Dr. Jill Stein
After gaining ballot access in 12 more states—thanks to petitioning and election wins—the Green Party is now on the ballot in 21 states!
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Music talking with Kat
Ty: Betty, Rebecca, Stan, Elaine, Jess and I are talking with Kat about music -- specifically about what she covers in her music writing. Alicia Keys' new album HERE came out this month and you've reviewed it.
Ty (Con't): You seem to think it's one of the best.
Kat: It's easily one of the best, in fact, barring something else coming out, it is the finest album of 2016.
Betty: I'd agree with that -- and that really surprised me because, for me, her best albums have been her live ones -- especially VH1 STORYTELLERS. But this is such a musical album. You raised Laura Nyro in your review, Kat, and that's such a solid point. What I love about her two live albums is her piano which is much more free and inspired than on the studio albums. Or on previous studio albums. I love her playing here -- on HERE. And Laura really is the subtext for Alicia's playing. It's about colors in the same way Laura's was.
Elaine: Taking nothing away from Carole King or Stevie Wonder who both play keyboards brilliantly, Laura really saw colors in the music and Alicia does seem to share that. There's also an approach that's more true to the musical moment than to a musical form -- she shares that with Laura as well.
Stan: The grunt issue. I'm laughing. I'm glad you raised that. I think that's got to be the thing you hear the most -- at least in the African-American community -- when you hear detractors. I'm talking about certain listeners who'll insist that, say, Ariana Grande is a better singer and insist that's the case because Alicia grunts.
Ty: I've always felt Alicia is a little too real for some people. And, to be honest, a ton of her earlier work seemed to me to have a lot of gloss sprinkled on -- or heavily applied -- to take Alicia away from that reality.
Betty: Really?
Ty: Yes. I can't stand the first album. I love the songs but love them more when she's doing them live. It's just too sugary, the production.
Jess: The weekend before, Kat, you were reviewing the new album by the band Pretenders ALONE. You really loved that.
Kat: I did and do. Prior to Alicia's album, I would've picked ALONE as the year's best. It's still among the year's best. But I really think Alicia's gone beyond it.
Rebecca: This was your tenth review for the year and there's a good chance you'll do at least one more, right?
Kat: Right. There's an album that I'm hoping I'll want to review. I haven't heard it yet. I have it. But I didn't want to listen to Alicia until after I'd reviewed Chrissie Hynde's new Pretenders album and I didn't want to listen to this one before I'd reviewed Alicia. I'm hoping I love the album. If I do, there will be at least one more review.
Jess: Can you talk about your process a little? Writing?
Kat: Sure. I'm a photographer. That's how I've made my living. And it used to be a real pain in the butt to write. If you go to my blog, you'll see I'm doing one snapshot, one picture. And my reviews are really more pictures than a cohesive thing of writing. What helped early one was C.I.'s editing. I'd try to write these things out from start to bottom. She'd say, "What are you doing? This isn't how you produce. You have your own style." And she was right. So we'd go through when I thought I'd failed to complete a piece and she'd help me rearrange the same writing -- so that a paragraph in the middle now kicked things off. It was very freeing. She got me to write a paragraph on a page and then, when I think I'm done or near done, I'll start arranging things. That's how I write now. I don't know where she got the idea. Did someone teach her that?
Elaine: No. That's how she wrote her research papers in college. She worked throughout college and had limited time -- especially in grad school. So she'd start her papers before anyone. And she'd have 100s of note cards, index cards. She'd pull out three or so and write a paragraph on a pice of paper and then, writing a paragraph or two a day, she'd have a paper in about three weeks and she'd start assembling it.
Rebecca: And she's never stumped. I don't get that. She doesn't write like that today. She doesn't have the time. She just cuts a vein and lets it pour out. There are times when I may offer a Tweet at my blog and all I do is five times a week at the most. I have no idea how she writes like she does.
Kat: I have so much admiration for not only her writing -- which is great -- but for the ability she has to write. I marvel over it. Like, Tuesday, the election, okay? So we're all speaking -- Wally, Ava, C.I. and myself -- and everyone's doing the roundtable for the special gina & krista round-robin. And at some point, we're all like, "What are you doing tomorrow? A snapshot?" You know, asking C.I. if Wednesday morning will be a snapshot. And she says something like, "Well Ava and I wrote a piece the morning after the last presidential election so we'll probably do that as well." And Ava's asked and she has no idea what the topic itself will be about. So I'm eating breakfast the next morning, Wally's mainly flipping through channels and eating toast and in one hour Ava and C.I. come up with that piece ["So, uh, we weren't with her? (Ava and C.I.)"]. And it's so amazing. And it's like, "How do you do that?" They did it in less than an hour. It was really something.
Jess: It really was.
Betty: Well one of the keys C.I. will tell you is that you just do it. You can't think about it. You can't think, "Oh, X number of community members and visitors are expecting me to have something written" because it will paralyze you. You can't obsess over it or think over it, you just have to do it. Which is why she's been able to post new content at THE COMMON ILLS every day since the site started in 2004. Every day, she's been there writing. It's the 12th anniversary right now, I think. 12 years and every day, never a day off.
Kat: And no greatest hits!
Ty: (Lauging) No greatest hits.
Kat: I love that about her. She won't just sing the same song. She could. But she's like, "I've done that already. I have to grow." There are people who would love her if she'd be a party organ who only took on THE NEW YORK TIMES. To this day, her pieces on NYT continue to get hits. But she got tired of that, she felt she'd done it and she moved on. She's not going to hop on stage and sing the oldies.
Rebecca: Bob Somerby does. Kevin Drum does. Most of the male bloggers/writers do.
Elaine: But she'd never do that. She didn't do it in her real career and she won't do it online. It's about integrity and daring to grow. And she'll always surprise you.
Kat: And I try to grow. I think she pulls a lot of us along with her. For which I'm very grateful. I'd hate to be fixed and non-thinking.
Stan: One thing that she's done -- she's done a lot -- is she's put women front and center.
Kat: I don't think people get -- even those who know she's a feminist and are feminist themselves -- just how radical and revolutionary what she's done is. The music canon, for example, was built by men. They do the same articles over and over. I mean does COUNTERPUNCH know a single female artist they cover? They do several pieces on Bob Dylan a year.
Stan: And Bruce Springsteen.
Kat: Yes. But C.I.'s mixed music into her politics and it's been women. She's used the songs of Carly Simon, india.arie, Melanie, Joni Mitchell, Laura Nyro, Roberta Flack, Tori Amos, Rickie Lee Jones, Aretha Franklin, Lauryn Hill, Mary J. Blige and so many other women. That's the point of reference. It would be so easy for her to follow everyone's lead and go with men -- Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Bruce, etc. But she's used women and not in a begging, imploring, please here us manner. She's done it in a way that says these women matter. No apologies, no begging.
Ty: Haven't you tried to do that with your music writing as well?
Kat: Tori Amos and Carly Simon are my two most reviewed artists, yes. I've tried to make sure that women get an equal shot. I'm reviewing bands as well as solo artists. I try to make sure that women get that equal shot at coverage and, when I'm writing about a female artist, I try to do some context as to where they line up among their peers.
Jess: And you do review male artists -- before anyone wonders. I believe your most reviewed male artist is Ben Harper.
Kat: Ben Harper is probably my favorite male artist. He's also one of the few that has really challenged not only the listeners but also himself.
Rebecca: And you've had praise, over the years, for Wilco. You've also reviewed Bruce and not been impressed -- repeatedly.
Kat: I do like TUNNEL OF LOVE. That was a great album, probably his last great one. But, I'm not a big fan of his current work, no. And he really had a fit about something I wrote. He just hammered me to C.I. and she was like, "Uh, it's a review. Not a death sentence. You got plenty of praise, I don't think one review destroyed you."
Ty: Talk about that, when this happened. I don't think it's been shared outside of the community newslettters.
Kat: Sure. He walks up and I'm thrilled. C.I. knows him and he's coming to speak to her and I'm right next to her thinking, "Oh, I can't wait for her to introduce me." Because I hated that folk album -- or faux folk. But I did like Bruce. And he comes up and starts snarling about that review and immediately I'm thinking, "Oh, God, don't introduce me. Please don't tell him I wrote it."
[Laughter.]
Kat (Con't): So when he comes up for air, C.I. first notes it's just one review, second that she was glad it went up at her site, third her friend wrote it and fourth she's not going to bash her friend. He kind of backed down. When she was done, he tried to change the subject. And he was with someone -- Sting? -- and his wife and started saying that she should come over and have a drink and she was like, "No, I don't think so. Thank you." So that was my non-meeting of Bruce Springsteen.
Elaine: What are you happy about? We're talking about how C.I. has now done 12 years at THE COMMON ILLS. That's amazing and worthy of praise. But in December of 2014, you started posting your writing there. So you're on the verge of 12 years yourself.
Kat: I'm glad I got to write about Carly. There's Stephen Holden and a few other perceptive musical writers. They've praised her. But I think she's getting more of her due in the last decade -- due she's earned. And I'm glad if I've been able to contribute to that in any small way. She's one of the most talented artists and one of my favorites. I'm glad I've been able to champion Ben Harper. He's big but I don't understand why he's not bigger, to be honest. I'm so thrilled that I got to review a new album by Joni Mitchell [SHINE] and that the Afghan Whigs got back together for a new album while I've been reviewing because I love them. I'm proud that I covered Melanie -- especially her EVER SINCE YOU NEVER HEARD OF ME. She's a mystic. I'm glad I go to say that publicly, to provide that context.
Betty: "Space cadet" was a term critics -- mainly men -- used to tear Stevie Nicks down in the 80s and you did a great job defining her art in your reviews in the '00s and in this decade. But, at the same time, there was enough of a backlash towards the sexism that the world had turned already. With Melanie, you provided the context that no one wanted to provide. I think that's the sort of thing you should feel really proud of. I also loved how you reviewed Prince. If it was a strong album, you sang his praises. When he was off somewhere else, you said so.
