Rise of the Zombie Voters for Clinton

Rise of the Zombie Voters for Clinton

Now that Hillary Clinton is “officially” the Democratic nominee for president, I am expected to get behind her. If not for the sake of “party unity” than because we must do everything within our power to stop Trump from getting into the White House.

Well, I am neither impressed by Clinton’s qualifications or intimidated by a Trump presidency. This usually causes most Democrat’s heads to explode. Suddenly I’m amoral, a closet neo-conservative, a spoiled child having a tantrum (boy, that’s projection if ever I saw it), I’m the good-German, and anti-America. And all usually said in one breath too.

What is hard to miss about these comments though is the state of total fear that they come from. In the minds of most Democrats, Donald Trump is Hitler. A fascist dictator that can only bring death and destruction.

I do understand where they are coming from. I remember thinking exactly the same thing when W Bush was elected. All of the Hitler hallmarks were there. He stole the election and got away with it. The 9-11 attacks were Bush’s Reichstag Fire which aloud him to consolidate his power and to cow any remaining political resistance. He launched an illegal war on fabricated evidence, instituted massive government surveillance programs, used drones to begin randomly killing civilians, started indefinite detention and brutal torture programs. If that’s not the return of Hitler, its pretty darned close.

But there are two vary important points to keep in mind here. First – we are still here. As bad as the Bush administration was, we still didn’t see the words “The end” role across the screen. While damaged and greatly eroded, Democracy has some how managed to survive.

But there were other predictions I remember thinking as being true that never happened. I remember fearing internment camps where Democrats would be rounded up and ultimately killed as part of some perverted ultimate solution. I even saw pictures of alleged death camps being constructed. I remember being quite certain that he would never stand down once his term expired. Those never happened. And as for 9-11, it turns out that it was exactly what Bush said it was. As some one who used to be a Truther, this was a profound, and difficult revelation to deal with.

And point number two, Bush’s legacy remains the new order, even under the Obama Administration. The illegality of the Iraq War still remains to be excised, and if anything, the doctrine of regime change remains is still in place, Obama dramaticly expanded Bush’s drone program and state surveillance. We know that the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are still there, still awaiting trial, still awaiting charges, and are to simply assume they are no longer tortured or abused because – well its Obama we are talking about here.

If Bush was the American Hitler, than logic demands that Obama must also be Hitler. That’s why I must be sympathetic to Trump here, he isn’t proposing anything that’s really new, and in most cases are already established Washington doctrine.

If Trump is Hitler, than he can only be the third one in a row. But Trump is not Hitler, and the people who are making the accusation that he is are the ones that need to be confronted.

And Clinton is no saint. Recent revelations have brought to light how deep the collusion was between the Clinton campaign, and the DNC which was supposed to be the neutral arbiter of the primary. The election was basicly stolen for Clinton. Clinton can violate the public trust as Secretary of State and not be held accountable. No, she isn’t the next Hitler ether. But that doesn’t mean I have to get in line with some one who is so blatantly corrupt. And it certainly doesn’t mean I am going to sit down and shut-up.

Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Or VLOT for short, is kind of the default argument of many Clinton apologists, both positive (those who are authentically for our first female president) and negative (those who feel they have no choice but to vote for Clinton as the “lesser evil.”) Yes, even the positive apologists will invoke VLOT, or at least they do once they realize you aren’t already in love with her.

The idea seems simple, its your basic cost/benefit analysis that adds up all the positive and negatives. Once you crunch the numbers, Clinton is the “obvious winner”. So obvious it would seem that one need-not bother crunching the numbers.

The problem is that VLOT is disingenuous. As an argument, its not reinvent so long as you have an option. So why were Sanders voters beaten over the head with it even before Iowa, when Clinton was said to be “inevitable” and Sanders was accused of being the next McGovern? And as for that cost/benefit analysis, the tendency is to ignore Clinton’s negatives and Trumps positives. They do actually exist.

Since becoming an Atheist, and learning a lot more about the practice of skepticism, I have already become familiar with VLOT under another form; the creationist/evolution debate (assuming you can call it a “debate”). Creationists try to argue that the theory of evolution is flawed because it doesn’t enplane this, that, or the other thing. If evolution is flawed, then Biblical Creationism must be true – as if it wins by default. To put it another way, Creationists attack evolution, then try to smuggle creationism past they very arguments they used to dismantle evolution.

What Creationist fail to understand is that the argument just doesn’t work this way. You can’t take down an entire theory by finding one flaw. Even if you were able to discredit this, that, and the other thing, all you have done is discredit this, that, and the other thing. The theory of evolution is vast however and is made up of tens of thousands of smaller hypothesis.

