the problem with problems

The modern Republican Party (you know what? I need to stop calling them ‘the modern Republican Party’ because at this point they’re just the Republican Party; there’s no point in trying to distinguish the cowardly fuckwits who now inhabit this aggressively ignorant cultural collective from the Republican Party that used to have consistent conservative principles) has a problem with problems. In fact, they have several problems with problems.

They lack any meaningful understanding of actual socio-political problems, they have no interest in learning about them, no ability to address them in any practical way, and no real desire to resolve them. What they DO have is a clear understanding of the political optics of being seen as dealing with problems.

Republicans have an intuitive grasp of the narrative strength of heroic problem solving. It’s one of the classic story tropes. A monster exists. A hero leaves their community and goes out into a hostile world in search of the monster. They encounter difficulties and tests of courage along the way, and overcome them. They find the monster, struggle against it, nearly lose, then triumph over it. They return home again–maybe to applause, maybe just to live quietly among those they’ve made safe.

What Republicans do is turn that trope on its head. There is no monster, which means they’re not heroes, so they don’t leave the safety of their community or deal with a hostile world, and their privilege protects them from any difficulties or tests of courage they may encounter. But if they invent a monster, they can pretend to be heroes by claiming to risk themselves in a life-or-death struggle, allowing them to assert some sort of imaginary victory.

The valiant GOP stands tall against critical race trans voter fraud.

There is no monster of voter fraud. Yet Republicans claim they’re in danger and are courageously struggling overwhelming Socialist enemies to enact voting restrictions which will save…what? Elections? There is no monster of trans girl/women athletes dominating high school or college sports. Yet Republicans claim girls and young women are in danger and they are bravely enacting laws banning trans athletes from sports which will…what? Save high school track and field meets? There is no monster of critical race theory savaging the lives of students. Yet Republicans insist they’re valiantly standing up against…something…in order to rescue innocent young white students from learning that systemic racism exists, thereby saving them from…what? Caring?

Republicans present themselves as beamish boys wielding vorpal blades against burbling Jabberwoks in the tulgey wood. Hast thou slain the trans-racist-voter fraud? O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Now to galumph back to Mar-a-Lago, chortling.

It’s all nonsense. Not silly nonsense, though. Dangerous nonsense. Because as a nation, we’re facing real fucking problems, with real fucking jaws that bite and claws that catch. Modern Republicans have gone through the Looking Glass. And there’s no sign that they’re ever coming back.

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

It’s a good question. It’s a question that will determine whether or not the US will have any hope of being a representative democracy.

very good people

Really, when you think about, who is really at fault here? I mean, back at the end of April the President of These United States suggested his followers should ‘Liberate Michigan’. It would have been unpatriotic not to take the president at his word. So a couple of weeks later, a group of ‘patriots’ arrived at the state capitol building to discuss issues involving the tyranny of mask-wearing with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other lawmakers.

Okay, so yes, they may have arrived for those friendly discussions armed with semi-auto rifles and handguns, but this is America…or used to be before Obama tried to turn the nation into a gay socialist guitar-strumming pedophile ring. Anyway, they just wanted to talk to Gov. Whitmer, that’s all. And President Trump realized that. He said:

These very good people were just angry, that’s all. They just wanted their lives back, which is understandable since Gov. Whitmer STOLE THEIR LIVES by asking them to wear masks and avoid gathering in large virus-sharing groups. Trump felt Gov. Whitmer should try to be reasonable, listen to the angry armed men threatening her and other Michigan lawmakers, give them a chance to screamsplain rationally why she was wrong.

But no, she wouldn’t do that, the bitch. Now look what she made them do.

Explaining the charges against Gov. Whitmer

Really, whose fault is it that these thirteen very good people felt forced to concoct a plan to kidnap her and put her on trial for…okay, it’s not clear exactly what she’d be put on trial for. Being a bitch, probably. Being a ball-cutting bitch by undermining their authority — undermining their very manhood — by trying to make them look like mask-wearing pussies. But the important point — the point everybody seems to be overlooking — is that they always intended to give her a trial. Did she give them a trial before ordering them to wear gay masks?

No. No, she did not.

Prosecutor’s opening statement.

They were going to give her a trial, that’s how reasonable they were. A fair trial. Okay, maybe the judge would be somebody involved in the kidnapping. And yeah, the jury pool would probably have to be drawn from folks involved in the kidnapping. But hey, still a trial, right? She’d have had a chance to defend herself and explain why she was being such a bitch, right? You’d think she’d thank them for giving her that chance, wouldn’t you.