Rebecca: One thing I'll especially praise Kat for is not confusing politics with music. If she agreed with someone's politics that didn't mean she gave weak music a pass. Too many reviews in the last decade have embraced bad music just because we were simpatico with the politics of the artist.
Stan: I like how she's taken on pop tarts. Especially Justin Timberlake. He acts like he overthrew Michael Jackson but he's nothing compared to Michael. Hell, he's nothing compared to Tito Jackson. And I'll also applaud Kat especially for getting Janet Jackson's last album when so many reviewers seemed not to understand it. And in terms of context, her series on Cher really provided context:
Cher's far from over
The 80s: Where Cher Proves Them All Wrong
Cher and the too far gone 70s
Cher's 60s recordings
Kat: I'm proud of that series.
Elaine: I was reading this really bad book on CAA and in it Nancy and Ann Wilson are going on about how 2010 was their comeback and that it was the White House performing "Stairway to Heaven" in 2010. I don't know what they were smoking. 2009 was their comeback and Kat was among many praising their album.
Jess: When you look back on your reviews -- other than the ones we've already discussed in some form -- what stands out?
Kat: I praised the Rolling Stones A BIGGER BANG but I wish I'd praised it more. I loved it in 2005 but my love for that album has grown. I really find it to be one of the classic albums from the groups. I also praised Aretha Franklin's 2014 release but I don't think I praised it enough either. It's an amazing album that I can't stop listening to. I'm glad I wrote about Richie Havens, Etta James, Prince and Nina Simone before they passed away.
Ty: In terms of providing context, I'd praise your review of Janis Ian's FOLK IS THE NEW BLACK. It's a great album. But the thing that stands out was how I could grasp why she mattered beyond that album and what her career was because of your review. That's true of a lot of them, to be clear. But I had no idea who Janis Ian was before that album. As we wind down, you had no idea, back in December 2004, that 12 years later, you'd still be writing about music did you?
Kat: Hell no. I thought I'd be done by now, easily. No offense but I hope I'm not still at this in 12 more years. It's been fun but it's been a long time.
Betty: Do you have a musical memory that stands out from the last 12 years?
Kat: A lot of great concerts -- mainly by Tori Amos who remains the best live artist. Other than that? Going around the country with Wally, Ava and C.I. is a great deal of fun. The first time I hear music is often via the car. "Pawn It All," from Alicia's new album, for example, I heard that first in the car, no music, just Ava and C.I. singing it off the top of their heads. Or Wally or C.I. will have a guitar in the car and start strumming something and we'll sing along. One of my best memories was one of the coldest. It was winter. We were speaking to some groups on the eastern seaboard. We were in a beachfront cabin, staying there, of a friend of C.I.'s. It wasn't built for the winter. You walked in the front door and stepped down into what was a long rectangle room, a kitchen and a living room, you then stepped further down and were in a living/media room and there was one bedroom behind that but we all crashed in the middle room -- the living/media room because it was in the middle with two walls not exposed to the outside. The front door had big gaps where cold air poured through. It was so cold. But the next morning, when we got up, we had so much fun playing in the snow while we let the car warm up. I can remember getting in the car and we were singing songs by the Hollies, the Mamas and the Papas, Joanna Newsom and a few others as we drove through these snow littered streets and roads. Being from California, that was a really different kind of experience.
Ty (Con't): You seem to think it's one of the best.
Kat: It's easily one of the best, in fact, barring something else coming out, it is the finest album of 2016.
Betty: I'd agree with that -- and that really surprised me because, for me, her best albums have been her live ones -- especially VH1 STORYTELLERS. But this is such a musical album. You raised Laura Nyro in your review, Kat, and that's such a solid point. What I love about her two live albums is her piano which is much more free and inspired than on the studio albums. Or on previous studio albums. I love her playing here -- on HERE. And Laura really is the subtext for Alicia's playing. It's about colors in the same way Laura's was.
Elaine: Taking nothing away from Carole King or Stevie Wonder who both play keyboards brilliantly, Laura really saw colors in the music and Alicia does seem to share that. There's also an approach that's more true to the musical moment than to a musical form -- she shares that with Laura as well.
Stan: The grunt issue. I'm laughing. I'm glad you raised that. I think that's got to be the thing you hear the most -- at least in the African-American community -- when you hear detractors. I'm talking about certain listeners who'll insist that, say, Ariana Grande is a better singer and insist that's the case because Alicia grunts.
Ty: I've always felt Alicia is a little too real for some people. And, to be honest, a ton of her earlier work seemed to me to have a lot of gloss sprinkled on -- or heavily applied -- to take Alicia away from that reality.
Betty: Really?
Ty: Yes. I can't stand the first album. I love the songs but love them more when she's doing them live. It's just too sugary, the production.
Jess: The weekend before, Kat, you were reviewing the new album by the band Pretenders ALONE. You really loved that.
Kat: I did and do. Prior to Alicia's album, I would've picked ALONE as the year's best. It's still among the year's best. But I really think Alicia's gone beyond it.
Rebecca: This was your tenth review for the year and there's a good chance you'll do at least one more, right?
Kat: Right. There's an album that I'm hoping I'll want to review. I haven't heard it yet. I have it. But I didn't want to listen to Alicia until after I'd reviewed Chrissie Hynde's new Pretenders album and I didn't want to listen to this one before I'd reviewed Alicia. I'm hoping I love the album. If I do, there will be at least one more review.
Jess: Can you talk about your process a little? Writing?
Kat: Sure. I'm a photographer. That's how I've made my living. And it used to be a real pain in the butt to write. If you go to my blog, you'll see I'm doing one snapshot, one picture. And my reviews are really more pictures than a cohesive thing of writing. What helped early one was C.I.'s editing. I'd try to write these things out from start to bottom. She'd say, "What are you doing? This isn't how you produce. You have your own style." And she was right. So we'd go through when I thought I'd failed to complete a piece and she'd help me rearrange the same writing -- so that a paragraph in the middle now kicked things off. It was very freeing. She got me to write a paragraph on a page and then, when I think I'm done or near done, I'll start arranging things. That's how I write now. I don't know where she got the idea. Did someone teach her that?
Elaine: No. That's how she wrote her research papers in college. She worked throughout college and had limited time -- especially in grad school. So she'd start her papers before anyone. And she'd have 100s of note cards, index cards. She'd pull out three or so and write a paragraph on a pice of paper and then, writing a paragraph or two a day, she'd have a paper in about three weeks and she'd start assembling it.
Rebecca: And she's never stumped. I don't get that. She doesn't write like that today. She doesn't have the time. She just cuts a vein and lets it pour out. There are times when I may offer a Tweet at my blog and all I do is five times a week at the most. I have no idea how she writes like she does.
Kat: I have so much admiration for not only her writing -- which is great -- but for the ability she has to write. I marvel over it. Like, Tuesday, the election, okay? So we're all speaking -- Wally, Ava, C.I. and myself -- and everyone's doing the roundtable for the special gina & krista round-robin. And at some point, we're all like, "What are you doing tomorrow? A snapshot?" You know, asking C.I. if Wednesday morning will be a snapshot. And she says something like, "Well Ava and I wrote a piece the morning after the last presidential election so we'll probably do that as well." And Ava's asked and she has no idea what the topic itself will be about. So I'm eating breakfast the next morning, Wally's mainly flipping through channels and eating toast and in one hour Ava and C.I. come up with that piece ["So, uh, we weren't with her? (Ava and C.I.)"]. And it's so amazing. And it's like, "How do you do that?" They did it in less than an hour. It was really something.
Jess: It really was.
Betty: Well one of the keys C.I. will tell you is that you just do it. You can't think about it. You can't think, "Oh, X number of community members and visitors are expecting me to have something written" because it will paralyze you. You can't obsess over it or think over it, you just have to do it. Which is why she's been able to post new content at THE COMMON ILLS every day since the site started in 2004. Every day, she's been there writing. It's the 12th anniversary right now, I think. 12 years and every day, never a day off.
Kat: And no greatest hits!
Ty: (Lauging) No greatest hits.
Kat: I love that about her. She won't just sing the same song. She could. But she's like, "I've done that already. I have to grow." There are people who would love her if she'd be a party organ who only took on THE NEW YORK TIMES. To this day, her pieces on NYT continue to get hits. But she got tired of that, she felt she'd done it and she moved on. She's not going to hop on stage and sing the oldies.
Rebecca: Bob Somerby does. Kevin Drum does. Most of the male bloggers/writers do.
Elaine: But she'd never do that. She didn't do it in her real career and she won't do it online. It's about integrity and daring to grow. And she'll always surprise you.
Kat: And I try to grow. I think she pulls a lot of us along with her. For which I'm very grateful. I'd hate to be fixed and non-thinking.
Stan: One thing that she's done -- she's done a lot -- is she's put women front and center.
Kat: I don't think people get -- even those who know she's a feminist and are feminist themselves -- just how radical and revolutionary what she's done is. The music canon, for example, was built by men. They do the same articles over and over. I mean does COUNTERPUNCH know a single female artist they cover? They do several pieces on Bob Dylan a year.
Stan: And Bruce Springsteen.
Kat: Yes. But C.I.'s mixed music into her politics and it's been women. She's used the songs of Carly Simon, india.arie, Melanie, Joni Mitchell, Laura Nyro, Roberta Flack, Tori Amos, Rickie Lee Jones, Aretha Franklin, Lauryn Hill, Mary J. Blige and so many other women. That's the point of reference. It would be so easy for her to follow everyone's lead and go with men -- Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Bruce, etc. But she's used women and not in a begging, imploring, please here us manner. She's done it in a way that says these women matter. No apologies, no begging.
Ty: Haven't you tried to do that with your music writing as well?
Kat: Tori Amos and Carly Simon are my two most reviewed artists, yes. I've tried to make sure that women get an equal shot. I'm reviewing bands as well as solo artists. I try to make sure that women get that equal shot at coverage and, when I'm writing about a female artist, I try to do some context as to where they line up among their peers.