But even if I was, for the sake of argument, grant the Creationist argument that evolution as being completely discredited. Creationism still needs to prove itself.

VLOT is the same argument. Even if I were to grant that this, that, and the other claim about Trump as being true (and he is defiantly flawed, no disagreement there), you haven’t discredited the entire person or his platform. But instead of systematical going through his platform and dismantling them one by one, the arguments are increasingly becoming hyperbolic and verbose.

And even if one was to discredit Trump completely, Clinton still has her own case to make if she is to have any chance to win my vote. But this will never happen because the whole point of VLOT is to smuggle Clinton past any scrutiny at all. Any attempt to even discuses her character or polices gets shouted down as closet-Trump support.

The Zombi-Voter Apocalypse

Clinton is NOT a well liked or inspiring candidate. And then there is the DNC rigging of the primary, making it appear she is more popular than she is. Many of her supporters are reluctant, even critical, and yet they will still vote for her under VLOT. In their minds, they see that there isn’t much choice because Trump is so clear worse.

Often they have a “we will fix this later” mentality. Some even say that Clinton should and will face a primary challenger in four years, or that this will all go away once we enact clean election laws. We just have “just survive this election” first.

But this is an intellectual trap. We will always have to “just survive this election.” The Republican candidate will always be worse than the Democrat. And there will always be the need for “party unity.”

So at the end of the day, any skepticism about Clinton, or of Democrats in general, is pointless, little more than intellectual masturbation. These voters will always do the “adult” thing, hold their nose and vote the only viable choice, despite any reservations they may have. They become “zombie-voters”.

What is worse is that the Democratic Leadership has latched onto this as a campaign strategy. Your opinion of Clinton, good or bad, is irreverent, so long as you vote for her. And if negative criticism is irreverent, because voters never walk away, there is neither the incentive or need for the Democratic Party to address these concerns. They can put any policy in front of you and you will vote for it.

It’s a doomed strategy. If the party ignores the concerns of its voters, than the disconnect between the voters and the leadership is never addressed and can only grow. It then becomes an endurance test for the voter. With fewer and fewer voters able to hold their nose with each successive election.

But the real damage is in regards to policy. If the opinions of voters do not mater, than nether do the needs of the voters or the issues they face. Not even for the zombie voters themselves. Regardless of the opinions they hold, the necessity of “party unity” will always trump these concerns. What a perfect recipe to get voters to vote against their own self interest.

A candidate such as Clinton is the result of zombie voting. Time and time again, voters were stampeded into VLOT, always voting against the opposition, and never taking stock of what it was that they were voting for. This aloud corruption to take root in the Democratic Party and spread unchecked. This increases the pain voters have to endure to pull the handle for Democrats. And when the pain becomes too much, Republicans role into office.

Slaying the Zombie-Voter

A cording to Hollywood lore, the only way to stop a zombie is to destroy its head. The Zombie-Voter was created when the head was separated from voting one’s consensus, as well as a fear of the opposition. But perhaps the current solution of “letting Trump win” is not an ideal approach. As I said, I am not intimidated by a Trump presidency, so I can not be made to fear Trump and by extension can not be compelled to vote for Clinton. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have concerns. It just means I am not convinced Clinton is the better option.

This is one of the hopes of the Bernie or Bust movement, that a Trump Presidency will brake the back of the establishment’s control over the Democratic Party, finally allowing real candidates to get through the nomination process. But establishment Democrats have managed to survive two terms of W Bush. I fear they will survive a Trump Presidency as well. They would likely draw the wrong lessens, making it even harder for real candidates to participate in elections.

At some point, the Democratic Party ceases to be a viable party. It then becomes the true Zombie-voter apocalypses.

One counter strategy might be to separate party officials from those elected into office. Thus the leadership of the party is not contingent of LOTE victories. Of course how to carry out such reforms may be another mater.   

Part 1, what the hell is “Progressive-ism” thing any way?”

When I ask you what is means to be a Progressive, its a safe bet you have a good idea of what it is.

Liberals have a utopian vision of the future. It may be a literal future that Liberals may think we are distend for, or metaphorical utopia, one that man will forever be striving for. Regardless, Liberals take that vision and asks this very basic question, what sort of changes can we make to take us closer to that utopian future?

Of course Conservatives disagree. They say that we have already had a utopian society in the past. It was those damned changes insisted by Liberals that destroyed it. So they ask this basic question, what changes can we undo to return to the utopian societies of the past.

This is where the Libertarian horns in, saying that both Liberals and Conservatives are wrong. There is no such thing as a utopian society because one man’s paradise is always another man’s purgatory. They argue that “paradise” is a profoundly personal idea. So they ask this question, what changes can we make to maximize every one’s freedom and liberty so they can achieve their own personal utopia.

