All of this writing and data analysis is a lot of work! So after more than five years of posting, I've finally launched a Patreon to help pay the bills.

7/13/17

Two points about that Jacobin climate change piece

Daniel Aldana Cohen, writing for Jacobin, is critical of The Uninhabitable Earth - a new piece on potential climate change outcomes by David Wallace-Wells. As far as I can tell, Cohen is making two distinct arguments - but while he scores a few point on the way, I don't think they amount to a case that DWW's article "gets it painfully wrong."


The political story

First, Cohen argues that "the real climate danger" will hit before any of DWW's worst-case scenarios. In a few cases, he probably has a point: if Bangladesh launches sulfates into the stratosphere, or if Pakistan starts a nuclear war over control of the Indus river, things could go wrong for the human species quite quickly. These risks are far more immediate than the remote Canfield ocean scenarios DWW goes into, and deserve our attention.

But DWW, we are told, hasn't just ignored a few specific threats. Repeatedly, Cohen insists that what DWW neglects is "the real...(and political) story"; thus, The Uninhabitable Earth is only "ostensibly" a "discussion of what humans are doing to themselves". Instead of grappling with things like "brutal inequalities" and "a vicious right-wing minority imposing the privilege of the few over everyone else," DWW has focused on "pure weather scenarios"; damningly, "the word capitalism appears [only!] four times in this many-thousand-word piece."

This framing turns Cohen's specific objections into a full-blown, systematic leftist critique - but not, I think, a fair one.

DWW is not ignoring "what humans are doing to themselves" when he writes about the ecological consequences of human behavior. To insist that he "misses the action around poli-econ" is to imply that the scenarios DWW surveys are not themselves political-economic outcomes - consequences of inequality and antidemocratic privilege. And DWW is quite explicit about this: he blames "fossil capitalism" for its "devastating long-term cost: climate change."

Recognize that DWW is taking on a political problem, and Cohen's left critique falls apart: DWW is neither ignoring the sociopolitics of climate change nor neglecting to implicate capitalism. Instead, he's just guilty of an analytical error. DWW has written about some of the dangers of climate change, but neglected a few of the most immediate.


The hopeless cause

Early on in The Uninhabitable Earth, DWW offers an important caveat:
What follows is not a series of predictions of what will happen — that will be determined in large part by the much-less-certain science of human response. Instead, it is a portrait of our best understanding of where the planet is heading absent aggressive action.
And Cohen, for his part seems to agree: "obviously," he writes, "absent any real action to reduce emissions we're fucked." But even as he affirms DWW's account on the merits, Cohen thinks that it "is socially and politically hopeless" to have published it; what is needed, he concludes, "isn't a better grasp of science," but rather "political campaigns that foreground...hope."

It strikes me as odd to insist that DWW is pessimistically peddling "disaster porn" and to argue that he has omitted "the real and scary" story - dangers that are even more imminent. Still, setting that inconsistency aside, Cohen is raising an important question for the left: is the science of climate change so profoundly hopeless and depressing that we should just keep quiet about it, particularly when it comes to acknowledging some of the worst-case scenarios?

On one hand, climate science is objectively depressing - it's even depressing the scientists themselves. And it's true that hopelessness can become a self-fulfilling prophecy; as Chomsky put it, "If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope." So I suppose that one can't entirely dismiss this objection, either; if your end-game is stopping climate change rather than education for the sake of education, perhaps it makes sense not to draw attention to the most intimidating worst-case scenarios.

On the other hand, however, I remain hopeful that the public can handle the science DWW lays out and continue with the hard work of climate change activism. Why? Ironically, because of Cohen himself: "Yes," he writes,
obviously, absent any real action to reduce emissions we’re fucked. BUT: That is not going to happen.
By the fourth sentence of his article, Cohen has conceded the entire premise of The Uninhabitable Earth - and he has demonstrated, through his own example, that one can be familiar with these scenarios and still expect to avoid them. Cohen has read the same scientific papers DWW has, and yet remains admirably committed to the fight against climate change. Can't we handle the truth, too?