But no. She’s showed no gratitude at all. Hell, she didn’t even thank Comrade Trump after his own personal Federal Bureau of Investigation disrupted the plot to murder kidnap … wait, was it really even a kidnapping? Was it? When you really look at it closely, wasn’t it really more like a citizen’s arrest? Followed by a fair trial. I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

Whitmer trial jury pool.

You invite a woman at gunpoint to accompany you of her own free will, you give her a chance to explain her ridiculous behavior, you agree not to punish her until after she’s had her say, and is she even the least bit grateful? See, that’s the problem with putting a woman in charge of anything other than the kitchen. They’re just too emotional.

And now the lives of these thirteen very good people are going to be tarnished. It’ll be hard for them to get a decent job. They may even lose their guns. Is that fair?

the difference between grief and mourning

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead.

The grim and sorrowful constellation of thoughts and emotions we’re experiencing right now, that’s grief. The word comes from the Old French term grever meaning “afflict, burden, oppress,” which is from the Latin gravare, which meant “to make heavy.” Grief is heavy; it weighs us down.

The outward expression of grief, that’s mourning. Mourning has a more complex origin. It comes from a Proto-Indo-European root which, because of linguistic convention, is usually written as *(s)mer. It refers to the act of remembrance, reflection, recollection. Mourning is how we use our memories and understanding of the dead to gradually reduce the awful weight of our grief.

Grief is what we feel; mourning is what we do.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead, and there’s absolutely nothing we can do about that. Our grief is both personal and communal. We grieve for what she means to us personally, we grieve for her family and friends, we grieve for what her death might mean for the concept of equal justice under law in the United States. It’s good that we grieve; it’s right that we grieve.

But our grief is less important than how we mourn her — how we collectively express our grief and how you as an individual will express your grief. Is making RBG your Facebook icon enough to lighten your grief? Will wearing your Notorious RBG t-shirt alleviate your grief? What about voting, will that help? What about getting others to vote? Volunteering to drive others to the polls? Donating money or labor to a candidate? What about calling both of your senators on Monday, and asking them NOT to vote on a successor to RGB’s seat until after the election/inauguration? Will that do it?

Here’s a True Thing: your grief is your grief. Nobody gets to tell you how to express it. Nobody gets to tell you the proper way for you to mourn. Nobody gets to tell you how much you have to mourn or what that mourning should include. Nobody gets to tell you what RBG would want from you. Mourn her in your own way.

But mourn her. Right now, it’s enough to grieve. Right now, it’s okay to give into your grief. Let yourself fully experience your grief. Then start actively mourning.

Obscure and Semi-inappropriate Addendum: That Proto-Indo-European root *(s)mer is also the source of the name of Mimir, the Norse god who guarded the Mímisbrunnr, the Well of Wisdom. Mimir, not surprisingly, was known for his judgment, his sagacity, his knowledge. None of that, unfortunately, prevented him being beheaded in the battle between the Æsir and the Vanir (don’t ask; we’re talking Norse mythology, so it’s complicated). After the battle, Odin found Mimir’s body and collected his head (as gods do). He did some sort of god-thing to Mimir’s head so he could tote it around with him and continue to get Mimir’s advice.

Metaphorically, we can do the same with RBG. We can carry our memory of her around with us. We can ask ourselves ‘What would RBG do?’ and then try to do it. That’s proper mourning, right there.

use your words

You’ve probably seen the video. If not, I’ve included it below. A young man dressed in black, wearing a helmet, is seized by a pair of anonymous armed men dressed in camouflaged tactical gear, loaded into a civilian rental van, and driven away. On the surface, it looks like some sort of paramilitary abduction.

According to the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security (and here’s another thing (with Comrade Trump in office, there’s always another thing) we’ve had an ‘acting’ DHS secretary since April 10, 2019; in his three and a half years as POTUS, Trump has had two confirmed DHS secretaries and three ‘acting’ secretaries) those uniformed men were federal officers employed by US Border Patrol. The official explanation for the events in the video is that the young man “was in a crowd in an area in which an individual was aiming a laser at the eyes of officers.”

Got that? They admit this kid wasn’t actually pointing a laser at anybody; he was just in the area in which somebody was pointing a laser at officers. That’s NOT probable cause to detain somebody. The law is pretty clear about this; you can’t arrest/detain somebody without probable cause.