The Progressive however don’t bothers with such metaphysical concepts as utopian societies; future, past, or persona, these are essentially undefinable concepts. So Progressives take the world as it is and as this basic question. What sort of changes can we make that solve today’s problems.

What? You mean to tell me that is not your idea of Progressive-ism? Well obviously your notion of Progressive-ism is completely wrong… bla bla bla… my view is better… bla bla bla… let’s just agree to disagree. This is the point where the conversation usually falls apart to shouting and overall hard feelings.

Actually, it would be something if we ever got to that conversation. Usually when a new organization or caucus is formed, the assembly usually falls apart just trying to figure out what the rules should be – to figure out what the rules should be. Thus never getting around to deciding what “Progressive-ism” actually means.

You may or may not like my definition. Regardless, there are two very important points to keep in mind. First, as well reasoned (or not) that it may be, nearly every self described Progressive out there will have their own definition. So at best all I have done is tossed yet another definition that every one else now needs to sift through. Second, its not actually a complete definition. It’s a perspective that one could use to build a definition, but until one actually digs into the issues a Progressive sees as a problem that needs fixed, and how they intend to fix them, my definition is little more than a word salad. For it to be a definition, it has to be clear and specific.

The whole point of defining something is that so every one understands what that something is. Until that happens, a meaningful conversation about it is fundamentally impossible. This is literally high-school level philosophy where the first step of any debate is to rigorously outline and define the terms to be used. So until every one can agree on a common definition for Progressive-ism, than it as an ideology literally dose not exist, and we might as well be hairless apes yapping and yammering on about what ever hairless great apes get exited about. Which now that I think about it…

This first point is rather hard to overstress. Without a clear and common definition of what Liberalism and Progressive-ism is, it’s literately game over, there is no where to start from, and no where to go from here.

To make maters worse. This seems to be by design. Democrats seem to have a profound aversion to even the concept of defining Liberalism or Progressive-ism. They may talk about the importance of diversity, or argue that a common definition some how leads to authoritarianism. This is usually when I start banging my head on the desk. Of course when a parasitic ideology moves in, such as Neoliberalsim moves in, the very first thing it dose is it destroys definitions, deliberately making it harder to address and discuss issues that were previously resolved.

Even terms such as “left-center-right” are by intention nebulous terms that admit up-front that there are no usable definitions here. They may as well mean “us-surrender-them”

Let me give you an example. Consider “education reform.” “Education” usually means our K through 12, public school system, and “reform” usually means to repair or make better, so it usually means to repair our dysfunctional public school system.

However, when most candidates say they are for “school reform”, what they are truly proposing or supporting involve school consolidation, charter schools, school vouchers, breaking up the teachers unions, letting Creationist write the science and history textbooks, and so called “high stakes testing” where the schools with more issues are systematical defuned. These “reforms” actually make education worse if not the original cause of many of the issues parents and students are facing today.

So to find out what a candidate really believes, you need to dig deeper, requiring information that most voters do not have access too. But even dismantling a candidates real position is not much help.

So, what’s the alternative. Really, this is a real question, what’s the alternative to “education reform?” There are proposal out there, I have seen them. But if the average voter doesn’t have access to these plans, they may as well not exist. And if they don’t exist, then how can voters put pressure on candidates to support policy’s that actually address the issues found in education?

And to make mater worse, just simply having alternatives out there is not enough. You have to build a popular consensuses behind a specific set of ideas to gain any traction. This is where a shared ideology comes in. An ideology is a necessary starting point for generating and vetting ideas. For education reform, an ideology helps to paint a common picture of what public education should look like and the things it needs to be able to accomplish. This helps to suggest common reforms that members of the ideology can get behind.

This must be the first function of a political party. To help foster one or more common political ideologies that its members can subscribe to, and in turn use to define there relationship with the political party itself. The political party must provide the space and frequencies over which the people can build and discus these common ideologies and harness it to solve real problems. Without it, the people literally have nothing to work with.

The Photo was taken by Rob Speed

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rspeed/3737705985

Building a better political party

Building a better political party

One, have the ability to define, author, publish, defend, and maintain a “Progressive agenda.” To do so while adhering to strict academic standards. And to do so beyond the influence of corrupting agents such as the Democratic Party.

Two, have the ability to communicate this platform with the general population and higher academia. The ability to internalize valid feedback and criticism of the platform. This information needs to be processed and submitted for the purpose of further maintaining and refining the platform.

