We New Yorkers don’t
attract any attention in the presidential sweepstakes as our 29 electoral votes
are safely blue. But because we are getting pummeled by political ads for some
hot congressional races—one in a Staten Island-Brooklyn district and another for
a seat representing the Long Island suburbs—we get a chance to view what passes
for political debate in our beleaguered nation.
It’s not an encouraging
picture.
The Malliotakis-Rose
slugfest on Staten Island pits a Blue Dog Democrat against a garden variety
Republican. The advertising battle, which has cost some $7 million so far, is presumably
aimed at some tiny slice of undecideds. The two candidates relentlessly and
repetitively smack each other over who is more pro-cop, pro-military, and
better able to pander to the fears of white conservatives who apparently anticipate
hordes of dark-skinned gang members popping up in their back yards. Malliotakis’s
ads show retired NYPD officers standing around bemoaning how much they suffer;
Rose’s brags about how he fought to add a half billion dollars to the NYPD
budget on top of the $6 billion a year they now get. Rose also appears in his service camos
and showcases his support from veterans.
No one dares breathe a
hint of criticism of the force responsible for the very public 2014 strangulation
death of Eric Garner in that same district. Voters disturbed by that event are
invisible.
A similar dynamic is at
play in the Gordon-Gabarino race in New York’s 2nd district, which
now extends beyond Nassau County into exurban Suffolk. The district was
reliably blue until going heavily for Trump in 2016. But it also consistently re-elected
retiring Islamaphobe and torture enthusiast Peter King to Congress for more
than a decade.
A TV viewer wouldn’t
know much about Republican Gabarino since until recently he didn't promote himself at all but instead
spent his campaign chest on trashing Jackie Gordon, the Democrat running
neck-and-neck with him for King’s seat. For her part, Gordon foregrounds her
stint as an army officer and flashes photos of herself fully suited up and
ready for action wherever the Empire sends her. Any voter wondering if the
nation’s treasure is wisely spent maintaining hundreds of foreign bases and intervening
in every conceivable corner of the world has nowhere to go for a thoughtful
discussion.
Speaking of thought or discussion, little to none of either is on display in these insanely expensive artillery barrages of jangling imagery. Whichever of these four candidates eventually decamps for Washington, D.C., it is fair to assume that those who provided the millions they just spent chewing up the psychic terrain will be calling the shots. So we can expect minor tussles over how much (or little) to regulate the plutocrats, how many overseas wars we need to engage in (not whether we need an empire), how cleverly to chip away at the Medicare/Social Security/food stamp safety net, what kinds of deficit-reducing austerity is needed to rein in the GOP spending spree, how much window-dressing will be required to cover up Trump’s onslaught on the environment, what soothing phrases are needed to resassure us of our “bold commitment” to fix climate change, etc.
That is, given the total control of the
process by the holders of the moneybags, how to keep things mostly where they
are today while the masses, dumbed down by this fantasy wrestling match, remain
enthralled.
That said, the
significance of the imminent election is perhaps less about our vision of the
future than mass dissatisfaction with the present. The residents and citizens of Chile, where I lived for
two decades, had a similar opportunity in 1988 when the military dictatorship
staged a plebiscite on Pinochet’s continued rule. The voting options were “YES”
and “NO,” and NO won in a walk. Or as a saucy opposition newspaper headlined
it, “Pinochet Runs Alone and Comes in Second.”
Trump isn’t running
alone, but he might as well be. Biden, so undefined as to be virtually (and for
a while literally) invisible, is a stand-in for “None of the Above.” Under
normal circumstances, a good half of the population would have done the
traditional thing and ignored the voting business entirely. But to know what you do want, it helps to know what you don't want.
This
time, people have realized that not only is the country’s policy direction at
stake but also our ability to have anything at all to say about it in the
future. Scroll down for a prediction in which I boldly risk total humiliation.
Whether you agree with me or not, political discourse remains woefully debased despite this glimmer of light. So what does it mean for the rickety ship of state plowing through rapidly heating oceans?
I’d say that at the very least it means the imbalances, strains, and festering crises that produced Trump are going to be largely intact long after his departure. Instead of the urgently needed crackdown on financier looting of the economy, we will have more bailouts of zombie enterprises and more backstopping of corporate debt bubbles by Wall Street’s ICU nurses at the Fed.
Instead of emergency alleviation of human economic distress, we will have slavish attention to stock prices.
Instead of Medicare for All, complex new means-tested partial repairs of the damage done to Obamacare; instead of infrastructure stimulus spending, piecemeal public-private partnerships designed to buy off this or that lobby; instead of a living minimum wage, “bipartisan” bonuses exchanged for corporate immunity from COVID lawsuits.
Instead of the Green New Deal, the same old deals for the green.
Could anything
interrupt this discouraging scenario under a President Biden? Yes: sustained,
militant mobilization by large numbers of people immune to bullshit promises.
There are several elements contained in that phrase.
“Sustained”:
Mobilization doesn’t mean a big march, even a gigantic march. Those are easily
ignored with some calming rhetoric, at which Democrats are expert.
“Militant”: The demands
have to be practical, focused, and radical. The usual timid reforms should be
rejected as woefully incommensurate with the gravity of the situation on all
fronts.
“Large numbers”: We
need people to refuse to go back to sleep just because Trump is finally not in
our faces any more. This is a tough one given the desire of so many to do
exactly that.
“People immune to
bullshit”: Even tougher. Democrats love to convince us that they are on our
side and that we should just trust them and wait. Many cautious liberals want
nothing more. Success requires that we refuse on both counts and say so
clearly. Results are convincing; cordial tea parties aren’t.
It is popular to say
that the Democrats are craven, weak, or incompetent. This is false. They are
extremely skilled at doing what they want to do: pretend to side with popular
demands, neutralize them, and protect the status quo. What looks like failure
is actually its exact opposite. Their role is to soothe the populace into
passivity with promises of a bright future on a “someday” that never comes. Once
in power, they’ll call for “coming together,” “reconciliation,” and renewed “bipartisanship”
because their class interests are fully compatible with most of the Trump
program, and they will only overturn it at the point of a spear. We, the abused
majority, have been bullied for too long.
To receive alerts of
these posts, write tfrasca@yahoo.com
P.S. My prediction for
Tuesday (once all votes are in): Biden carries all the swing states, plus Texas,
and amasses 413 electoral votes.