The official explanation for putting this kid in a van and driving him away is that it was done for safety reasons. “[A]s they approached him they noticed that coming in their direction were other demonstrators who were coming to see what was going on and they wanted to go help so they asked the individual to please get in the van.” That’s a lie. Watch the video again. You’ll notice there are no other ‘demonstrators’ in the vicinity. And as far as I can tell, the officers don’t speak to the kid at all, let alone politely ask him to get in the van.

Wall of Moms. What are you doing? Use your words. “Hands up, please don’t shoot me.”

We do, though, hear the person making the video ask the officers who they are and what they’re doing. And she tells them, “Use your words. What are you doing? Use your words.” That’s a phrase made popular by parenting magazines a few years ago. It’s used to get children who are acting out to clearly express what they’re trying to do. It’s used to make them explain their behavior, and to see if they understand whether or not that behavior will be effective in achieving their goal.

What are you doing? Use your words. What are these federal officers really trying to do? Do they understand if their actions are effective in achieving their goal? The goal of detaining this kid, clearly, wasn’t to protect federal buildings. The goal appears to be intimidation. The goal appears to be to allow Trump, to use his phrase, “to dominate the streets.” The goal appears to be to produce content for Trump 2020 presidential adverts. Is the behavior effective in achieving Trump’s goal? Maybe. Just last month, he stated:

“If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”

This isn’t the US military, but they look like it. And the appearance of toughness is what Trump wants for his presidential campaign.

What are you doing? Use your words. The amazing Wall of Moms sing, “Hands up, please don’t shoot me.” What are these moms really trying to do? Do they understand if their behavior is effective to achieving their goal? The goal appears to be discouraging police violence. Is their behavior effective? Yes, I think so. Even if they fail in the short run, they’re showing the sincerity of their resistance.

Sometimes all we’ve got to resist with is our words and our bodies. One sign carried by a woman in the Wall of Moms read, “I am so disappointed in you.” The maternal tone is perfect. We are so very disappointed.

I’m going to go all literary for a moment, so I’ll apologize in advance. Sorry. But as I was looking at photos and videos of the Wall of Moms, I kept think of some lines T.S. Eliot wrote in an unfinished verse drama.

I gotta use words when I talk to you
But if you understand or if you dont
That’s nothing to me and nothing to you
We all gotta do what we gotta do
We’re gona sit here and drink this booze
We’re gona sit here and have a tune
We’re gona stay and we’re gona go
And somebody’s gotta pay the rent.

What are you doing? Use your words. I gotta use words when I talk to you. Somebody’s always got to pay the rent. Right now, that rent is being paid by the young folks in Portland, with makeshift shields and umbrellas. It’s being paid by young dads, using leaf blowers to disperse tear gas. It’s being paid by the women wearing bicycle helmets, standing bravely in the Wall of Moms.

fifty ways

— I’m confused. I don’t understand. I just don’t get it.
— What’s the matter, pookie?
— I really really don’t understand why people are reacting to a pandemic this way.
— Oh. It’s because they’re assholes.
— They assert their right to protest a legal order from their governor, but they were outraged when a black football player took a knee to protest racial police brutality. Don’t they see how illogical that is?
— No, because they’re assholes.

These people are assholes.

— They insist they’re pro-life, that every potential life is sacred, but at the same time they say it’s permissible for some folks to die in order to strengthen the economy. Not just permissible, but necessary. I don’t understand that reasoning.
— It’s asshole reasoning. The reasoning of assholes.
— They argue that they have the absolute right over the integrity of their bodies, that if they don’t want to wear a mask, they shouldn’t have to. But they also want to deny women the right over the integrity of their bodies, saying they shouldn’t be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I mean, they feel imposed upon if they have to wear a mask, but it’s not an imposition for a woman to carry an unwanted fetus for nine months? Explain that to me.
— The explanation is that they’re assholes.

A few more assholes.

— And armed protests? What’s with that? Not just protests against stay-at-home orders, but armed protests. Why do they need to bring guns?
— It’s because they’re assholes.
— They call themselves patriots, but they keep waving Confederate or Nazi flags. I mean, flags of peoples who fought against the United States. How is that patriotic?
— They’re assholes.
— They say President Obama was corrupt, even though nobody in his administration was ever charged with a crime. Eight years and constant ongoing Congressional investigations, not one person charged with a crime. But they insist Trump is the best president ever, despite the fact that at least seven members of his administration or transition team have pleaded guilty or been convicted of felonies. And who knows how many were fired or resigned in disgrace. How does that compute?
— Dude, they’re assholes. I don’t know what else to say.