7/5/17

What replaces discourse

I don’t think anybody has any idea about what replaces rights and discourse. Using “liberal” as a slur without showing your work and proposing a meaningful real-world alternative does not advance the cause of achieving socialism-in-fact in our own lifetimes, and that’s what I’m after — real democratic socialism, in the real world, before I die. To get it we need to be a movement of political substance, not a social circle. - Freddie deBoer
What I think will replace discourse, at least, is a greater recognition of the limits of human agency. People will lose faith in their ability, as individuals, to manipulate political outcomes at a significant scale. The psychosocial impulse to do so will be generally understood as a form of anxiety, and people will cope with it by embracing various forms of quietism. Liberals will be remembered for wildly overestimating their ability to influence others and change the course of history, and variously judged as controlling egomaniacs, laudably ambitious, or simply unenlightened.

Historically, this is not a new or even uncommon perspective; it broadly echoes the temperament and rationalizations of the ancient Sumerians, the Stoics, and various strains of Buddhism and Christianity. This sort of philosophy generally emerges in ages of hardship as the world increasingly feels malevolent and beyond our ability to control. "In bad times," Bertrand Russell writes, philosophers "invent consolations."

I don't predict any of this approvingly, but between capitalism and our accelerating ecological crises, it seems to me pretty likely. Freddie is correct in his observation that this skepticism of discourse expresses "an assumption of permanent powerlessness". And people feel that way for a reason.

7/1/17

Why is CAP pushing a center-right healthcare bill when it knows it's going to lose?

There are all kinds of subtle and complex problems with the Market Stability and Premium Reduction Act - the Center for American Progress's proposed alternative to Trumpcare - but the most telling one is pretty blatant:
Neera Tanden and Topher Spiro offer a simple plan to stabilize the individual markets that Republicans could easily support.
That's how Paul Waldman describes the bill's prospects in the Washington Post, and he's on-message with CAP. "Senate Republicans...can work with Senate Democrats," Tanden and Spiro insist in their write-up of the bill. And in Vox, Spiro repeated the same line: "We are at an inflection point where there’s an opportunity for senators to choose a different path."

But in that same article, Jeff Stein makes the obvious point:
The plan is almost certainly dead on arrival with a Republican caucus that has been bent on dismantling Obamacare for years.
This is an understatement. The MSPRA will not be enacted into law. It will not even come close. And everyone talking about this bill as if it's actually a potential alternative to Trumpcare knows that it will never pass. The Center for American Progress didn't commission this project with any real expectation that it will.


I point this out because it marks one of those rare moments in American politics where liberals cannot claim to be constrained by inconvenient pragmatism. Ordinarily, when liberal politicians and policymakers abandon their constituents, their go-to move is to insist that they are just doing what it takes to stop the Republicans. That's why terrible "compromises" are necessary; that's why Democrats have to constantly give up ground and settle for crumbs.

This, for example, was Representative Barbara Lee's excuse for abandoning single payer at the DNC platform committee just last year:
Every single Democrat in the House, we fought very hard for either single-payer or public option. We got as much as we could get as Democrats...The political dynamics weren’t there on the outside to do that.
But today, the political dynamics are there - precisely because CAP cannot win this fight. The odds of any CAP-crafted healthcare bill making it through Congress as an alternative to Trumpcare are effectively zero. The GOP may fail to pass Trumpcare, but if that happens it will be because of the GOP, not because of any clever maneuvering from CAP.

Once we dispense with the pragmatic-compromise explanation for the MSPRA, it's much easier to understand what CAP is doing. They are proposing a "bipartisan" patch on Obamacare, not because they think they can win through compromise, but because they largely agree with what Republicans want to do. They are promoting market-based healthcare instead of embracing popular support for single payer because they do not want to see single payer succeed. There's no counter-intuitive chess game going on here; liberals are telling the left exactly what they want, and we would do well to take them at their word.

