Can the Democratic Party be Blamed for Trump's Success?

"Those values upon which our success depends -- honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.  

What is demanded, then, is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.  

This is the price and the promise of citizenship." Barack Obama 2009

I'm hearing a lot, from liberals, that the primary reason for Trump winning the election was the failure of the left to deliver. It's good that Democratic politicians are questioning themselves and self-evaluating, but were they really the problem? I don't believe so.

Firstly, the electoral college win was due to a lot of factors that were in place before the election. Past gerrymandering gave red, rural areas disproportional over-representation; laws and policies were put in place made it harder for (Democratic leaning) minorities to vote.

Then there's the blurring between truth and fiction, and the appetite for it. Apart from the fake news fiasco, the GOP and Fox news promoted a narrative that Obama was the epitome of every worst thing in a human being, let alone a leader, and they targeted Hillary Clinton very successfully. Also, RT, Russian state-owned media, has targeted populists for a while, left and right, creating a narrative that the 'establishment' is all evil. Bernie Sanders die-hards bought into it, believing that Hillary Clinton was a rapist and a murderer, and Obama a monster. And now many of them are saying "what's wrong with Russia and Vladimir Putin?"

It's impossible to tell the difference between the far left and the far right sometimes, for the mindlessness and the hatred that's spewed out, all in the name of democracy. So the problem in this aspect has nothing to do with Democratic politicians not delivering. It's got everything to do with far left liberals believing and promoting the same myths that the far right got riled up by. Try to point it out and you'll be told you're stupid.

Then there's the underlying racism in the US that reared its ugly head again during the Obama Administration, and the not so underlying sexism that also surfaced with a vengeance during Hillary Clinton's campaign which, together with the GOP culture of discrimination, bigotry, exclusion, inequality etc, created fertile soil on which to sow the seeds of untruth.

Also, conservatives who fear losing status quo are very motivated to fight for it. They band together, are tremendously loyal, and they make no effort to try and understand liberals. They fight to kill and they play dirty. But Democrats are a different animal. They often feel morally obligated to see all sides, so they're not as blindly loyal to their own as conservatives, and can even be quite easily disillusioned. It takes a lot to make them fight, and historically, they don't turn out in the mid-terms. If they had, and Democrats had held onto Congress, Obama would have been able to achieve more, and more people would have felt the effect.

Bernie Sanders' inability throughout his whole political career to generate a huge following would have continued. The myths generated by the GOP, Fox News and RT, wouldn't have landed on any liberals. They would have appreciated Hillary Clinton and been inspired to vote for her, and not simply because she wasn't Trump. It would have been a landslide.

In reality, Barack Obama and Democratic politicians, including Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, worked themselves to the bone, during the Obama Administration. What more could they have done?

The voters didn't do the same. If all the blame is placed on the Democratic Party for inadequate delivery nothing will change. But if voters ask, "How did we fail ourselves? How did we fail Obama and Hillary Clinton? What more can we do to protect our values?" then things will change and the change will be sustainable. Even those of us who aren't American citizens but who are devastated at the results of this election could ask ourselves that question, because Trump's win will affect us directly.

We all take power into our own hands only after disaster has struck. If only we could all somehow learn to be awake and aware enough to do it as prophylactic… After all, Obama was only echoing what John F. Kennedy said in 1961 at his inauguration.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Money The Root Of All Evil In Politics?

I often think of America as a steam train thumping its way into the future through sometimes beautiful, sometimes hazardous terrain. These days the hazard is the GOP. 

The NYT ran an article today on Rand Paul getting Rupert Murdoch to swan around with him at the Kentucky Derby. Many believe Paul is the GOP’s hottest candidate for 2016, and Murdoch is under investigation by the FBI and by the British Government for bribery and corruption. The accusation doesn’t make a man guilty, but it’s hard to believe he’s innocent. Whether he is or not, he’s a major contributor to the GOP. The NYT article showed Rand Paul as sucking up horribly to Murdoch throughout the day, and Murdoch tolerating it, but his final comment was “I’ve given enough to Kentucky”.  

A lot of readers, myself included, were disgusted at Paul’s sucky-uppy behaviour, but one reader, Terri of WA, commented “…Campaign finance and whether or not it needs reforming is a great discussion to have, but let's not pretend that its [sec] only Mr. Paul and his other GOP colleagues who benefit from contributions.” The NYT editorial team chose that comment as one of its picks.

Terri’s right, of course. But the problem isn’t that politicians court wealth, it’s what that wealth is used for and what the politicians who get into power with its help do with that power. There isn’t a Democrat equivalent of either Charles or David Koch, or Rupert Murdoch but there is the Democracy Alliance. In the past it’s spent a fraction of what Koch Industries has, but currently it’s attracting more big donors. 

Koch Industries have spent a fortune disseminating easily provable lies about the ACA. They are one of the biggest polluters in the world and a lot of their efforts are focused on politicians who call for small government so Environment Protection laws won't be passed, and less social welfare so taxes won’t be raised to pay for it. The politicians they have in their pockets have a huge interest in gerrymandering so democracy isn’t a reality, and in promoting prejudice, inequality and wages that are too low to sustain a healthy middle class. 

On the other hand, according to the Washington Post, the Democracy Alliance is working to have a stronger hand in the redrawing of district lines for state legislatures and the U.S. House so that democracy can play a role again. The politicians are pro environment protection, clean energy development, equality, decent minimum wage, a healthy and functioning middle class. 

That a lot of money is raised and used in politics isn't the problem. Why and how it's used is everything.  Republicans care passionately about protecting their wealth, which is understandable, but they’ll do it at the cost of the world that actually supplies that wealth, which is just short-term thinking and downright stupid. The wealth of big Democrat donors also gets affected by keeping taxes low, but they’re smarter, have longer-term vision and an understanding of what makes for a truly healthy society. So they work towards it, even if in the short term it affects their bottom line. 

In my book, the idea that money is the root of all evil is ridiculous. Money spent by the GOP and its backers spells disaster in the long run for the US and the world but money spent by Democrats is going to a good cause. So in a world where money talks, the more Democrats  can raise and spend the better.