About the Democratic Convention, Warts and All
First up, congrats to the Harris/Walz ticket. I think it’s a winner. I’ll also join the chorus of the hopeful saying “It’s not a sure thing.”
There are a lot of positives about those four days in Chicago. A really well packaged event, high in quality and quantity. Vice President Kamala Harris, as Politico said, “stuck the landing” with her speech last night.
The opinionators at The New York Times searched high and low for something to pick over, and the worst they could come up with was that Harris “exceeded modest expectations.”
It was something closer to a State of the Union — a statement of policies and priorities and an indictment of her opponents. It was as if the campaign had offloaded talk of symbolism to other speakers so that Harris could present herself as ready to be president on Day 1.
I was particularly struck by the overall steeliness on display from the Democratic nominee, with an intensity that should give MAGA pause. The Republican nominee’s pathetic attempts at commentary/reaction were so bad that even his friends at Fox News gave him the bums rush when he called in.
While some lamestream pundits whined about policy specifics (or the lack thereof), or disappointment about Beyonce not appearing, they were missing the emotional connections being made over the course of events.
Thousands of matriarchs and the men that support them were sent out to the far reaches of the country to add their determination and participation to the electoral contests this fall. This convention wasn’t about breaking a glass ceiling so much as it was about changing the basic equations of politics. It was the modest minded women at the folding tables in halls and malls showing their mettle, waving their fingers, and saying they will get this thing done.
The real powerful stuff came from the children and families. Harris’ nieces’ lesson on how to say comma-la. Her sister’s psycho-biographical talk. Walz’ children loving their father. The New York Times photo shot from behind of a Black girl with braids watching the acceptance speech. The first man. The first step-daughter. All of that was more connecting than the good and necessary warnings about the challenges ahead or the banality of the opposition.
In addition to humanizing the candidates and proposals, the leadership of the Democratic party tapped into the ways in which our perceptions of the world are changing. The mainstream media crustees may have griped about the influencers in the room, but the depth of coverage offered by changing the mix demonstrated a readiness to wage the kind of campaign needed to overwhelm the darkness of the opposition.
The creeps of the right wing attention-seeking set “snuck in” to the Union Center and got served. A 12 year old took on the My Pillow dude. Mud thrown from the hinterlands missed its mark. And the Ann Coulters of the world got righteously “canceled.”
This DNC had more real labor involvement than I’ve ever seen, going way beyond the hard hat silhouettes of yesteryear to signs of real integration with the policymaking process.
YIMBYism prevailed from the podium, something that seemed unlikely not long ago. Not-YIMBYs may have already painted themselves into a corner, and are becoming the poo-throwers of politics.
And then there were the “uncommitted delegates,” hoping for a shot at supporting the Palestinian people and denouncing the Netanyahu regime. There were demonstrations on the street. There were the “fuck you” people on social media. It was all for naught.
The powers that be in the Democratic party weren’t willing to give voice to the victims of the Gaza strip. It was simple political math in action, namely that more votes would be lost than gained by acquiescing to demands for a platform from which to speak.
This “middle east” crisis isn’t going away soon, and while I’m not sure having Palestinian representation on the stage would have made a difference for those suffering, the Democratic party’s empathy stops at words, kinda like the GOP’s thoughts and prayers for the victims of gun violence.
***
On the third side of this two dimensional equation, RFK Jr will give in to the brain worm within, saying that the country being on the verge of WWIII justifies his support for the GOP ticket. I'm glad he’s gone and hope he’s trotting off to the dustbin of history to be regarded as a stain upon his family name.
I’ve got two more chapters on Project 2025 to write, so that’s it for now. Check out the nifty graphic I’m (still) working on.
There's another dynamic --a really uncomfortable one as far as I'm concerned-- at play with arming Israel, and that is it's role as a surrogate in the region for containing the ambitions of Iran. Yes, we probably have no business in having conflict with Iran, but the theocracy ruling the country certainly has bad intentions toward its neighbors and a willingness to play nice with bad actors. Is ignoring Iran really a viable policy? Is engaging with Iran a way out? I dunno.
This is a comment from elsewhere, but I think worth repeating:
___________________________________
"I thought Kamala did a really interesting job of phrasing her criticisms of trump's policies not as what he "intends" but as what he has stated in the past-- not "he intends to cut Social Security" but "he has often spoken about cutting Social Security." Go pound sand, nitpicking "fact checkers."
She has accomplished for me something I never thought would happen: an articulation of what true patriotism is. After the cynicism engendered by coming of age in Vietnam, of watching the flag wavers support twenty years of pounding Afghanistan--long after Osama left it, a country the terrorists of 9/11 didn't come from--and years of pounding Iraq that didn't in fact have WMDs; after all this, I couldn't see the point of flags and their waving. Now I see a reason to be proud of what we can be, and will be.
I am still disappointed in the position of the administration on Gaza. "Israel has a right to defend itself" is a truism. Hell, RUSSIA has a right to defend itself. The statement begs the question: what is the honorable way of defending oneself?
If you are walking down the street and are confronted with a mugger with a gun, yes, you have a right to defend yourself. You do NOT have the right to haul out your automatic and spray the entire street, including innocent pedestrians and including the homes lining it, on the grounds that there may be bad guys lurking in them.
Yes, Russia does have a right to defend itself. It does NOT have the right to invade another country in the name of reclaiming its "motherland." The motives of the far right in the Israeli government are not really defense, or even solely its dishonorable companion, revenge. They are to take over Gaza--as one member stated, to let the Gazans starve so that the land will be "free" to take over.
These are the things that we have to consider when contemplating what the right to defend oneself entails and to evaluate the good faith of the Israeli government in trying to reach regional peace. I pray that the current plan for a cease fire supported by our government will come to pass. But we have stronger means than phone calls with Bibi to force the opposing parties into stopping the slaughter. Stop the supply of offensive weapons--yes, defensive, but not offensive. We need to use those means."
_______________________________________________________
And in response to someone who talked about the "fine line" she has to walk:
_______________________________
"True. But they could have let the Palestinian supporters speak. Palestinian Americans, and Muslims in general, are as much a part of “all the people” as any others. The “fine line” is, I suspect, influenced by not wanting to offend “pro Israel” donors. I suspect that most Americans are indeed “pro Israel” in the sense of agreeing on its right to exist, but past sufferings, horrific as they have been through the ages, do not justify a government inflicting suffering on others.
We needed a voice that could say “we are pro-Israel” in that broad sense but NOT pro an oppressive government that really does have —and has had for a long time--“two” rules of law for its own citizens, not to mention thousands of people as innocent as those killed on 10/7."