Three, have the ability author “legislative ready” bills for local, state, and federal governments to consider, and have resources made available to promote and defend said legislation at public hearings. This will also include “run ready” platforms which candidates and politicians can adopt.

Four, have the ability to grade, endorse, reject, and constructively criticize both candidates and legislative agendas for compliance or opposition to said platform, and to do so in an objective and systematic manner. And to publish these findings.

And five, have the ability to strategize, recruit, harness, and rapidly mobilize the general public (volunteers) for public activism and demonstrations to best advance the responsibilities of the previous four initiatives.

Yesterday, I posted these five ideas as justification for why I wasn’t impressed with Bernie Sanders new “alternative organization.” Several people liked them and asked me to expand on them so that they might bring them to Sanders or even the Green Party Convention.

While this blog is brand new, this is something that I have been developing and writing about for years, so there is a lot for me to talk about.

It all starts from a very simple question, can the Democratic Party be saved? Regardless of your answer, it still comes down to the very basic question of just what it is a political party does, and how to get what ever it does done in the real world. What are the nuts and bolts, how to the gears mesh, and where the stupid handle is. It turns out there isn’t really an answer.

Oh there are plenty of experts with very well researched books out there on the subject, giving brilliant and insightful step by step instruction on hop to build or reform a political party from the ground up. Fat better research than this humble blogger could ever manage to be sure. All of which may give the reader that the question, while perhaps not simple, is well understood. That is until you pick up a second expert officer and his well researched book. Then you find out they aren’t any where close to each other.

So I need to be honest here. At best, all I can do is throw yet another set of ideas onto the pile. And there should be no illusions that any thing offered here will be the final world. But I do offer a perspective you don’t normally see from the experts.

One, this is from the field. Taken from my days of being an activist and working with the Wichita chapter of Democracy for America, and later as a simple blogger.

Two, this is back to basics. Part of learning the nuts and bolts is first figuring out what nuts and bolts are, and how they are supposed to work together. I am hardly an expert here, but I have been exposed to basic scientific and philosophical principles that aren’t usually considered, let alone applied.

And three, dealing with an imperfect world populated by imperfect people. Astonishingly, of all the marital I have read on the subject, most reformers seem to assume that we live in a utopia where we don’t have to worry about corruption and stupidity. And where everything always goes according to plan. In the real world – NOTHING ever goes according to plan, no mater how much experience and expertise you have. Competent people expect problems and learn how to modify and change on the fly. And more importantly, accept when they are wrong and learn from there mistakes.

With all of that said, lets get started.  

The Sanders Institute, why I am not impressed.

Originally posted at Naked Capitalism

Re: Sanders Institute
Well I am not impressed.

Granted, the USA Today article hardly contains enough information to make a true opinion. And in the world of activism, the line between politics and education is very blurred.

“The Sanders Institute will help raise awareness of “enormous crises” facing Americans.”

Raise awareness to who? To average Americans? They already know what the issues are. What they don’t know is how to solve these problems or how to get the government or the media to take these issues seriously. Hell, mispresenting the solutions is as much of a problem as the problems themselves.

“The Our Revolution political organization will help recruit, train and fund progressive candidates’ campaigns. And a third political organization may play a more direct role in campaign advertising.”

I am sorry, but this has already been tried and already has a record of failure. It’s practically a DNC scripted response to insure such “revolutions” never manage to acquire any real power, and even overtime are slowly taken over and integrated into the establishment support structure. Move-on and DFA are two such examples.

What I fear is that when all is said and done, the only thing the Sanders Institute will be able to do is print a few pamphlets that candidates can hand out any time they shake hands with the voters, and maybe pass along some campaign funds. As if this is somehow a novel or innovative form of political reform.

Here is what – at a minimum, needs to happen.

One, have the ability to define, author, publish, defend, and maintain a “Progressive agenda.” To do so while adhering to strict academic standards. And to do so beyond the influence of corrupting agents such as the Democratic Party.

Two, have the ability to communicate this platform with the general population and higher academia. The ability to internalize valid feedback and criticism of the platform. This information needs to be processed and submitted for the purpose of further maintaining and refining the platform.

Three, have the ability author “legislative ready” bills for local, state, and federal governments to consider, and have resources made available to promote and defend said legislation at public hearings. This will also include “run ready” platforms which candidates and politicians can adopt.

Four, have the ability to grade, endorse, reject, and constructively criticize both candidates and legislative agendas for compliance or opposition to said platform, and to do so in an objective and systematic manner. And to publish these findings.

And five, have the ability to strategize, recruit, harness, and rapidly mobilize the general public (volunteers) for public activism and demonstrations to best advance the responsibilities of the previous four initiatives.