Assholes with guns.

— They claim to respect law enforcement, but they also say the FBI tried to derail the Trump presidential campaign. They say they believe in the rule of law, but they don’t want the rule of law to apply to themselves. It doesn’t make any sense. I don’t get it.
— Yes, you do. They’re assholes.
— I just can’t wrap my head around all of this. It’s like…it’s like…I don’t even know.
— Sit back, pookie, and allow me to quote the poet Simon.

“The problem is all inside your head”, she said to me
“The answer is easy if you take it logically
I’d like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to say they’re assholes.”

— So you’re saying…it’s because they’re assholes?
— Ah, day dawns in the rock garden.
— What?
— You have seen the light.

 

now what?

Well, here we are. The Democratic Party presidential race is down to two septuagenarian white guys. It’s a sad day when we have to admit the most capable candidate was largely erased from the contest through media bias and because of the cowardice of voters who were afraid other people wouldn’t vote for a woman.

It wasn’t just her energy, it wasn’t just her willingness to stand for four hours so everybody could get a selfie with her, it wasn’t just her intelligence and clear thinking, it wasn’t just her goofy but charming and sincere pinkie-promises with young girls, and it wasn’t just her ability to articulate complex issues in ways that made sense to ordinary folks; it was her essential honesty and decency that made Elizabeth Warren such a compelling candidate. But now she’s out.

Now what are we supposed to do? I’m talking to those of us who supported — and still support — Elizabeth Warren. Now who do we support? The old cranky white guy whose policies are closest to our own? Or the old cheerful white guy whose policies are more modest but more likely to be implemented? Do we support the guy who promises major structural change? Or the guy who just wants a return to normality? The guy whose followers include a vocal group of misogynistic assholes? Or the guy whose supporters include the usual big money donors? Which old white guy do we choose?

I like Bernie. I also like Joe. I like them in different ways. I like Bernie because he’s consistent and stubborn. He’s an old school structuralist, and he’s never going to change because of popular opinion. He plants his flag and stands by it. I like Joe because he’s flexible. He gets along with people and is a genuine deal-maker. He understands the need to accommodate other perspectives, to compromise when necessary, to bend to some degree to get what he thinks is important. I like Bernie because he doesn’t budge when he believes he’s right. I like Joe because he’ll budge a little to get a little.

At this point, I’m trying to balance pragmatism with emotion. Here’s my pragmatic view at the moment. I think Bernie’s positions are right. I also think being right isn’t enough. Being right isn’t as important as improving things. Bernie’s been right for his entire career in Congress, but he hasn’t been able or willing to work with others to get things changed. Joe hasn’t always been right. In fact, he’s been pretty godawfully wrong about some stuff, like the war in Iraq. But he’s also worked with others to accomplish a lot, like pushing President Obama to support marriage equality.

Here’s my emotional view at this moment. I don’t have any clear view of Bernie’s interior life. I can’t imagine what he does when he’s at home with his wife. I can’t see him watching a television show, or playing with a dog, or reading fiction, or going to a baseball game, or having a glass of wine while cooking supper. I’m sure he has an interior life, but I can’t picture it. I can picture Joe doing all of that, and having a good time of it. I fully recognize that’s a shit reason for preferring one candidate over another — and it won’t be my deciding factor — but I’d be lying if I said it didn’t matter.

It may sound like I’m leaning toward Joe. I’m not. At this moment, I really don’t know which candidate I’m going to support. There are valid arguments for each of them. There are valid reasons to oppose each of them. I’ve spent the day walking and thinking and all I know for sure is that at this momrnt I can’t support either of them with any enthusiasm. Not with any passion. Not with the deep sincerity and clarity I felt in supporting Warren. So I don’t know who I’m going to support. Maybe neither of them.

 

But I DO KNOW THIS. I know we need to burn the patriarchy to the fucking ground. Because this shit HAS to end. We need to burn it to the ground because we had several women candidates equal to — and in most cases very much better — than these two old white guys. We need to burn the patriarchy to the ground, then burn it again. Then drive a stake directly through the ashes where its heart used to be, and then burn the fucker one more time. And keep burning it, over and over.

Then nuke the entire sit from orbit. You know the reason why.

a bold but stupid prediction

So far, only about 4% of the delegates that will eventually determine the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of These United States have been decided. It’s not nothing, but it’s not much more than nothing. If there was a pie and somebody gave you 4% of that pie, you’d be saying, “Dude, look at all that pie that you left in the pie tin, what the fuck, dude?”