Jess: And you do review male artists -- before anyone wonders. I believe your most reviewed male artist is Ben Harper.
Kat: Ben Harper is probably my favorite male artist. He's also one of the few that has really challenged not only the listeners but also himself.
Rebecca: And you've had praise, over the years, for Wilco. You've also reviewed Bruce and not been impressed -- repeatedly.
Kat: I do like TUNNEL OF LOVE. That was a great album, probably his last great one. But, I'm not a big fan of his current work, no. And he really had a fit about something I wrote. He just hammered me to C.I. and she was like, "Uh, it's a review. Not a death sentence. You got plenty of praise, I don't think one review destroyed you."
Ty: Talk about that, when this happened. I don't think it's been shared outside of the community newslettters.
Kat: Sure. He walks up and I'm thrilled. C.I. knows him and he's coming to speak to her and I'm right next to her thinking, "Oh, I can't wait for her to introduce me." Because I hated that folk album -- or faux folk. But I did like Bruce. And he comes up and starts snarling about that review and immediately I'm thinking, "Oh, God, don't introduce me. Please don't tell him I wrote it."
[Laughter.]
Kat (Con't): So when he comes up for air, C.I. first notes it's just one review, second that she was glad it went up at her site, third her friend wrote it and fourth she's not going to bash her friend. He kind of backed down. When she was done, he tried to change the subject. And he was with someone -- Sting? -- and his wife and started saying that she should come over and have a drink and she was like, "No, I don't think so. Thank you." So that was my non-meeting of Bruce Springsteen.
Elaine: What are you happy about? We're talking about how C.I. has now done 12 years at THE COMMON ILLS. That's amazing and worthy of praise. But in December of 2014, you started posting your writing there. So you're on the verge of 12 years yourself.
Kat: I'm glad I got to write about Carly. There's Stephen Holden and a few other perceptive musical writers. They've praised her. But I think she's getting more of her due in the last decade -- due she's earned. And I'm glad if I've been able to contribute to that in any small way. She's one of the most talented artists and one of my favorites. I'm glad I've been able to champion Ben Harper. He's big but I don't understand why he's not bigger, to be honest. I'm so thrilled that I got to review a new album by Joni Mitchell [SHINE] and that the Afghan Whigs got back together for a new album while I've been reviewing because I love them. I'm proud that I covered Melanie -- especially her EVER SINCE YOU NEVER HEARD OF ME. She's a mystic. I'm glad I go to say that publicly, to provide that context.
Betty: "Space cadet" was a term critics -- mainly men -- used to tear Stevie Nicks down in the 80s and you did a great job defining her art in your reviews in the '00s and in this decade. But, at the same time, there was enough of a backlash towards the sexism that the world had turned already. With Melanie, you provided the context that no one wanted to provide. I think that's the sort of thing you should feel really proud of. I also loved how you reviewed Prince. If it was a strong album, you sang his praises. When he was off somewhere else, you said so.
Rebecca: One thing I'll especially praise Kat for is not confusing politics with music. If she agreed with someone's politics that didn't mean she gave weak music a pass. Too many reviews in the last decade have embraced bad music just because we were simpatico with the politics of the artist.
Stan: I like how she's taken on pop tarts. Especially Justin Timberlake. He acts like he overthrew Michael Jackson but he's nothing compared to Michael. Hell, he's nothing compared to Tito Jackson. And I'll also applaud Kat especially for getting Janet Jackson's last album when so many reviewers seemed not to understand it. And in terms of context, her series on Cher really provided context:
Kat: I'm proud of that series.
Elaine: I was reading this really bad book on CAA and in it Nancy and Ann Wilson are going on about how 2010 was their comeback and that it was the White House performing "Stairway to Heaven" in 2010. I don't know what they were smoking. 2009 was their comeback and Kat was among many praising their album.
Jess: When you look back on your reviews -- other than the ones we've already discussed in some form -- what stands out?
Kat: I praised the Rolling Stones A BIGGER BANG but I wish I'd praised it more. I loved it in 2005 but my love for that album has grown. I really find it to be one of the classic albums from the groups. I also praised Aretha Franklin's 2014 release but I don't think I praised it enough either. It's an amazing album that I can't stop listening to. I'm glad I wrote about Richie Havens, Etta James, Prince and Nina Simone before they passed away.
Ty: In terms of providing context, I'd praise your review of Janis Ian's FOLK IS THE NEW BLACK. It's a great album. But the thing that stands out was how I could grasp why she mattered beyond that album and what her career was because of your review. That's true of a lot of them, to be clear. But I had no idea who Janis Ian was before that album. As we wind down, you had no idea, back in December 2004, that 12 years later, you'd still be writing about music did you?
Kat: Hell no. I thought I'd be done by now, easily. No offense but I hope I'm not still at this in 12 more years. It's been fun but it's been a long time.
Betty: Do you have a musical memory that stands out from the last 12 years?
Kat: A lot of great concerts -- mainly by Tori Amos who remains the best live artist. Other than that? Going around the country with Wally, Ava and C.I. is a great deal of fun. The first time I hear music is often via the car. "Pawn It All," from Alicia's new album, for example, I heard that first in the car, no music, just Ava and C.I. singing it off the top of their heads. Or Wally or C.I. will have a guitar in the car and start strumming something and we'll sing along. One of my best memories was one of the coldest. It was winter. We were speaking to some groups on the eastern seaboard. We were in a beachfront cabin, staying there, of a friend of C.I.'s. It wasn't built for the winter. You walked in the front door and stepped down into what was a long rectangle room, a kitchen and a living room, you then stepped further down and were in a living/media room and there was one bedroom behind that but we all crashed in the middle room -- the living/media room because it was in the middle with two walls not exposed to the outside. The front door had big gaps where cold air poured through. It was so cold. But the next morning, when we got up, we had so much fun playing in the snow while we let the car warm up. I can remember getting in the car and we were singing songs by the Hollies, the Mamas and the Papas, Joanna Newsom and a few others as we drove through these snow littered streets and roads. Being from California, that was a really different kind of experience.
Kat's music writing
Kat's been writing about music at THE COMMON ILLS since 2004.
Below is a list of her music writings:
Alicia Keys' HERE
Pretenders' ALONE
Chris Brown's Mixed up Mix tape
Melissa Etheridge: The lesbian who preferred men
Barbra Streisand's lousy encore
Nick Jonas LAST YEAR WAS COMPLICATED
No one hates Drake more than Drake
Ben Harper's Call It What It Is
Graham Nash This Path Tonight
Diana Ross Sings Songs From The Wiz
2015 in Music
Tracy Chapman's Greatest Hits
Adele 25
Carly Simon's Songs From The Trees
The Triumphant return of Janet Jackson
Judy Collins plays Where The Boys Are
Rickie Lee Jones The Other Side of Desire
Wilco's Star Wars
Steve Grand
Buffy Sainte-Marie's Power In The Blood
Carly Simon The Bedroom Tapes
Ringo Starr Postcards from Paradise
DNR order on Madonna's Rebel Heart
2014 in music
Ronstadt and Streisand do duets
Neil Young Storytones
Aretha Franklin Sings The Great Diva Classics
Stevie Nicks' 24 Karat Gold
Prince drops 2 albums
Lenny Kravitz' Strut
Carly Simon Original Album Series
Chrissie Hynde's Stockholm
Tori Amos Unrepentant Geraldines
Ben Harper and Ellen Harper Childhood Home
Livingston Taylor Blue Sky
Afghan Whigs Do The Beast
Cloud Nothings
Pretenders The Isle Of View
Ben Taylor's Listening
Bruce Springsteen High Hopes
Brad Paisley
2013 in music
Beyonce's awful album
Jack Johnson From Here To Now To You
Cher's Closer To The Truth
Jackson and His Computerband
Sam Phillips
Ebony Bones Behold, A Pale Horse
Maps (James Chapman)
Hanni El Khatib
Shannon and the Clams
Natalie Maines' Mother
Holly Near, Go Away
Kate Nash's Girl Talk
Devendra Banhart
Taylor Swift Red
2012 In Music
Rolling Stones GRRR!
Heart's Fanatic
Alanis Morissette
Animal Collective
Susanna Hoffs and Joss Stone
Carole King Demos, Maria McKee Live
What Regina Spektor Saw Playing It Cheap
Bonnie Raitt Slipstream
Wilson Phillips Dedicated
M. Ward's A Wasteland Companion
Carole King's Touch the Sky
Carole King's Welcome Home
Graffiti6 Colours
The Sensual Roberta Flack
Ani DiFranco Which Side Are You On?