6/20/17

Trump is not going to abandon NATO

Abandoning NATO "would reverse decades of bipartisan American leadership and send a dangerous signal to friend and foe alike" - and this is exactly what will happen, Hillary Clinton warned, "if Mr. Trump gets his way".

Since that speech in 2016, we've heard the warning time and time again. It came most recently after Trump's first NATO meeting, when The New York Times editorial board suggested that "the United States might not defend [NATO] allies under attack" - a concern echoed by pundits like Zack Beauchamp, Josh Marshall, and Ned Resnikoff, among others. Among the liberal commentariat, at least, the consensus is clear: Trump pulling out of NATO and reneging on our military obligations under Article 5 is an actual possibility that could really, actually happen.

This is madness. Donald Trump is not going to abandon NATO. If Donald Trump wanted to abandon NATO, his advisors would talk him out of it. If Donald Trump tried to abandon NATO, he would be impeached almost immediately, by a bipartisan vote. The US is far too invested in NATO for any president to who does not want a revolt on his hands to sever ties.


"We need to look at the facts"

The reasons for this aren't particularly mysterious. As the New York Times laid out earlier this year, What the U.S. Gets for Defending Its Allies and Interests Abroad is substantial: trillions of dollars in trade and uninhibited access to energy supplies and other resources. Simply maintaining NATO with arms sales is a multi-billion dollar industry, and the profits go to companies with armies of lobbyists and powerful PACs.

That's why Trump won't even try to leave NATO. It's why he's not even inclined to, Elliott Abrams writes in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs:
...after repeatedly disparaging NATO, Trump backtracked...The alliance, Trump now declared, was "no longer obsolete."...it is already clear that this is not a revolutionary administration. The broad lines of its policy fit easily within those of the last few decades...the Trump era will be marked more by increasing adherence to traditional U.S. foreign policy positions than by ever-larger deviations.
Abrams is a Republican, but he's no isolationist - he's a neoconservative hawk, and if he saw any danger of Trump abandoning NATO, he'd be among the first to panic. Similarly, consider how someone on NATO's front line - Kersti Kaljulaid, the President of Estonia - responds to the usual alarmist hyperbole from Sarah Kendzior:
“In the new administration's steps, I see not a single U-turn,” said Estonia’s President Kersti Kaljulaid, referring to Washington’s historical defense of Baltic states. 
She crisply and dryly upbraided a couple of American panelists including writer Sarah Kendzior, who warned Baltic nations to be “wary” of a president “with obvious autocratic leanings…who is not rational, who is destructive.” 
“When we're done with synchronizing all our gossip about the new administration, then we need to look at the facts,” [Kaljulaid] said.

Business as usual

As it turns out, the facts of Trump's military don't much resemble his campaign rhetoric. Abrams highlights Trump's reversal on Syria, but the evolution of his military budget is even more instructive.

As recently as February, Trump promised a "historic" increase in military spending, and on the campaign trail he made even more elaborate promises: for example, calling for a 350 ship Navy. But in his first actual budget, Trump simply continued Obama-levels of spending. And in a revealing article for The Hill, multiple sources outlined a budgeting process that barely involved Trump at all:
There is also wide speculation that the defense plan is the work of White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney...Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said it’s unlikely Trump even knows the details of his defense request or the ways it does not follow through on his promises.
Kendzior may imagine Trump as some kind of tyrannical autocrat, but autocrats don't delegate major defense decisions out to accountants and second-tier wonks. In fact, despite his role as Commander-in-Chief, Trump has now found himself entangled in one of the greatest bureaucracies the world has ever known: the military-industrial complex of 21st century America. He is now utterly reliant on a massive apparatus of advisers, managers, and political operatives to guide and enact his decisions, and as Abrams observes, "Trump’s national security team embodies 'the Establishment' as much as John F. Kennedy’s or Dwight Eisenhower’s did."