Most of the Democratic candidates didn’t even get a sliver of that 4%. The original cast of thousands has basically been reduced to three viable candidates. That’s it…just three. Or five. Maybe seven. Eight viable candidates on the outside. But on the basis of that 4% the political punditry, who have earned a reputation of being wildly wrong on a broad range of topics, have made a bold but stupid prediction: Bernie Sanders will be the nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2020 election.

I’m inclined to think their bold but stupid prediction is…well, not that bold, but also not that stupid. They may even be right. But I don’t think so. Not entirely right. Sorta kinda right. I DO think that Bernie will probably arrive at the convention with the most pledged delegates, because there’s a certain tidal momentum that comes with the ‘frontrunner’ title.

Does not have a dog. These things have to be considered.

But I’m not here to snark on the bold but stupid predictions of political pundits. I’m here to make a bold but stupid prediction of my own. Here it is:

Bernie Sanders will have the most pledged delegates, but he won’t have a majority; he won’t have enough to win on the first ballot. That will lead to a brokered convention, which will result in Elizabeth Warren getting the nomination.

I suppose that’s really three bold but stupid predictions. Prediction One: Bernie will have the most pledged delegates. I’m basing that on the same thing everybody else is basing it on — his early lead combined with the devotion of his followers.

Prediction Two: It won’t be enough for Bernie to win on the first ballot. I say that because there are other candidates who will NOT drop out and who WILL continue to rack up pledged delegates. Not enough to win, but enough to prevent anybody from earning a majority. I’m not saying they’re staying in the race to deny Bernie the nomination; I suspect they sincerely believe they’re a better choice. Not that it matters; the result is the same.

Prediction Three: In a brokered convention, Elizabeth Warren will get the nomination. I don’t say that because I support Warren (SPOILER: I do support her). I say it because it seems a probably outcome. Why Warren rather than another candidate? Three reasons.

First Reason: I believe the Democratic Party can finally see that a progressive agenda is popular with voters. The differences between Warren’s policy positions and Bernie’s are relatively small. They’re both progressives, but with different ideas and plans on how to get their policies enacted. Warren’s plans are detailed and comprehensive.

Second Reason: Warren has more allies in the Democratic Party than Bernie does. Bernie is a Democrat of Convenience. That’s not an insult. He acknowledges that he needs the framework of the Democratic Party in order to be a viable candidate. But he’s spent most of his political career in open conflict with the party and the Democratic National Committee. That’s a good thing in terms of moving the Democratic toward a more progressive position, but it’s a bad thing for Bernie as a candidate.

Third Reason: If there’s no first ballot winner, we have a brokered convention. That means the dreaded superdelegates would be able to vote on the second ballot. And let’s face it, the superdelegates…wait. It occurs to me that some folks may not know what supeerdelegats are or how they work. So, a quick and dirty tangent.

Superdelegate is the ridiculous name for folks who have a vested interest in the Democratic party. We’re talking about four groups of folks: 1) elected officials of the Democratic National Committee, 2) Democratic governors, 3) Democratic members of Congress, and 4) “distinguished party leaders” like former presidents or former speakers of the House. They make up just under 15% of the delegates. They’re unpledged delegates, which means they’re free to vote for whoever the fuck they want to. As the rules stand now (and those rules, by the way, were written in large part by Bernie and his people), they’re NOT allowed to vote in the first ballot. In other words, they have to sit on their thumbs unless there’s a brokered convention. They’re basically the brokers in the title.

So, back to the third reason. Why would the superdelegates NOT support Bernie? See Reason Two. Bernie just ain’t popular with the Democratic establishment.

Totally has a dog. This cannot be discounted.

Fourth Reason: I know I said ‘three reasons’ but I changed my mind. The fourth reason Elizabeth Warren would probably be the nominee in a brokered convention is that she’s a woman. That’s not, in itself, a reason to support her. But for fuck’s sake, it’s way past time for a woman to get elected. And I think, in a brokered convention, if the nomination went to a white male moderate after being denied to Bernie, a LOT of people would be disappointed and pissed off. If it went to a progressive woman — and this isn’t fair and I hate saying it — there would be fewer complaints. Because NOBODY would want to say out loud that a woman shouldn’t be the nominee. People might THINK that (okay, some men would absolutely think that), but I can’t imagine anybody (aside from a few crazed Berniecrats) who’d make that argument.