Moves Like Jagger
2011 in music
Doris Day and Rob Crow
Tori Amos Night of Hunters
Muppet 'tribute' album
Beastie Boys
Joss Stone
Amy Winehouse vs the Plastic World
Death Cab for Cutie's Codes and Silences
Ben Harper's Give Till It's Gone
Phil Spector's Wall of Sound
Stevie Nicks In Your Dreams
Emmylou Harris
Radiohead The King Of Limbs
PJ Harvey Let England Shake
2010 in Music
Melanie's Ever Since You Never Heard Of Me
Cher's far from over
The 80s: Where Cher Proves Them All Wrong
Cher and the too far gone 70s
Neil Young's Le Noise
Heart
Cher's 60s recordings
Melanie's Crazy Love
Sarah McLachlan's Laws of Illusions
Tom Petty & Heartbreakers forgot to write some songs
Kate Nash
Jakob Dylan
Natalie Merchant
Torch singer Sade
Joanna Newsom's triumph
The decade in music
2009 in Music
Joni Mitchell live on Greenpeace CD
Carly Simon Never Been Gone
Barbra is the answer
Holly Near & emma's revolution
Under The Covers Vol. 2
Cass Elliot's classic album
John Fogerty's White Flight
Elvis Costello Goes Country
Regina Spektor Far
Ben Harper White Lies For Dark Times
Tori Amos Abnormally Attracted to Sin
David Saw Broken Down Figure
Prince LOtUSFLOW3R
Stevie Nicks The Soundstage Sessions
Joshua Radin Simple Beauty
U2 No Line On The Horizon
Charity albums
india.arie
Schuyler Fisk
Tracy Chapman Our Bright Future
Bruce Springsteen Working On a Dream
Best of Janis Ian
Phoebe Snow Live
2008 in Music
Labelle Back To Now
Pretends Break Up The Concrete
Aimee Mann @#%&*! Smilers
Augustana Can't Love, Can't Hurt
Cold Play Vida la Vida
The Very Best of Linda Ronstadt
Carly Simon This Kind Of Love
Jack Johnson Sleep Through The Static
Lenny Kravitz It Is Time For A Love Revolution
2007 in Music
Smashing Pumpkins Zeitgeist
Ann Wilson Hope & Glory
Prince Planet Earth
Joni Mitchell Shine
Stephen Stills and Ani DiFranco
Ben Harper Lifeline
Judy Collins Sings Lennon & McCartney
Cowboy Junkies at the end of paths taken
Mavis Staples We'll Never Turn Back
Rickie Lee Jones and Norah Jones
Albert Hammond Jr. Yours To Keep
Tori Amos American Doll
Patti Smith Twelve
Bright Eyes Cassadaga
Holly Near Shows Up
Diana Ross I Love You
Lizzie West I Pledge Allegiance to Myself
Carly Simon Into White
2006 in Music
David Rovic Halliburton Boardroom Massacre
Ani DiFranco Reprieve
Justin Timberlake Future Sex/Love Sounds
Michael Franti & Spearhead Yell Fire!
Free Design Kites Are Fun
Janis Ian Folk Is The New Black
Neil Young Living With War
Pink I'm Not Dead
Josh Ritter The Animal Years
Pearl Jam
Dixie Chicks Taking The Long Way
Bruce Springsteen Seeger Sessions
Richie Havens Collection
Ben Harper Both Sides of The Gun
Etta James All The Way
Nina Simone The Solid Gold Collection
Cat Power The Greatest
2005 in Music
Carly Simon No Secrets
James Blunt Back to Bedlam
Bright Eyes Motion Sickness
Stevie Wonder A Time To Dance
Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang
Joan Baez Bowery Songs
The Complete Cass Elliot Solo Collection
Aimee Mann The Forgotten Arm
Carole King The Living Room
Carly Simon Moonlight Serenade
Coldplay X & Y
White Stripes Get Behind Me, Satan
Judy Collins Portrait of an American Girl
Carole King Tapestry
Tori Amos The Beekeeper
Nirvana With The Lights Out
Why Does Music Suck So Bad Pt. I
Why Does Music Suck So Bad Pt. II
Wilco A Ghost Is Born
Almost 41 years later
Maria McKee Live in Hamburg
Green Day v. Disney Kids
Below is a list of her music writings:
So, uh, we weren't with her? (Ava and C.I.)
This is a repost from THE COMMON ILLS:
The votes have been counted and, turns out, the country wasn't "with her."
Charges of racism (led by Van Jones) are already making the rounds because reality is hard for a number of people.
From his veal pen, Paul Krugman raged at Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
Cher went after Stein and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson for the 'crime' of running for president.
They're on to something.
If Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and Donald Trump hadn't run and Hillary Clinton was the only name on the ballot, she might have won -- or almost won.
That's how the Democratic Party primary went.
Intimidation, don't lie, we know the truth, kept a lot of people from running. That's how you ended up with No Name Martin and I'll Push Her To The Left Bernie.
Remember 2008?
Remember John Edwards and Hillary griping about how too many people were on the stage at that debate?
Russ Feingold, Elizabeth Warren, any number of well liked people could have run.
Instead, we got divisive Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is divisive.
She always has been.
Is it who she is or is it what she stands for?
To quote Hillary: What difference, at this point, does it make?
She is divisive.
Forget that you should want to run a uniter, not a divider.
Set that aside.
The election depends upon votes.
A divisive person like Hillary will never get the most votes nationally.
And this was known.
Nobody wanted to talk about it, but it was known.
It's why, in 2008, Barack Obama got the nomination and she didn't.
That's why Debbie Washerwoman Schultz, during her sordid time as DNC Chair, rigged things for Hillary -- including the number of debates and when they would take place.
As we stated repeatedly back in 2015, the more people see Hillary, the less they like her.
That's always been a given.
Even when she rode the sympathy from Bill cheating on her with Monica Lewinsky.
There was a lot more sympathy registered for her when she was off hiding.
When she returned to public life, the support lessened.
People seem to like the idea of Hillary better than they like the actual person.
Van Jones is crying racism defeated Hillary.
Strange, because the same electorate twice voted Barack Obama into the White House.
And strange because Hillary is, after all, White Anglo.
Some are crying sexism.
That makes us laugh.
We didn't vote for Hillary.
In 2008, in the Democratic Party primary, we voted for her in California.
So, apparently, in the last eight years, we became sexist?
We know Hillary and we know (and like) Bill.
In 2008, after Iowa, we backed Hillary (we were not backing anyone prior to Iowa).
We are opposed to the Iraq War -- obviously, we go around the country to this day speaking out against it.
But we know Hillary, we know she's never wrong in her mind.
So that she would offer her vote was "a mistake" seemed like she might be growing.
We also liked what her campaign stood for.
Contrast her "For anyone who's ever been counted out . . ." of 2008 with "I'm With Her" of this go round.
Were we trying to get into a club?
I'm with her?
In 2008, she was going to do something to help we the people, she was going to be a fighter for we the people.
Eight years later, I'm with her?
She ran her campaign as though the country owed her the presidency and all she had to do was show up for the coronation.
And she faced sexism . . . in 2008.
And we defended her from it -- when the sexist media itself was denying that it was even taking place.
Barack Obama was one of the worst offenders with "claws come out" "periodically" blah, blah, blah.
The same media that repeatedly ignored that in 2008 bent over backwards -- as did Hillary -- to charge that any criticism of her was sexism.
There was valid criticism of Hillary before she ever ran for president. (We worked some into a 2005 TV review of COMMANDER IN CHIEF).
But in 2016, Bernie was a sexist and this person was a sexist and that person was a sexist and the . . .
It just never ended.
Possibly because the same 'creative class' that backed Barack (and tore apart Hillary) in 2008 now was backing Hillary.
We know why we turned against Hillary.
We were at the Congressional hearings on Iraq when she was Secretary of State.
We heard the frustrations of committee members -- Democrats and Republicans -- over Hillary's request for this amount or that amount of money and how the plan for the money would not be presented -- it would come later, supposedly (it never did), after the funds were authorized.
We listened to one State Dept hack after another try to spin when asked the most basic points about how State would be handling Iraq and then how State was handling Iraq. (In October of 2011, Barack Obama turned Iraq over to the State Dept -- it was now the lead on the country, no longer the Defense Dept.)
We had been at hearings where Condi Rice talked about Iraq when she was Secretary of State.
Hillary didn't appear for Iraq.
She sent flunkies.
Some, like Brooke Darby, we felt sorry for.
Brooke seems like a nice and responsive young woman.
So it was really sad to watch rightly frustrated members of Congress take those frustrations out on Brooke since Hillary herself wouldn't show up.
Millions were wasted in Iraq because Hillary didn't listen.
They didn't want trainers.
But she poured millions into training and no one was showing up.
Not to mention the millions it took to build the compound training was to have taken place at.
She sent Brooke to insist that part of the mission for Iraqi women would involve the US Embassy in Baghdad and consulates throughout the country.
And a dubious committee all but gaped.
In the end, these consulates never came to be.
It was never practical in terms of safety (Hillary would later carry the poor notion over to her plans with regards to Libya).
We know people in State.
We heard how bad things were morale wise in 2007 and 2008.
Hillary did improve morale.
And we gave her credit for that.
But the same group that praised her to us for that would also note how . . .
. . . well . . .
. . . it was like you couldn't question.
Huh?
They were telling us that there was no real oversight of her.
So we rightly began publicly noting that there was no IG for the State Dept.
Hillary didn't want one.
(John Kerry, at his confirmation hearing, was asked about the IG issue and promised to have one before the end of the year if confirmed. Within eight or so months, he did just that.)
She didn't want oversight.
And she didn't want questions.
Morale began to wane.
(It has continued under John Kerry. Career diplomats are tired of having a Secretary of State who clearly wishes he were instead Secretary of Defense.)
These were serious problems.
Also a serious problem was the fact that Iraqi women were having to fight for their rights.
This included protests on the street. This included the daughter of one of the KRG's two powerful families having to speak out publicly on the fact that the cabinet Nouri al-Maliki put together in his second term had no women in it.
Where was Hillary?
Where was that friend of women and girls?
Silent.
She voted for the Iraq War and supported it.
When she finally admits to a "mistake," she does nothing to fix her mistake.
All of that led up to her infamous public appearance where she uttered that "What difference, at this point, does it matter?"
We were there.
We covered it.
From the January 24, 2013 snapshot:
Hillary's performance in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday should have resulted in her being condemned -- both for how she presented herself and for what she said. We called her out in yesterday's snapshot. In addition, Wally covered it in "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally)," Ava covered it in "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth covered it in "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat covered it in "Can she not answer even one damn question?" Kat admits that she was so surprised and disgusted by Hillary's performance that she didn't attend the afternoon hearing with us because she couldn't take seeing Hillary like that again. Ava points out that Hillary acted out in every negative stereotypical was possible. Ruth compares her to Nixon when it comes to answering questions. They went into the hearing expecting Hillary to sail through it in a professional and adult manner. I did have doubts and by the time Hillary was screaming and waving her hands -- above the shoulders -- like a lunatic, I'm sorry. I supported her in 2008. I don't see supporting a presidential run again.
The press rushed to praise her.
This was an awful performance.
It's when we could no longer support her.