Reporting in Politico gives a hint as to how this dynamic is playing out with respect to NATO. When Trump neglected to affirm America's commitment to Article 5 in a recent speech, Brookings Institution president Strobe Talbott predicted "a very dangerous and damaging effect" - and in dire tones, Politico lays out "the ripple effects from the Trump NATO speech-that-wasn’t":
[a] rift...during the private dinner...unusually frank criticisms...Trump’s rebuffed national security leaders...left in increasingly awkward positions...
Despite these dinner feuds and frank critiques, however, Defense Secretary James Mattis still managed to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue defense summit in Singapore. Mattis is just one of multiple pro-NATO voices in the administration, Politico notes, and despite Trump's ongoing bluster, it appears that he and everyone else are still proceeding with business as usual.

6/14/17

Capitalism protects bigots

Two weeks ago, talk show host Bill Maher used a racial slur on the air. This week, Nation columnist Joan Walsh declared that Palestinians are white and suggested that she is a person of color. Immediately, in both cases, the familiar mechanisms of liberal discourse discipline set in motion. Maher and Walsh were immediately called out for their offenses. Critics shamed them for what they said, educated the public about why it was wrong, and even called for boycotts of Walsh and Maher's employers.

Two weeks later, Bill Maher is back to saying gross things in public - and undoubtedly Walsh will be too, sooner than later.

Everyone knows why this is: Maher and Walsh are rich. And they are protected by people who are even wealthier, and by companies who are even richer still. Rich people don't care if you try to shame them and don't have to listen to your persuasive critiques. Usually they don't even care about boycotts, because rich people can afford to lose a little business. The richer they are, the less they have to care.

By the way: wealth also means influence. It means that your personal bigotries infect everything you control - including, as Maher and Walsh demonstrate, giant media platforms that can broadcast racism to a mass audience. So perversely, the people who have the most control over our culture are the people who are least subject to liberal discourse discipline. In this way capitalism becomes a massive engine of pathology, endlessly generating and amplifying oppressive discourses that are insulated from social regulation. The paradigm example of this dynamic, of course, is Donald Trump - a deranged sociopath whose astronomical wealth lifts him above shame, criticism, persuasion, and social pressure of any kind. And who, through his astronomical wealth, has become one of the most influential voices in America.


Will breaking up the big banks end racism and sexism? Probably not! But if your plan to fight bigotry involves a lot of education and social pressure and persuasion, it's clear that this would be a lot easier on a level economic playing field. In a world of extreme economic inequality, liberal discourse discipline may chasten the least influential among us - but it will tend to leave the most powerful untouched as they firehose their bigotry into our culture. An intersectional understanding of racism acknowledges capitalism's role in amplifying it - though we should not expect rich people like Walsh and Maher to talk about this, for obvious reasons.

6/9/17

The powerful aren't going to learn any lessons from Corbyn

Against incredible odds and pundit expectations, Jeremy Corbyn has won one of the most stunning victories in British electoral history. He won by running unabashedly to the left, promising nationalization, to tax the rich, to expand public services, and to expand worker rights. And he did all of this not only in opposition to the UK's radical right, but to his critics in the liberal center.

Corbyn's victory has so many direct implications for American politics that it's tempting to think of this as a victory for the American left as well. It demonstrates that instead of simply running to the right and trying to peel off their voters, a party can win by mobilizing voters who prefer left priorities and positions. It demonstrates that voters want to see their basic economic concerns substantively addressed, even in ways that reject capitalist orthodoxy. And it demonstrates that our political operatives, mass media and intellectual elites often have no special insight into political realities - and that they are systematically, overwhelmingly biased against the radical left.

In a sane, rationalistic discourse, this would all have a profound impact on American politics. Corbyn's victory would inform the efforts of our party leaders, policy planners, media managers, and rank-and-file activists, and the result would be a clear and immediate radicalization of American politics.

But this is not, of course, what will actually happen.

