in the 2016 presidential election. After initially garnering derisive scoffs from the mainstream media his campaign became a lightning rod for many progressives that had been energized by the Occupy Wall Street movement and other progressive non-electoral efforts and felt betrayed by the Democrats.

Unhealed wounds of 2016

Andrea Mitchell reports on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz being booed off the stage during the 2016 Democratic National Convention (MSNBC).
In 2015 the independent democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced his bid to succeed Barack Obama in the 2016 presidential election. After initially garnering derisive scoffs from the mainstream media his campaign became a lightning rod for many progressives that had been energized by the Occupy Wall Street movement and other progressive non-electoral efforts and felt betrayed by the Democrats. During the primary process, numerous issues began to crop up that demonstrated to Sanders' supporters and other progressives to the left of them showing that the contest between him and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not executed in good faith. Here are just a few:

Per Wikileaks, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Vice Chair Donna Brazile used DNC personnel, rules, information, and money to tip the scales in favour of Clinton, an atmosphere Brazile later described in her book Hacks as a cult.
Whereas Sanders had run on a platform rejecting corporate donations and Super PAC support in favour of grassroots fundraising, the Clinton campaign fully embraced every legal (and possibly illegal) means of raising funds.

• Media outlets were accused throughout the primary process of concealing Sanders' popularity and the large crowds he attracted at rallies while constantly following Donald Trump and featuring his empty podium while waiting for his appearances. The motive was twofold: Diminish the visibility of Clinton's left-wing challenger while granting more volume to her most outlandish Republican foe. Even Trump's most critical media outlet CNN published a poll in July 2016 showing 75% of viewers thought he was being over-exposed.

During the general election following Sanders' withdrawal there was frequent voter shaming of progressives that objected to having to choose between him and Clinton. In June 2016 leading liberal media commentator Joan Walsh of The Nation penned an article called "Bernie Has It Backward: He’ll Have More Leverage if He Endorses Clinton". But the reality is that once Sanders did tender his endorsement a couple weeks later he received absolutely nothing:

• No abandonment of the Trans Pacific Partnership by the party.
• No commitment to universal healthcare on the platform.
• No statement of the need to reinstate the Glass-Steagall legislation repealed under Bill Clinton.

Once again these are just a few of the positions that were on Sanders' platform that were ignored. The very selection of loyal Clintonian Tim Kaine as a running mate was interpreted by many as an explicit snubbing of progressives and a move to the center by the former First Lady. InTheseTimes magazine, a hard left publication that nevertheless reflected the sentiments of many, claimed that if the Clinton-Kaine pair were progressives then "the term has lost all meaning".

The Bloody Ballot campaign

Liberal television star Bill Maher engages in a shouting match with progressive icon Dr. Cornel West of Princeton University over whether Hillary Clinton was really better than Donald Trump.

Then on November 8, 2016 the liberal vs. progressive carnage entered a new phase. Had Clinton won, the progressive side would have been granted some scraps from the table of the new sitting presidential administration including conceivably a couple of cabinet posts or the administrator of the EPA. Instead, weighted down by revelations through Wikileaks as well as several campaign gaffes Clinton limped into election day and lost several key states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan that ended up delivering the electoral votes necessary for Trump to take office.

In fact less than a week before the vote Van Badham wrote an acidic article titled "Time to hail Hillary Clinton – and face down the testosterone left". Once again, the left-ward tendency of the Democratic Party would be painted with the following labels :

• "Bernie Bros" are misogynists and unwilling to back a female candidate like Clinton. Then why did many of them vote for another woman in Green Party nominee Jill Stein?
• Along with Donald Trump, the Stein and Sanders campaigns were pushed along by Russia. For more on why this accusation is both preposterous and a pernicious lie, please see my previous articles on the #MattesFile.
• Sanders supporters are often disaffected white male racists that agitate for a trade war. Opposition to NAFTA, the TPP, and other free trade agreements are the positions not just of Bernie Bros but also the AFL-CIO, America's largest federation trade unions. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton supported signing NAFTA in 1994. In 2014 the AFL-CIO declared on NAFTA's 20th anniversary that "[u]nfortunately, the enduring result of NAFTA has been just the opposite: stagnant wages, increasing inequality and weakened social protections in all three countries". The union's President Richard Trumka also called the TPP a "new low".
• Bernie Sanders and his supporters damaged the Democratic Party and divided it with their hateful rhetoric. All things being fair, Sanders supporters do get graphic, but it's not as if their opponents are shrinking violets. In June 2016 Vanity Fair declared in an Op-Ed "Did Bernie Sanders Hand Trump the Election?". In April 2017 progressive pro-Hillary blogger Chris Hall decried "The Toxic Centrism of Bernie Sanders". What Hall and others really meant was that Sanders was upsetting their identity politics distractions.

All of this is reminiscent of the "waving the bloody shirt" campaigns of the post-Civil War United States when Republicans used anti-Confederate rhetoric to elect US Grant and Rutherford Hayes on the basis of the Democrats being affiliated with the South. This is not to imply which side is just or unjust, but rather to demonstrate that the Democratic leadership continues to scapegoat its progressive wing for losing the 2016 election. Whenever the subject of that "day of infamy" arises, the mainstream Dems take this approach:

• IF Sanders supporters revisit the grievances of the 2016 primaries and caucuses where there was clear evidence of DNC tampering as admitted by Brazile, they are told to shut up and move on or that they are hurting party unity. See "Fuck Bernie Fucking Sanders".
• IF Sanders supporters express skepticism of the Russian hacking theory that states that the 2016 election was tampered by Kremlin-directed trolls/spies/collusion they are accused of being party to the actual collusion and dismissed as "bots" or "trolls".
• IF Sanders supporters state that they voted for Jill Stein she is then denounced as an agent of Russian collusion and they are tarred through guilt by association.

To sum it all up, this is a no-win situation for progressive voters going into 2018. In the next segment we will discuss not just the rhetoric that has been used to disarm a progressive alternative within the Democratic Party or an external challenger but also the structural actions by the DNC to attack the actual candidates. The weakness of certain purported progressive representatives in the face of this effort, which I would call a "punitive expedition", will also be featured.

#informationwar