Granted, we were at the entire hearing, we heard about the 20 diplomatic posts that were at risk (according to her -- although she hadn't spent any time prior to that asking Congress for funds to protect these posts). We heard avoid questions.
We heard the whole thing.
The press went into a sexual frenzy over it.
Apparently, they're all a bunch of masochists and saw, in her rude outbursts, a dominatrix whose heel they could happily live under.
Night was day as they foamed in their panties in briefs and panted on air in praise of Hillary.
There was your first warning of disconnect between the media and the public.
That moment became a defining moment for Hillary and began really hardening the divisions.
But the press missed it because to them it was just super duper awesome.
The press continued to act that way.
They fawned over her.
Donna Brazile working for CNN gave Hillary questions to debates.
When this was revealed, CNN's Jake Tapper stood alone in publicly declaring this was wrong.
Donna got to lie on TV -- FOX NEWS, where else? -- and say she was being persecuted and she didn't do it and she was a good Christian woman and . . .
Turns out she did do it and she did it repeatedly.
So did a lot of others, as WikiLeaks has revealed.
But even those who weren't getting the DNC to do their research for columns and interviews, the way John Harwood and Dana Milbank did, were rushing to rip apart fairness.
At one point, Jimmy Fallon (disclosure, we know and love Jimmy) was being ripped apart.
Jimmy Fallon.
The guy who just wants to make everyone laugh.
One of the few people without a mean bone in his body.
He was ripped apart by the press.
For what?
For doing a nice interview with Donald Trump.
He was supposed to tear into Donald, apparently.
Jimmy hosts an entertainment program called THE TONIGHT SHOW.
COMEDY CENTRAL has confused a large number of people so maybe they're unaware that entertainment is not news.
Jimmy got ripped apart for being a good host.
By contrast, Seth Meyers (the 'liberal' please remember that blamed the housing foreclosures on minorities when he was at SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE) announced that Donald Trump would not be allowed on his show.
Seth forgot that he was an entertainer and also forgot that he wasn't winning late night.
The Jimmys are cute and lovable (Fallon and Kimmel). Seth looks like his head was squeezed too tight in the birthing canal as he entered the world.
Seth was either praised for his 'firm stand' (defending the First Entertainment Amendment at all costs!) or people ignored it.
He's a talk show host of an entertainment program.
There was no need to grand stand.
Paul Krugman called for reporters to drop objectivity. His paper soon followed with THE NEW YORK TIMES proudly announcing that they would call Donald a liar in print.
And they did.
The same 'courtesy' was not extended to Hillary despite her own well known record of lying.
The press went overtime to demonize Donald Trump.
They took the mildest utterances and ran with them in overheated commentary often passed off as news.
They deliberately misunderstood him -- Trump's statements always start backwards. Look for the last part, put it up front and you'll understand better what he's saying.
Everything that could be twisted was twisted.
There was no benefit of the doubt given Donald.
This is what the lusty conspiracy nut Paul Krugman claimed was happening to 'poor' Hillary.
The press was being unfair because they reported on some of her problems, he felt.
But the American people didn't feel that way.
From his veal pen, he raged at the American people last night and at how it wasn't his country, he didn't know this country.
Of course, you didn't.
We're out and about.
We go to every state except Alaska (no offense to Alaska, we just don't have that kind of travel time).
We speak with all kinds of people.
A lot don't agree with us.
That's fine.
The exchange makes us sharper and hopefully plants a seed with those who disagree.
Not a seed of: You will believe us.
But a seed of: People who disagree aren't the devil.
We have a friend who exploded on social media at someone else. We're being kind and not naming names. If you're a young person of color, you probably already know who we're talking about. So X explodes at Y because Y doesn't have the same political beliefs. If Y's your friend, what does it matter? Why do you call him out on social media? And if you believe in your beliefs, you believe that Y is a victim. Sometimes it's very hard for people -- especially men -- to admit that they are victimized. Maybe just roll your eyes and say, "You're crazy but you're my friend."
The campaign Hillary ran was one of division.
That was so disappointing after 2008 when she was able to piece together groups.
Donald ran a divisive campaign as well. But this was his first ever political run.
Hillary was the seasoned pro, remember?
The media fawned on her and we warned repeatedly about that.
America doesn't like favoritism.
We don't like injustice.
We like to believe in fairness.
Watching the media attacks on Trump probably helped Donald score many votes.
It certainly helped turn his supporters out.
The media has a lot to answer for in the campaign.
So does candidate Hillary.
Like the waves of celebrities.
That was a turn off.
One of us noted that a few years back in a race. A governor was turning out the celebrities and the state wasn't California. So one of us said to pull back on it. It's fine to have endorsements but if you're campaign looks like a variety show, it's hard to take you seriously.
By the time no bulge Marc Anthony was introducing Jennifer Lopez onstage for Hillary, the campaign had long ago been sunk by celebrities.
We hope they pay dearly.
No problem with voicing your opinion.
No problem with saying "I'm going to vote for ____."
But it went beyond this, it went to tearing down American people.
If you doubt it, check out some of the Twitter feeds of celebrities right now.
In fairness to them, they didn't start the overheated rhetoric -- well, Debra Messing did.
But most of the others didn't.
And, on that, we were appalled to listen to the remarks coming out of the mouth of a sitting president about a candidate.
There was always a chance Donald Trump would win.
Barack's comments crossed a line and then some.
And where were the press commentaries on that?
Never saw 'em, did we?
All of this firmed up support for Donald Trump.
You're not going to tell America who to vote for.
Grasp that.
Be you the press or the entertainment field, you aren't going to tell the American people who to vote for.
They will not be bossed around or bullied.
Your failure to grasp that goes a long way towards explaining why last night was so shocking to you.
We called it for Trump in the September 16th edition of the gina & krista round-robin.
We didn't vote for Trump.
We were never going to vote for Trump.
We also weren't going to vote for Hillary.
Maybe that's why we could actually listen to the people we spoke with.
Around the country, people voiced opinions that the press either ignored or mocked.
The e-mail and server scandal?
As late as last night, Paul Krugman was still cursing that it was a non-issue.
No.
It was the heart of the issue.
Hillary has forever had a trust issue problem.
That's why, in 2008, her Bosnia lie harmed her campaign so much.
She lies.
She has a record of lying.
Her actions with the e-mails and the server go to the lack of scrutiny she will 'tolerate.'
This goes back to her attempt at health care in Bill's first term as president.
She is secretive, she will not be open to the public, she does not believe in transparency.
The e-mail scandal fed right into that.
And it was a real story and it is a real issue.
People have been put behind bars for doing much less with communications than Hillary did.
But the Krugmans are liars.
They lie to themselves constantly.
Step away from the name of the candidate.
You have a candidate under federal investigation (which you lie and claim isn't taking place, it's "a review" -- it was a criminal investigation) and that's who you had your party's nomination too?
In what world?
Bernie Sanders could have beaten Donald Trump easily.
Hillary had nothing but baggage.
Her money alone was a problem.
How does a public servant amass so much money?
The Wall Street speeches were always going to be a problem.
Her failure to release the transcripts went to how secretive she is.
After Bill Clinton's impeachment and Senate censure, the American people were exhausted.
And Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill of rape, didn't get the public hearing she should have, as a result.
But now Hillary was running to be president of the United States. She was now the Democratic Party nominee. Her husband is Bill Clinton.
And she thinks they don't have to answer the charge?
She and Bill have never publicly addressed the charge.
In 1992, whispers that Bill was sleeping with Gennifer Flowers led the two to sit down with 60 MINUTES.
But a charge of rape is left to stand for decades with neither of them ever addressing it?
WikiLeaks exposing her lies and the media help she received and possible corruption with The Clinton Foundation.
And Hillary's response is: Those e-mails were hacked by Russia.
Well, no, they weren't.
But even if they were, don't you have a responsibility to respond to these e-mails?
Don't the American people deserve that if you're asking for their vote?
She was an awful candidate.
And we'd write that and get attacked.
The WikiLeak e-mails about how damage she was doing to herself or how she wouldn't admit to a mistake, etc.?
Totally unsurprising for us because we were hearing from friends in her campaign.
Her own team knew she was a disaster.
They played it cool to the press but they knew.
She was a lousy candidate.
Donald won.
We're not trying to take anything away from his victory.
His supporters have every right to be happy now.
Hopefully, he'll work to unify the country.
Those who fear his ego should know it can come in handy. Republicans in Congress who attacked him in the campaign can congratulate him and Donald will move on.
Unless the presidency changes him, he's not the kind to keep an enemies list (mainly because his focus is always on himself, not on others).
He won.
President Donald Trump.
Congratulations to him.
Applause for democracy which allows the people to vote their preference.
(Now let's move towards doing away with the electoral college and establish rank choice voting nation wide.)
But if people are looking for reasons Hillary lost, they need to look at Hillary.
She was the candidate.
She failed repeatedly.
She moved ever more to the right (apparently forgetting that Donald Trump was already carrying that base).
She picked a hugely underwhelming vice president. (We're told she refused to Elizabeth Warren as a possibility because she didn't want to share credit for breaking the glass ceiling.)
She had male surrogates forever on TV from her campaign while claiming she was all about women and girls. (Does Robby Mook have a vagina? We didn't think so.)
She thought celebrities would carry her.
She thought her campaign being fed debate questions ahead of time didn't warrant a public response.
She acted as though she was owed the presidency.
She wasn't.
America made that clear last night.
And, in the end, while the press hurt her by helping her, while her celebrities were way too much, she has no one to blame but herself.
I'm With Her?
In the end, not so much.
-- Ava and C.I.
So, uh, we weren't with her? (Ava and C.I.)
The votes have been counted and, turns out, the country wasn't "with her."
Charges of racism (led by Van Jones) are already making the rounds because reality is hard for a number of people.
From his veal pen, Paul Krugman raged at Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
Cher went after Stein and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson for the 'crime' of running for president.
They're on to something.
If Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and Donald Trump hadn't run and Hillary Clinton was the only name on the ballot, she might have won -- or almost won.
That's how the Democratic Party primary went.
Intimidation, don't lie, we know the truth, kept a lot of people from running. That's how you ended up with No Name Martin and I'll Push Her To The Left Bernie.
Remember 2008?
Remember John Edwards and Hillary griping about how too many people were on the stage at that debate?
Russ Feingold, Elizabeth Warren, any number of well liked people could have run.
Instead, we got divisive Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is divisive.
She always has been.
Is it who she is or is it what she stands for?
To quote Hillary: What difference, at this point, does it make?
She is divisive.
Forget that you should want to run a uniter, not a divider.
Set that aside.
The election depends upon votes.
A divisive person like Hillary will never get the most votes nationally.
And this was known.
Nobody wanted to talk about it, but it was known.
It's why, in 2008, Barack Obama got the nomination and she didn't.
That's why Debbie Washerwoman Schultz, during her sordid time as DNC Chair, rigged things for Hillary -- including the number of debates and when they would take place.
As we stated repeatedly back in 2015, the more people see Hillary, the less they like her.
That's always been a given.
Even when she rode the sympathy from Bill cheating on her with Monica Lewinsky.
There was a lot more sympathy registered for her when she was off hiding.
When she returned to public life, the support lessened.
People seem to like the idea of Hillary better than they like the actual person.
Van Jones is crying racism defeated Hillary.
Strange, because the same electorate twice voted Barack Obama into the White House.
And strange because Hillary is, after all, White Anglo.
Some are crying sexism.
That makes us laugh.
We didn't vote for Hillary.
In 2008, in the Democratic Party primary, we voted for her in California.
So, apparently, in the last eight years, we became sexist?
We know Hillary and we know (and like) Bill.
In 2008, after Iowa, we backed Hillary (we were not backing anyone prior to Iowa).
We are opposed to the Iraq War -- obviously, we go around the country to this day speaking out against it.
But we know Hillary, we know she's never wrong in her mind.
So that she would offer her vote was "a mistake" seemed like she might be growing.
We also liked what her campaign stood for.
Contrast her "For anyone who's ever been counted out . . ." of 2008 with "I'm With Her" of this go round.
Were we trying to get into a club?
I'm with her?
In 2008, she was going to do something to help we the people, she was going to be a fighter for we the people.
Eight years later, I'm with her?
She ran her campaign as though the country owed her the presidency and all she had to do was show up for the coronation.
And she faced sexism . . . in 2008.
And we defended her from it -- when the sexist media itself was denying that it was even taking place.
Barack Obama was one of the worst offenders with "claws come out" "periodically" blah, blah, blah.
The same media that repeatedly ignored that in 2008 bent over backwards -- as did Hillary -- to charge that any criticism of her was sexism.
There was valid criticism of Hillary before she ever ran for president. (We worked some into a 2005 TV review of COMMANDER IN CHIEF).
But in 2016, Bernie was a sexist and this person was a sexist and that person was a sexist and the . . .
It just never ended.
Possibly because the same 'creative class' that backed Barack (and tore apart Hillary) in 2008 now was backing Hillary.
We know why we turned against Hillary.
We were at the Congressional hearings on Iraq when she was Secretary of State.
We heard the frustrations of committee members -- Democrats and Republicans -- over Hillary's request for this amount or that amount of money and how the plan for the money would not be presented -- it would come later, supposedly (it never did), after the funds were authorized.
We listened to one State Dept hack after another try to spin when asked the most basic points about how State would be handling Iraq and then how State was handling Iraq. (In October of 2011, Barack Obama turned Iraq over to the State Dept -- it was now the lead on the country, no longer the Defense Dept.)
We had been at hearings where Condi Rice talked about Iraq when she was Secretary of State.
Hillary didn't appear for Iraq.
She sent flunkies.
Some, like Brooke Darby, we felt sorry for.
Brooke seems like a nice and responsive young woman.
So it was really sad to watch rightly frustrated members of Congress take those frustrations out on Brooke since Hillary herself wouldn't show up.
Millions were wasted in Iraq because Hillary didn't listen.
They didn't want trainers.
But she poured millions into training and no one was showing up.
Not to mention the millions it took to build the compound training was to have taken place at.
She sent Brooke to insist that part of the mission for Iraqi women would involve the US Embassy in Baghdad and consulates throughout the country.
And a dubious committee all but gaped.
In the end, these consulates never came to be.
It was never practical in terms of safety (Hillary would later carry the poor notion over to her plans with regards to Libya).
We know people in State.
We heard how bad things were morale wise in 2007 and 2008.
Hillary did improve morale.
And we gave her credit for that.
But the same group that praised her to us for that would also note how . . .
. . . well . . .
. . . it was like you couldn't question.
Huh?
They were telling us that there was no real oversight of her.
So we rightly began publicly noting that there was no IG for the State Dept.
Hillary didn't want one.
(John Kerry, at his confirmation hearing, was asked about the IG issue and promised to have one before the end of the year if confirmed. Within eight or so months, he did just that.)
She didn't want oversight.
And she didn't want questions.
Morale began to wane.
(It has continued under John Kerry. Career diplomats are tired of having a Secretary of State who clearly wishes he were instead Secretary of Defense.)
These were serious problems.
Also a serious problem was the fact that Iraqi women were having to fight for their rights.
This included protests on the street. This included the daughter of one of the KRG's two powerful families having to speak out publicly on the fact that the cabinet Nouri al-Maliki put together in his second term had no women in it.
Where was Hillary?
Where was that friend of women and girls?
Silent.
She voted for the Iraq War and supported it.
When she finally admits to a "mistake," she does nothing to fix her mistake.
All of that led up to her infamous public appearance where she uttered that "What difference, at this point, does it matter?"
We were there.
We covered it.
From the January 24, 2013 snapshot:
Hillary's performance in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday should have resulted in her being condemned -- both for how she presented herself and for what she said. We called her out in yesterday's snapshot. In addition, Wally covered it in "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally)," Ava covered it in "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth covered it in "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat covered it in "Can she not answer even one damn question?" Kat admits that she was so surprised and disgusted by Hillary's performance that she didn't attend the afternoon hearing with us because she couldn't take seeing Hillary like that again. Ava points out that Hillary acted out in every negative stereotypical was possible. Ruth compares her to Nixon when it comes to answering questions. They went into the hearing expecting Hillary to sail through it in a professional and adult manner. I did have doubts and by the time Hillary was screaming and waving her hands -- above the shoulders -- like a lunatic, I'm sorry. I supported her in 2008. I don't see supporting a presidential run again.
The press rushed to praise her.
This was an awful performance.
It's when we could no longer support her.
Granted, we were at the entire hearing, we heard about the 20 diplomatic posts that were at risk (according to her -- although she hadn't spent any time prior to that asking Congress for funds to protect these posts). We heard avoid questions.
We heard the whole thing.
The press went into a sexual frenzy over it.
Apparently, they're all a bunch of masochists and saw, in her rude outbursts, a dominatrix whose heel they could happily live under.
Night was day as they foamed in their panties in briefs and panted on air in praise of Hillary.
There was your first warning of disconnect between the media and the public.
That moment became a defining moment for Hillary and began really hardening the divisions.
But the press missed it because to them it was just super duper awesome.
The press continued to act that way.
They fawned over her.
Donna Brazile working for CNN gave Hillary questions to debates.
When this was revealed, CNN's Jake Tapper stood alone in publicly declaring this was wrong.
Donna got to lie on TV -- FOX NEWS, where else? -- and say she was being persecuted and she didn't do it and she was a good Christian woman and . . .
Turns out she did do it and she did it repeatedly.
So did a lot of others, as WikiLeaks has revealed.
But even those who weren't getting the DNC to do their research for columns and interviews, the way John Harwood and Dana Milbank did, were rushing to rip apart fairness.
At one point, Jimmy Fallon (disclosure, we know and love Jimmy) was being ripped apart.
Jimmy Fallon.
The guy who just wants to make everyone laugh.
One of the few people without a mean bone in his body.
He was ripped apart by the press.
For what?
For doing a nice interview with Donald Trump.
He was supposed to tear into Donald, apparently.
Jimmy hosts an entertainment program called THE TONIGHT SHOW.
COMEDY CENTRAL has confused a large number of people so maybe they're unaware that entertainment is not news.
Jimmy got ripped apart for being a good host.
By contrast, Seth Meyers (the 'liberal' please remember that blamed the housing foreclosures on minorities when he was at SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE) announced that Donald Trump would not be allowed on his show.
Seth forgot that he was an entertainer and also forgot that he wasn't winning late night.
The Jimmys are cute and lovable (Fallon and Kimmel). Seth looks like his head was squeezed too tight in the birthing canal as he entered the world.
Seth was either praised for his 'firm stand' (defending the First Entertainment Amendment at all costs!) or people ignored it.
He's a talk show host of an entertainment program.
There was no need to grand stand.
Paul Krugman called for reporters to drop objectivity. His paper soon followed with THE NEW YORK TIMES proudly announcing that they would call Donald a liar in print.
And they did.
The same 'courtesy' was not extended to Hillary despite her own well known record of lying.
The press went overtime to demonize Donald Trump.
They took the mildest utterances and ran with them in overheated commentary often passed off as news.
They deliberately misunderstood him -- Trump's statements always start backwards. Look for the last part, put it up front and you'll understand better what he's saying.
Everything that could be twisted was twisted.
There was no benefit of the doubt given Donald.
This is what the lusty conspiracy nut Paul Krugman claimed was happening to 'poor' Hillary.
The press was being unfair because they reported on some of her problems, he felt.
But the American people didn't feel that way.
From his veal pen, he raged at the American people last night and at how it wasn't his country, he didn't know this country.
Of course, you didn't.
We're out and about.
We go to every state except Alaska (no offense to Alaska, we just don't have that kind of travel time).
We speak with all kinds of people.