What will actually happen is that people who have an interest in learning the wrong lessons will tend to learn the wrong lessons. Liberal centrism has been terrible for most people, but it has been very good to a few, and these people do not want to learn anything that threatens their world. These people live extremely comfortable lives, and they believe that they have earned these comforts through hard work and personal talent. For this reason, they have a powerful incentive to rationalize away any political lessons that could hurt their self-image or take away their privilege.

This point may seem obvious, but its implications are easy to forget when we are immersed in the ideology of liberal rationalism. If you think that the central arena of political struggle is the "marketplace of ideas", and that progress is just a matter of education and intellectual persuasion, then you'll be inclined to downplay the role that motivated reasoning plays in our politics. This is an odd mistake to make, because the research is quite clear about how political bias distorts our perception and reasoning; because Marxist theory explicitly rejects this notion of rationalism; and because our ordinary experience interacting with other people demonstrates the problem constantly. It's extraordinarily rare that anyone changes their mind in a political discussion, or learns anything that radically changes their beliefs.

And unfortunately, this problem of ideological investment is most pronounced among the people who are in the best position to change our politics. If you are a decision-maker in the Democratic party, you almost certainly got to where you are by embracing and fighting for Third Way liberalism. If you make major editorial decisions at a national media outlet, it's probably because you adhered to bourgeois norms of professionalism and insisted on an editorial direction amenable to shareholders and marketers. If you build a career in an influential think tank, you will spend a lot of time deferring to your director, and your director will spend all of her time worrying about political access and large-donor funding. All of these people, moreover, will be handsomely rewarded for their efforts: they'll have a comfortable, stable, well-paying job with good benefits, and they'll constantly be showered in praise for their intelligence, professionalism, diligence, and so on, by networking colleagues and magnanimous bosses.

That's why we're already seeing all kinds of ridiculous, tryhard arguments in America against the obvious lessons of Corbyn. We're hearing that Labour would have done even better than its already spectacular win if it had only run a completely different centrist campaign. That UK voters did not actually care about the issues that affected them at all, but were simply voting for Corbyn as a weird symbolic gesture against Donald Trump. That British politics are so different from what happens in America that there are no lessons to be learned here - even though the same people, when Corbyn was losing, insisted that he was demonstrating the futility of leftist politics in the US.

To be sure, Corbyn's win is a victory of solidarity for the American left, because we have a stake in what happens to our comrades all over the world. And certainly there are people in the US who are not invested in centrist-liberalism, who will see what Corbyn did, and who may decide that it can happen here, too. But the people in control - the people with power - aren't going to change their minds because of Corbyn. Which is why we have to do precisely what the British left just did: take their power away.

6/7/17

What do liberals mean by "Russian" propaganda?

Eric Boehlert at Media Matters warns that Trump has moved "from lies to authoritarian-style propaganda", and hints darkly at connections to Russia:
Increasingly, this White House’s propaganda operation looks like an authoritarian one found in other countries, such as Russia...like Russia’s president, Trump has a built-in media infrastructure that will obediently echo his lies and present them as news.
If this critique of a media that obediently echoes the president's lies sounds familiar, it's because Boehlert wrote an entire book about it - more than ten years ago. In Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush, Boehlert insisted that
the compliant press repeated almost every administration claim...that virtually every one of those claims turned out to be false only added to the media's malpractice. (209)
Reading through Lapdogs in 2017, his critique of Bush sounds awfully like his critique of Trump. Today, for instance, Boehlert writes that Trump
staged a faux bill-signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House...The whole event was just Kabuki theater.
And here's what he was writing about Bush in 2003:
The entire press conference performance was a farce - the staging, the seating, the questions, the order, the answers...the calculated kabuki press conference [was] stage-managed by the White House... (207)
Almost to the letter, Boehlert is rehearsing the same media critique he's written about for years: Republicans are waging a propaganda campaign. They are lying a lot - or in the parlance of elite liberal media, they are gaslighting / spinning / promoting fake news / building an alternative reality. They are staging elaborate press spectacles, repeating slogans, and using other standard PR tricks. A conservative media infrastructure is disseminating and signal-boosting all of this, and they are being abetted by a credulous and unduly submissive mainstream media.