So IF there’s a brokered convention, I predict the nomination will got to Elizabeth Warren. And I think she’d win the presidency.

That said, I hope we DON’T have a brokered convention. I hope, if Bernie Sanders continues to do well, that he does well enough to have a majority of pledged delegates and win on the first ballot. A brokered convention might put my preferred candidate at the head of the ticket, but it’s more important that we have a unified Democratic Party.

Okay, there it is. My bold but stupid prediction. You’ve probably got one of your own. Maybe more than one. Bold but stupid predictions usually come wrapped in packages of three or more.

EDITORIAL NOTE: You cannot discount the critical importance of a dog.

vote blue no matter…what?

A couple of things bother me. Well, a million things bother me, but right now I’m going to focus on just a couple that have to do with the Democratic primary. First thing that bothers me is…hold on, let me turn it over to Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. He wrote: “For Democrats, electability is the whole ballgame.”

Robinson is usually reliable. And he’s right about this. Sorta kinda right. Not entirely right, mind you. But more right than wrong. But he’s not right right now.

It’s February, for fuck’s sake. We’ve only had two contests — the Iowa clusterfuck and the slightly less absurd primary in New Hampshire (which, c’mon, is basically Iowa but with mountains instead of cornfields). So in effect, we’ve really had one stretched-out contest in which predominantly rural white people had their say.

It’s WAY too soon to be focused on ‘electability’. Whatever that is. At this point in the election season, folks should stop listening to pundits talk about the most ‘electable’ candidate and start listening to the candidates themselves. Right now, folks should vote for the candidate they think will give them the government they want.

Do that, and guess what. The person who gets the most votes in all the various primaries and caucuses will become…that’s right…electable. It’s like magic.

The problem with trying to figure out who is most ‘electable’ is that it’s fear-based. It’s not about finding the candidate we want the most, or the candidate who inspires us to become the sort of nation we want to be. It’s about finding the candidate who is safest. The most popular of the least offensive candidates. The most ‘electable’ candidate is basically the candidate who’ll appeal to a broad spectrum of…well, white folks.

And that brings me to the other thing that bothers me. Vote blue no matter who. Let me first say this — I believe in that idea. I will absolutely vote for the Democratic candidate even if that person is my least favorite. And then let me say this — vote blue no matter who carries the stink of racism.

Here’s the thing: white voters can afford to be picky. We can say stuff like, “I won’t vote for the lesser of two evils” because we’re largely immune from most of the evils. Not entirely immune, of course, but no matter who gets elected, it’s exceedingly improbable there’ll be an increase in random violence against white folks. There won’t be a rash of white folks being harassed by police, or denied medical care, or blocked from voting, or followed by security at the mall, or being accosted by random citizens and asked to prove we have the right to barbecue in the park or eat a sandwich in the subway or enter an apartment building or hang out on the sidewalk. White folks can be genuinely angry and alarmed at the degradation of democracy under Comrade Trump, but we don’t have to fret as much about our kids being shot by police officers during a routine traffic stop.

Black folks understand that the lesser of two evils is the LESSER EVIL, and Jesus suffering fuck do we really need to do the math here? When we say ‘Vote blue no matter who’ we’re basically saying it to white folks who can afford NOT to vote blue. We’re not saying it to black folks because we take it for granted that black folks will vote Democratic (or not vote at all). What’s really sad is we actually CAN take it for granted, because the quality of their lives is more directly and dramatically affected by the results of an election. 

At this point in the process, focusing on the most ‘electable’ candidate and telling folks to vote blue no matter who is a recipe for picking the least offensive white guy. The process has weeded out all the candidates of color because it was decided (through polling and fund-raising) that they weren’t ‘electable’. Now we’re weeding out the women. Amy Klobuchar is as moderate as Buttigieg and Biden, has a better record of accomplishments, has more experience than Pete and is younger than Joe — but she’s not ‘electable’. Elizabeth Warren is as progressive as Bernie, has a better record of accomplishments, has a broader life experience, and a massive list of detailed plans of action, but she’s not ‘electable’.

Stop that ‘electability’ shit. Just stop it. When we get to the general election we can shout “Vote blue no matter who” but at this point in the process just vote your passion. Don’t be a coward. Vote with your heart.

Editorial Note: Personally, I’d ask you to vote for a woman. It’s way past time we had a woman president. I’d ask you to vote for the most progressive woman. I’d ask you to vote for Elizabeth Warren. But when it’s your turn to vote in your state primary or caucus, don’t listen to anybody or anything but your heart.