A lot don't agree with us.
That's fine.
The exchange makes us sharper and hopefully plants a seed with those who disagree.
Not a seed of: You will believe us.
But a seed of: People who disagree aren't the devil.
We have a friend who exploded on social media at someone else. We're being kind and not naming names. If you're a young person of color, you probably already know who we're talking about. So X explodes at Y because Y doesn't have the same political beliefs. If Y's your friend, what does it matter? Why do you call him out on social media? And if you believe in your beliefs, you believe that Y is a victim. Sometimes it's very hard for people -- especially men -- to admit that they are victimized. Maybe just roll your eyes and say, "You're crazy but you're my friend."
The campaign Hillary ran was one of division.
That was so disappointing after 2008 when she was able to piece together groups.
Donald ran a divisive campaign as well. But this was his first ever political run.
Hillary was the seasoned pro, remember?
The media fawned on her and we warned repeatedly about that.
America doesn't like favoritism.
We don't like injustice.
We like to believe in fairness.
Watching the media attacks on Trump probably helped Donald score many votes.
It certainly helped turn his supporters out.
The media has a lot to answer for in the campaign.
So does candidate Hillary.
Like the waves of celebrities.
That was a turn off.
One of us noted that a few years back in a race. A governor was turning out the celebrities and the state wasn't California. So one of us said to pull back on it. It's fine to have endorsements but if you're campaign looks like a variety show, it's hard to take you seriously.
By the time no bulge Marc Anthony was introducing Jennifer Lopez onstage for Hillary, the campaign had long ago been sunk by celebrities.
We hope they pay dearly.
No problem with voicing your opinion.
No problem with saying "I'm going to vote for ____."
But it went beyond this, it went to tearing down American people.
If you doubt it, check out some of the Twitter feeds of celebrities right now.
In fairness to them, they didn't start the overheated rhetoric -- well, Debra Messing did.
But most of the others didn't.
And, on that, we were appalled to listen to the remarks coming out of the mouth of a sitting president about a candidate.
There was always a chance Donald Trump would win.
Barack's comments crossed a line and then some.
And where were the press commentaries on that?
Never saw 'em, did we?
All of this firmed up support for Donald Trump.
You're not going to tell America who to vote for.
Grasp that.
Be you the press or the entertainment field, you aren't going to tell the American people who to vote for.
They will not be bossed around or bullied.
Your failure to grasp that goes a long way towards explaining why last night was so shocking to you.
We called it for Trump in the September 16th edition of the gina & krista round-robin.
We didn't vote for Trump.
We were never going to vote for Trump.
We also weren't going to vote for Hillary.
Maybe that's why we could actually listen to the people we spoke with.
Around the country, people voiced opinions that the press either ignored or mocked.
The e-mail and server scandal?
As late as last night, Paul Krugman was still cursing that it was a non-issue.
No.
It was the heart of the issue.
Hillary has forever had a trust issue problem.
That's why, in 2008, her Bosnia lie harmed her campaign so much.
She lies.
She has a record of lying.
Her actions with the e-mails and the server go to the lack of scrutiny she will 'tolerate.'
This goes back to her attempt at health care in Bill's first term as president.
She is secretive, she will not be open to the public, she does not believe in transparency.
The e-mail scandal fed right into that.
And it was a real story and it is a real issue.
People have been put behind bars for doing much less with communications than Hillary did.
But the Krugmans are liars.
They lie to themselves constantly.
Step away from the name of the candidate.
You have a candidate under federal investigation (which you lie and claim isn't taking place, it's "a review" -- it was a criminal investigation) and that's who you had your party's nomination too?
In what world?
Bernie Sanders could have beaten Donald Trump easily.
Hillary had nothing but baggage.
Her money alone was a problem.
How does a public servant amass so much money?
The Wall Street speeches were always going to be a problem.
Her failure to release the transcripts went to how secretive she is.
After Bill Clinton's impeachment and Senate censure, the American people were exhausted.
And Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill of rape, didn't get the public hearing she should have, as a result.
But now Hillary was running to be president of the United States. She was now the Democratic Party nominee. Her husband is Bill Clinton.
And she thinks they don't have to answer the charge?
She and Bill have never publicly addressed the charge.
In 1992, whispers that Bill was sleeping with Gennifer Flowers led the two to sit down with 60 MINUTES.
But a charge of rape is left to stand for decades with neither of them ever addressing it?
WikiLeaks exposing her lies and the media help she received and possible corruption with The Clinton Foundation.
And Hillary's response is: Those e-mails were hacked by Russia.
Well, no, they weren't.
But even if they were, don't you have a responsibility to respond to these e-mails?
Don't the American people deserve that if you're asking for their vote?
She was an awful candidate.
And we'd write that and get attacked.
The WikiLeak e-mails about how damage she was doing to herself or how she wouldn't admit to a mistake, etc.?
Totally unsurprising for us because we were hearing from friends in her campaign.
Her own team knew she was a disaster.
They played it cool to the press but they knew.
She was a lousy candidate.
Donald won.
We're not trying to take anything away from his victory.
His supporters have every right to be happy now.
Hopefully, he'll work to unify the country.
Those who fear his ego should know it can come in handy. Republicans in Congress who attacked him in the campaign can congratulate him and Donald will move on.
Unless the presidency changes him, he's not the kind to keep an enemies list (mainly because his focus is always on himself, not on others).
He won.
President Donald Trump.
Congratulations to him.
Applause for democracy which allows the people to vote their preference.
(Now let's move towards doing away with the electoral college and establish rank choice voting nation wide.)
But if people are looking for reasons Hillary lost, they need to look at Hillary.
She was the candidate.
She failed repeatedly.
She moved ever more to the right (apparently forgetting that Donald Trump was already carrying that base).
She picked a hugely underwhelming vice president. (We're told she refused to Elizabeth Warren as a possibility because she didn't want to share credit for breaking the glass ceiling.)
She had male surrogates forever on TV from her campaign while claiming she was all about women and girls. (Does Robby Mook have a vagina? We didn't think so.)
She thought celebrities would carry her.
She thought her campaign being fed debate questions ahead of time didn't warrant a public response.
She acted as though she was owed the presidency.
She wasn't.
America made that clear last night.
And, in the end, while the press hurt her by helping her, while her celebrities were way too much, she has no one to blame but herself.
I'm With Her?
In the end, not so much.
-- Ava and C.I.
The resistible rise of the new right
This is a repost from the United Kingdom's SOCIALIST WORKER:
The politics of the ruling class are in deep crisis as
disillusionment with the system deepens. Socialist Worker argues that
discontent doesn’t have to go to the right
Conventional political certainties are being swept away. Parties that
believed they had massive and secure support bases are suddenly losing
them.
The “centre” of politics is falling apart. Deep anger at the grinding economic crisis, stagnant or collapsing living standards, and an undemocratic and unaccountable political elite is bursting to the surface in unpredictable ways.
The Financial Times newspaper wrote after Donald Trump’s victory, “The American people have spoken—or perhaps shouted —and nothing is likely to be the same again. The mere fact of Mr Trump’s victory puts him halfway towards obliterating an establishment that was largely united in revulsion at his candidacy.
“Every pollster in the land misread the US public. By electing a man whom voters knew to be disrespectful of US constitutional niceties, America has dispatched the electoral equivalent of a suicide bomber to Washington. Mr Trump’s mandate is to blow up the system.”
More pithily the French ambassador to the US tweeted, “Everything is now possible. A world is collapsing before our eyes.”
The question is whether the fury at big business and the political elite is turned leftwards or grabbed by the racists and the right.
It can fuel great new socialist movements that offer hope or give ammunition to the fascists.
This is the era of both Trump and Jeremy Corbyn.
For a period in the 1950s special circumstances allowed the system to expand and deliver some improvements for at least a section of the world’s ordinary people. But that era has long past.
Today there are many parallels with the 1930s, when fascist movements flourished against the background of a devastating economic crisis.
The threat of fascism should be taken very seriously.
The regime responsible for the Holocaust was destroyed, but the system that created it lives on. But the 1930s was not just the era of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.
It also saw unprecedented mass strikes in France and the highest point of the US labour movement so far.
It also saw the Spanish Revolution and powerful workers’ struggles in Germany that could have blocked the fascists and gone on to fight for socialist change.
One of the key elements today is the failure of the Labour-type social democratic parties. In Spain, Greece, France and Britain they implemented austerity, and paid a heavy price.
In some cases this has fuelled parties further to the left, such as—for a period—Syriza and Podemos.
Elsewhere the far right has grown—such as Marine Le Pen’s Front National in France.
The trade union leaders—who in general have held back struggle in Britain, the US and much of Europe—have also made it easier for the right to grow.
When there are big strikes workers feel their unity and their anger is directed upwards against the bosses and the state.
When struggle is held back it is easier for individualism and division to emerge.
Sunday 4 December could see Ukip leader Nigel Farage lead a march in London at the same time as fascist Norbert Hofer wins the Austrian presidential election.
It’s also important to say that broad similarities between events in different countries can mask fundamental differences.
Donald Trump’s victory is not the same as the Leave vote in Britain.
It’s true that both rest upon deep dissatisfaction among broad layers of working class people. But there is a strongly progressive case for opposing the neoliberal, austerity-imposing, migrant-repelling European Union (EU).
There is no progressive case for Trump.
However contradictory people’s reasons, voting for a bigoted boss is not the same as voting against the bosses’ EU.
The US presidential election saw a 57 percent turnout, a continuation of a long-term trend where about half the population don’t vote. The EU referendum in contrast saw a huge turnout of 72 percent.
Although Trump alienated many leading Republicans, the party and its voters largely held together behind him. Brexit split the Tories in half with many ministers, activists and voters backing Remain.
The Leave side’s most visible supporters were racists no better than Trump. But others were more like those who rallied to Bernie Sanders’ left wing case against neoliberal trade deals.
Marine Le Pen, who could win the first round of France’s election
next year, cheered both Trump and Brexit. But her Front National party
represents a distinct danger.