The Russian connection

In fact, when you read through Boehlert's writing on the media, only one thing has really changed: the connection to Russia. For instance, when Trump stages a kabuki bill-signing, Boehlert pointedly quotes Mike Mariani in Vanity Fair:
Trump’s team is finding ways to shrewdly approximate [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s capacity to shape narratives and create alternative realities...
There is nothing like this in Lapdogs, or in any of Boehlert's writing about Bush - even when the Bush administration stages its own kabuki press-conferences, and relies on its own politically friendly media infrastructure. No suggestion that Russia invented "authoritarian propaganda", or that these tactics are evidence of some kind of connection to the Kremlin. Just the opposite - in one remarkable passage, Boehlert actually connects Bush to anti-Russian propaganda:
...the bureau, anxious to play up Cold War fears, interviewed defectors from Russia but sometimes fabricated the details of their tales. "So the whole concept of fact checking was moot," said Heidenry. "They created their own facts." (143)
It's possible that this "fake news" approach to propaganda is still distinctly Russian in nature - perhaps it was originally invented by Soviet Russia, and then co-opted by Bush-era cold warriors, and then reclaimed by Putin's Russia, and now it's being mimicked by Trump.

But there's also a less complicated explanation: as Jacques Ellul put it in his seminal work Propaganda, "Propaganda as a phenomenon is essentially the same in China or the Soviet Union or the United States or Algeria." There is nothing historically, tactically, or conceptually Russian about the Trump administration's lies, and there is zero insight to be gained in making comparisons between the two, or suggesting that one is inspired by the other. When liberals like Boehlert do this, it's not because they've studied the Russians - it's because they studied Republicans, and learned just how useful it is "to play up Cold War fears".

6/4/17

You can't fix climate change without big government

Trump is pulling the United States out of the Paris climate deal, but Juan Cole is optimistic about state-level progress on wind:
Governor Sam Brownback...wants 50% of Kansas electricity to come from wind by the end of his term. The state already gets 24% of its electricity from wind...these advances in clean energy are coming from the states, not the Federal government...Those are goals Trump has nothing to say about.
Cole also praises "the good kind" of billionaire, who invests in fighting climate change. On CNN, Al Gore echoed those remarks:
We're seeing civic leadership, businesses - Apple, Google, General Electric - you can go right down the list. We are going to see continued reductions in emissions in the US...regardless of what President Trump does.
It's understandable why the liberal-left, shut out of Congress and the White House, would search for other ways to fight global warming - but ultimately, this is a fool's errand. We already know what a small-government response to climate change looks like.

For example, when Hurricane Matthew hit North Carolina, it killed 28 people, caused $1.6 billion worth of damage, and left 80,000 plus households applying for aid in its wake. And when the state asked Washington for help, Trump rejected 99% of their request. Months later, WFMY reports, the situation is still dire:
The state says there are still 140 families living in hotels, and many more people displaced, but living with family or friends, still not able to go home. In Lumberton volunteers are still working to clean up the $7 million dollars worth of mess.  In Fayetteville roads are still blocked off after they were essentially washed away. Princeville is dealing with more flooding from recent rain, before they ever even had a chance to recover from Hurricane Matthew. The elementary school is one of many buildings that have been shut down for months.
Or consider how the private sector responded to Hurricane Sandy: in New York, private donors gave about $600 million. This may seem impressive until one notes that the total damages came to about $50 billion.

Consider Hurricane Sandy, and then imagine Manhattan under a foot of water. Because according to research published just last year, that's how much the ocean will likely rise at 3 degrees of global warming. And even if we meet our international obligations, we'll hit the 3 degree mark by 2100. More realistically, Thorvald Moe writes, since "the United States does not seem to be able to deliver a consensus on climate politics," we'll likely stick to something resembling the Trump-Obama status quo - and that means we'll hit 3 degrees by the mid-21st century.

