Saturday, June 04, 2016

an analysis of the Democratic party

King Baeksu writes a piece titled "Nationalism vs. Micro-nationalism: The Problem of the US Democratic Party." Well worth your time to read.



Surprises Aplenty said...

Why is it worth reading?
I think the first paragraph is correct regarding a backlash against globalization. Both Trump and Sanders, in their separate ways are backlash candidates. In the penultimate paragraph, I agree regarding Hillary. She would be more of the same - not necessarily bad for the US but personally corrupt and entitled.

The second paragraph: "Instead, the Democratic Party seems largely to have established its own "frame" in its attempts to delegitimize him: He and his supporters are "racists" and opposed to the agenda of "social justice" and "diversity" that the Democratic Party stands for.""
Frame? It sure looks like objective fact. Consider:
Trump says Mexicans are rapists.
Trump did not disavow Ex-KKK leader David Duke. Politicians can't tell people, "You can't support me." Politicians can, and should, explain if they think the goals of the leader of a lobby or political group aligns with their own. Trump did not.
Trump says ethnic background of judge means the judge suffers a conflict of interest.

Paragraph 3: "We should recall that Trump is a New York businessman, and New York is certainly one of the most racially diverse cities in the nation. Would he have been able to thrive there for the past four or five decades if he was actually a "racist"? " This just seems to make it worse. Is he pretending to be racist to gain support? Is calling Mexicans a deliberate choice rather than bigotry?

Paragraph 7: " But I would argue that that is merely an effect of his nationalism, rather than a necessary cause, which is to say that there is no reason why African-American workers, Latino-American workers or Asian-American workers cannot also be included in his nationalist message." Two good reasons Latino-Americans might feel excluded is because he thinks they are rapists and exclusively because of their background cannot control their bias if they are judges.

Final paragraph: "t the interests of nation-states may sometimes (or even often) transcend the interests of micro-nationalisms, to say nothing of the interests of assorted "trans-nationalisms." Simply calling Trump a "racist" or a "xenophobe" is not an intellectually serious argument against this basic fact." It might not be a serious argument for or against hyphenated nationalisms but it is a serious and defensible argument.

King Baeksu said...

I can only roll my eyes at the many factually incorrect statements in the above comment. Trump did not say "Mexicans are rapists" and he certainly did disavow David Duke after the liberal media created some bogus controversy over the issue. Meanwhile, Judge Curiel is an Obama appointee, has contributed to Hillary Clinton (via paid speeches), has supported a Trump boycott since last summer and is a member of an ethnic lobbying group that states on its own Web site: [We] "Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community." It seems clear to me that Curiel has an agenda, and that Trump's opposition to Open Borders may very well bias the judge against him. But you will no doubt be hard-pressed to find the above facts in the liberal media, such as those you cite above.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party and corporate media have anointed Clinton, which means their neoliberal and neoconservative program will continue unabated if she makes it into the White House. I argued in my piece that the Democratic Party establishment just doesn't seem to get it, and seems to think that playing the race card is a serious intellectual response to Trump's nationalism and critique of the corporate globalist agenda that they have embraced. We'll see how well that works out for them come November. I'm betting that it won't work out for them very well at all.

King Baeksu said...

A clarification of my previous comment: While it seems that Judge Curiel does indeed have a history of contributing to the Democratic Party, it was the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which the judge selected to present the case against Trump University, that has a history of paying large speaking fees to both Hillary and Bill Clinton.

King Baeksu said...

Why is it that some random British dude in Canada is able to do far better research and reporting on the Judge Curiel "controversy" than virtually any so-called reporter or journalist in the US mainstream media?:

"The Truth About Trump University and Judge Gonzalo Curiel"

I know, stupid question, but it still needs to be asked. In any case, there certainly are "surprises aplenty" in the above presentation, lol.