Trump barged his way to the head of one of the existing main parties. Le Pen is seeking to sweep them aside with an organised, active movement all of her own.
Trump stands in the tradition of celebrity-turned-Republican-president Ronald Reagan—and of US populists who won big votes only to fizzle away. Le Pen is a real fascist.
Some narratives submerge these differences. For example, many articles have tried to explain a rise in nationalism in psychological terms.
They say industrial decline and economic crisis made fearful workers turn inwards. They say civil rights and women’s liberation made white people and men resentful of a relative loss of “privilege”.
Others erect a false division in society.
On one side are the backward isolationists—the angry, the racist, the “uneducated” and the poor (or at least poor whites).
On the other are the forces of openness—the European Union (EU), the US Democratic Party, globalisation and anyone with progressive politics. But this masks a real class war.
The institutions of neoliberal capitalism are no friends of those who defend freedom and equality.
Toxic nationalists are no friends of those who have suffered from globalisation’s effects.
Democrat Barack Obama oversaw more deportations than any other president, across a border that’s already in large part walled off.
Labour prime minister Tony Blair brought “tough measures” against immigrants supposedly “placing our hospitality under threat”.
The respectable yet often vicious Islamophobia of the “war on terror” also created a space for more extreme forms.
Caricaturing the situation lets a society that breeds despair off the hook—along with politicians who use racism to exploit or deflect that despair. And it avoids the question of what we can do about it.
Confronting reality with all its contradictions reveals a challenge that’s daunting but not hopeless.
Racist scapegoating can tap into workers’ fears. But few workers buy into it fully.
Many believe that there is too much immigration in the abstract, for example, yet defend actual immigrants—from their workmates to refugee children.
There is a sense of the weakness of the socialist left and the trade union movement. But the sudden surges in support for Sanders and Corbyn revealed much wider demand for left wing ideas than previously suspected.
Mass protests and strikes appear to be reviving in the US. In Britain they remain generally at a low ebb—although when given the chance to strike workers take it up enthusiastically.
The situation can change. Throughout the history of the working class in Britain, long periods of decline for the trade unions have alternated with strike waves that build them anew.
There’s no guarantee that this will happen again, though stirrings of activity even among supposedly unorganisable groups of workers are a reminder not to rule it out.
France, where the situation currently seems bleakest, shows this vividly. Authoritarian president Charles De Gaulle governed almost unchallenged except by the hard right, up to a few months before the biggest general strike ever in 1968.
And mass strikes earlier this year were a reminder of working class power, re-energising debates about how to unleash it.
Economic crisis and the political volatility it produces can increase the opportunities for such explosions.
People are less likely to trust the existing system to safeguard their future and more likely to look beyond it—one way or another.
Complacent assumptions that the racist right will burn itself out are dangerous.
So is despair that overstates their strength and our weakness. Both are recipes for inaction that can be lethal.
Instead we need a mass movement against racism, united opposition to the fascists who feed on it, and a real alternative to the system that breeds it.
The resistible rise of the new right
The rise of Donald Trump is a disaster. But is it cause for despair? (Pic: Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons)
The “centre” of politics is falling apart. Deep anger at the grinding economic crisis, stagnant or collapsing living standards, and an undemocratic and unaccountable political elite is bursting to the surface in unpredictable ways.
The Financial Times newspaper wrote after Donald Trump’s victory, “The American people have spoken—or perhaps shouted —and nothing is likely to be the same again. The mere fact of Mr Trump’s victory puts him halfway towards obliterating an establishment that was largely united in revulsion at his candidacy.
“Every pollster in the land misread the US public. By electing a man whom voters knew to be disrespectful of US constitutional niceties, America has dispatched the electoral equivalent of a suicide bomber to Washington. Mr Trump’s mandate is to blow up the system.”
More pithily the French ambassador to the US tweeted, “Everything is now possible. A world is collapsing before our eyes.”
The question is whether the fury at big business and the political elite is turned leftwards or grabbed by the racists and the right.
It can fuel great new socialist movements that offer hope or give ammunition to the fascists.
This is the era of both Trump and Jeremy Corbyn.
The 1930s was not just the era of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. It also saw unprecedented mass strikes in France and the highest point of the US labour movement so far.Capitalism is not delivering, and it is less and less credible to say that with just a few small reforms it can be made to work for the benefit of all.
For a period in the 1950s special circumstances allowed the system to expand and deliver some improvements for at least a section of the world’s ordinary people. But that era has long past.
Today there are many parallels with the 1930s, when fascist movements flourished against the background of a devastating economic crisis.
The threat of fascism should be taken very seriously.
The regime responsible for the Holocaust was destroyed, but the system that created it lives on. But the 1930s was not just the era of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.
It also saw unprecedented mass strikes in France and the highest point of the US labour movement so far.
It also saw the Spanish Revolution and powerful workers’ struggles in Germany that could have blocked the fascists and gone on to fight for socialist change.
One of the key elements today is the failure of the Labour-type social democratic parties. In Spain, Greece, France and Britain they implemented austerity, and paid a heavy price.
Crowds cheer Syriza's election in 2015. Syriza's victory showed fury at the system can be turned to the left (Pic: Guy Smallman)
Elsewhere the far right has grown—such as Marine Le Pen’s Front National in France.
The trade union leaders—who in general have held back struggle in Britain, the US and much of Europe—have also made it easier for the right to grow.
When there are big strikes workers feel their unity and their anger is directed upwards against the bosses and the state.
When struggle is held back it is easier for individualism and division to emerge.
Sunday 4 December could see Ukip leader Nigel Farage lead a march in London at the same time as fascist Norbert Hofer wins the Austrian presidential election.
It’s also important to say that broad similarities between events in different countries can mask fundamental differences.
Donald Trump’s victory is not the same as the Leave vote in Britain.
It’s true that both rest upon deep dissatisfaction among broad layers of working class people. But there is a strongly progressive case for opposing the neoliberal, austerity-imposing, migrant-repelling European Union (EU).
There is no progressive case for Trump.
However contradictory people’s reasons, voting for a bigoted boss is not the same as voting against the bosses’ EU.
The US presidential election saw a 57 percent turnout, a continuation of a long-term trend where about half the population don’t vote. The EU referendum in contrast saw a huge turnout of 72 percent.
Although Trump alienated many leading Republicans, the party and its voters largely held together behind him. Brexit split the Tories in half with many ministers, activists and voters backing Remain.
The Leave side’s most visible supporters were racists no better than Trump. But others were more like those who rallied to Bernie Sanders’ left wing case against neoliberal trade deals.
Marine Le Pen of France's fascist Front National cheered Trump's victory (Pic: JÄNNICK Jérémy/Wikimedia commons)
Trump barged his way to the head of one of the existing main parties. Le Pen is seeking to sweep them aside with an organised, active movement all of her own.
Trump stands in the tradition of celebrity-turned-Republican-president Ronald Reagan—and of US populists who won big votes only to fizzle away. Le Pen is a real fascist.
Some narratives submerge these differences. For example, many articles have tried to explain a rise in nationalism in psychological terms.
They say industrial decline and economic crisis made fearful workers turn inwards. They say civil rights and women’s liberation made white people and men resentful of a relative loss of “privilege”.
Others erect a false division in society.
On one side are the backward isolationists—the angry, the racist, the “uneducated” and the poor (or at least poor whites).
On the other are the forces of openness—the European Union (EU), the US Democratic Party, globalisation and anyone with progressive politics. But this masks a real class war.
The institutions of neoliberal capitalism are no friends of those who defend freedom and equality.
Toxic nationalists are no friends of those who have suffered from globalisation’s effects.
Democrat Barack Obama oversaw more deportations than any other president, across a border that’s already in large part walled off.
Labour prime minister Tony Blair brought “tough measures” against immigrants supposedly “placing our hospitality under threat”.
Complacent assumptions that the racist right will burn itself out are dangerous. So is despair that overstates their strength and our weakness. Both are recipes for inaction that can be lethalThe EU builds external border controls to keep out supposed “economic migrants”, “bogus asylum seekers” and “terror threats”. These same myths boosted racists against EU migrants.
The respectable yet often vicious Islamophobia of the “war on terror” also created a space for more extreme forms.
Caricaturing the situation lets a society that breeds despair off the hook—along with politicians who use racism to exploit or deflect that despair. And it avoids the question of what we can do about it.
Confronting reality with all its contradictions reveals a challenge that’s daunting but not hopeless.
Racist scapegoating can tap into workers’ fears. But few workers buy into it fully.
Many believe that there is too much immigration in the abstract, for example, yet defend actual immigrants—from their workmates to refugee children.
There is a sense of the weakness of the socialist left and the trade union movement. But the sudden surges in support for Sanders and Corbyn revealed much wider demand for left wing ideas than previously suspected.
Mass protests and strikes appear to be reviving in the US. In Britain they remain generally at a low ebb—although when given the chance to strike workers take it up enthusiastically.
The situation can change. Throughout the history of the working class in Britain, long periods of decline for the trade unions have alternated with strike waves that build them anew.
Action by groups of workers, even supposedly
"unorganisable" ones such as these Uber riders, show there is still
potential for resistance to grow (Pic: Guy Smallman)
France, where the situation currently seems bleakest, shows this vividly. Authoritarian president Charles De Gaulle governed almost unchallenged except by the hard right, up to a few months before the biggest general strike ever in 1968.
And mass strikes earlier this year were a reminder of working class power, re-energising debates about how to unleash it.
Economic crisis and the political volatility it produces can increase the opportunities for such explosions.
People are less likely to trust the existing system to safeguard their future and more likely to look beyond it—one way or another.
Complacent assumptions that the racist right will burn itself out are dangerous.
So is despair that overstates their strength and our weakness. Both are recipes for inaction that can be lethal.
Instead we need a mass movement against racism, united opposition to the fascists who feed on it, and a real alternative to the system that breeds it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