If the private sector couldn't handle Hurricanes Matthew and Sandy, there's no way it will be able to handle permanent flooding in New York City. And Boston. And Miami. And all along the Gulf Coast. Instead, what we can expect is the destruction of multiple major coastal cities; local budgets completely overwhelmed by prevention and relief funding; and minimal philanthropy from the private sector, coupled with the usual profiteering. And none of this, of course, even touches on the droughts, wildfires, refugee crises, civil unrest, and all of the second, third, and fourth-order problems that will mount on top of them. Local governments aren't ready for this, and our "good" billionaires aren't going to bail us out. There is no path to fighting climate change that doesn't go through the federal government.

5/28/17

Hillary Clinton is okay. Are you?

Hillary Clinton and her supporters want you to know that she is still standing. They've wanted you to know this for years. "What I want you to know is I'm still standing," Clinton told crowds in 2008. "[S]he's been through the mill, and is still standing," Mother Jones reminded us that same year. Here's a typical dispatch from the rank-and-file:
Hillary Clinton and her husband have to be the most thoroughly vetted politicians in the history of the Republic.  There is nothing - n-o-t-h-i-n-g - that hasn't been been drug out into the light of day about the Clintons.  All the smears have been smeared.  All the dust has been busted.  All the dirty laundry rummaged through. All the closets snooped. It is finished.  And Hillary is still standing.
That one's from 2008, too. Then, she lost the Democratic primary. Then, her favorability rating dropped about ten points. Then, we heard it again: "That she is still standing, let alone winning, is mind-boggling," Peter Daou writes. "[S]he is STILL standing," he noted a while later. ICYMI, Daou reminded us again: "Hillary has withstood decades of these coordinated attacks and is still standing".

The right wing has thrown everything at Hillary – not only the kitchen sink, but the stove, the refrigerator and the toaster too. And you know what, she’s still standing!
Clinton, meanwhile, carefully tweaked her message from the last presidential campaign by adding eight more years: "They’ve done it for 25 years, and I’m still standing!"


That last quote comes from a 2016 piece from Rebecca Traister - just a few months before Hillary Clinton lost, again. So we should not be surprised that, just a year later, Traister is writing to once again to remind us that Clinton "has lost but is soldiering on":
Yes, she did a lot of walking in the woods and around Chappaqua. And yes, she caught up on her sleep — she speaks often these days of the benefits of rest and good food and being outdoors. She answered mail and had scores of off-the-record exit-interview meetings, and she and Bill saw most of the shows currently on Broadway. They have dinners together and spend time with their grandchildren, whose jungle gym is right outside the window where Hillary works...focusing on her writing and speaking engagements.
A lot of folks have pointed out that the life of an obscenely wealthy semi-retired political celebrity is not actually all that taxing. It says little about Clinton's brave persistence or heroic endurance that she can still maintain a presence in American public life; at this point, the book deals and speaking engagements just fall into her lap. What we learn in this piece is that Clinton can do what millions of Americans do every day - eat, go for walks, answer mail, sit in audiences, complain about politics - and still get national press for "soldiering on." She doesn't even have to be conscious! She can catch up on her sleep, and we'll be sure to hear about it.

I read passages like this, and I realize that when Clinton's admirers say that she is still standing, they mean this in the most literal sense. It's been more than a decade since she won an election: since then, she has lost, settled for a political appointment, resigned, and lost again. Today she is shut out from the halls of power; her favorables are at record lows, even for Clinton; and she still loses hypothetical rematches against Donald Trump, the least popular president in modern history.

In any meaningful political sense, Clinton has not been standing for quite some time. Her critics roasted her for decades, some quite fairly, and in the end they succeeded: she is no longer electable, and not even particularly well-liked. Today she lives the mundane life of a bourgeois Uncle Rico, waxing nostalgic about her glory days on the football bench and luring her family into new business schemes.

Clinton, to her credit, is quite explicit with Traister about how low she has set the bar:
You know, these guys on the other side are not just interested in my losing, they want to keep coming after me. I mean, think about that for a minute. What are they so afraid of? Me, to some extent. Because I don’t die, despite their best efforts.
Again, this isn't new messaging: Traister herself has been telling us that Clinton ain't dead for nearly a decade. And it's true: millions are going to die when Trump dismantles Obamacare. Black and brown folks all over the country are going to die when cops under Trump's belligerent policing regime gun them down. Hell, Trump will probably end up bombing more people than even Clinton would have. But through it all, Hillary will still be alive - and she will still be standing, to endless critical acclaim.

5/16/17

The left is probably going to lose on climate change

Freddie deBoer has written a post taking aim at leftists who are "contemptuous of the essential work of persuasion but totally unable to articulate an alternative." To be fair, he specifically calls out Angus Johnston amid a debate over the Milo Yiannopoulos protests, and I'm not sure how far beyond that context his point extends. Still, this seems fairly sweeping:
Here’s the idea: we build a mass left-wing movement for change by persuading those who are able to be persuaded through appeals to their enlightened self-interest and their desire to build a better world. Then, we will have enough people on our side to take power through democratic governance and show the rest that our way is better for everyone. And we do all this through the slow, unsexy work of politics, which means going to meetings, walking picket lines, writing pamphlets, doing local radio, shaking hands, and yes, having a dialogue to convince others to join our cause. That’s it, that’s the only possible way to win.
On most political fronts, I think this is good advice - but there's at least one where I think it's dead wrong. And I think the left needs to understand that it's wrong, because as long as we keep thinking of the climate change challenge as one of mass persuasion, we're going to lose. Derrick Jensen:
It is our prediction that there will be no mass movement, not in time to save this planet, our home...If we had a thousand years, even a hundred years, building a movement to transform the dominant institutions around the globe would be the task before us. But...the usual approach of long, slow institutional change has been foreclosed, and many of us know that.
This is not the perspective of dilettantes who are averse to the hard work of persuasion; Jensen is writing on behalf of a group of seasoned and prolific environmentalists. And their conclusion is pretty defensible. Gwynne Dyer:
[I]t is unrealistic to believe that we are really going to make those [decarbonization] deadlines. Maybe if we had gotten serious about climate change fifteen years ago, or even ten, we might have had a chance, but it's too late now...To keep the global average temperature low enough to avoid hitting some really ugly feedbacks, we need greenhouse-gas emissions to be falling by 4 per cent now, and you just can't turn the supertanker around that fast.
If these voices seem a bit too radical, here's a conservative outlook from investment banker Carlos Joly:
[T]he needed wholesale transformation of energy, agriculture, transportation, and manufacturing will not happen in time...The result is that we are only forty years away from disaster. In 2052 the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be moving toward levels that will trigger irreversible large-scale damage.
Again: if we had even a century, I could see politics-as-usual making a difference. A kitchen-table conversation here, an election victory there, and maybe your liberal-left climate change plan has slowed emissions enough to buy your scientists enough time to invent a decarbonization silver bullet. If that's where we were, there would be a lot of sense in writing those letters to the editor and having those debates with your right-wing dad and doing "the slow, unsexy work of politics" that yields so much progress elsewhere.

One can even see Freddie's mass persuasion approach as a kind of damage control, a preferable alternative to a world where we do nothing whatsoever to mitigate climate change. But even in the most optimistic forecasts where civilization improves on our present efforts,
The negative impacts will be significant...there will be more droughts, floods, extreme weather, and insect infestations. The sea level will be 0.3 meters higher, the Arctic summer ice will be gone...Acidic ocean water will bother shell-forming animals. Many species will have died out. (Randers)
And these are just the first-order consequences, ignoring the cascading problems of crop failure, drought, mass migration, war, failed states, and so on. To head off the obvious question, I don't know what can be done to avert this, or if it can be avoided at all. But for people of conscience, this outcome should be absolutely unacceptable, and we should not resign ourselves to the damage control of persuasion politics.