I want your love and
I want your revenge
You and me could write a bad (B)romance
Pull up your chair and I’ll tell you a story.
Yea, a tall tale of adventure and suspense, of passion, treachery, tragedy, and a descent into the darkest depths but also courage, conviction, redemption, fruition and many other positive -tions.
This epic began back in the mists of time itself, probably about two weeks ago or so.
Two wayward Kossacks, one a well-known “Bernie Bro” (yours truly, InteGritty) and one an equally well-known “Hillary Bro” (a gentleman known as MBNYC) got into a tangled and pretty nasty to-do. Dueling diaries were written, hard words flew, keyboards groaned and strained under the most wrought prose of the two political titans in their own minds tilting at each other for all they were worth.
But then, much like the cutest of tiny little birdies descending from the heavens to alight on the podium of the cutest of politicians, the weather broke and the two competing Bros found a way to unite their powers, stop fighting each other, and combine their forces for good!
An mutual olive branch was mutually extended and mutually accepted and oh for God’s sake too much mutuallish overlays just killed a decent metaphor.
And in that moment, a Faustian bargain was struck: out of two Bros, one...collaborative diary.
Well, actually two diaries. For starters, anyway.
For this first project together, each Hillary/Bernie Bro would ask his alter-ego Bernie/Hillary Bro 12 questions related to the 2016 primary and general campaign, no holds barred. The answering Bro would publish his responses as a diary.
What follows is mine. MBNYC’s companion diary with HIS answers to MY questions can be found RIGHT HERE!
So here we go: The Daily Kos Exclusive interview of a Bernie Bro, InteGritty (IG) by a Hillary Bro, MBNYC (MB). Enjoy!
MB: How much – NB, the quarter share in The Hamptons doesn’t count – is Hillary paying you? Eh? How much? Have you no shame, sir?
IG: Hang on, let me check my anonymous not-to-be-found-in-the-Panama-Papers offshore with fully enabled direct deposit from David Brock’s pro-Clinton super PAC CorrectTheRecord.
[Pregnant pause while IG pretends to go check his non-existent offshore account]
Nothing yet. Damn.
It’s really too bad, too, because as far as online political loudmouths go, I am clearly far more inventive and talented than ClintonBrock’s infamous avowed army of 88-ish online Twitter trolls. I mean, they aren’t even people, just a bunch of bots that comb twitter for “Hillary Clinton” plus “insert bad cuss word”. Then they respond with tweets like this:
The same frackin’ 2-3 lame Hillary memes, tweeted back by the thousands to the offenders with HASHTAG ImWithHer (far cooler than NON-hashtag ImWithHer) and zero other content. No one reads them, no one favorites them, no one retweets them. The whole sad spectacle has ended with bored teenagers tweeting out profanities about Hillary simply to snort at the goofy automated responses they get from Brock’s Drone Clone Army of Petty Pointlessness.
Yep. A few more millions in Clinton corporate cash well…check that…just spent.
I mean really? Seriously, come on Hillary Bro. Up your game.
MB: Anyway, now that you’re on board with Team Oligarchy™, please enumerate – for our Highway To Hell™ Rewards program – whom you would like to oppress and how. Yes of course Bob Johnson is a freebie, what a ridiculous question.
IG: Overreach much? We agreed to combine forces to work to keep Trump out of the White House and to build community and generate discussion. That doesn’t mean I am now assimilated into the Hillary Supporter Hive-Mind. I blame both your delusions of monolithic imperial grandeur and your gratuitous drive-by slam of poor, innocent Bob Johnson on your euphoria over Hillary’s devastating 4-3 delegate win in the Guam Caucus (remember, today caucuses are awesomesauce again). As for your question, if it can be called a question, I am always and ever for oppressing only the oppressors. We do so by continuing to spotlight their ongoing oppression and demanding activism and policy to curtail and end it.
Please do join us!
MB: With that out of the way, why do you hate Democrats? Have you always hated Democrats? Why on earth would you – or anyone for that matter – even bother?
IG: I’d have to be a masochist to hate Democrats since I myself am a lifelong registered Democrat. I don’t hate my Democratic companions who are seeking to drive my Party ever rightward, I am just saddened by their continued effectiveness. The world can’t bear much more of their “success”.
MB: Many of us don’t understand your language, Bernie-ese (cf. “neoliberal corporatist oligarch”, contrived babble if ever I saw it). Is there an app for that? Or is it some kind of made-up balderdash plucked from The Lord of the Rings?
IG: This is, bar none, the weirdest complaint of the cycle from the Hillary brigades.
“Corporatist” is the only of the three terms that is even remotely problematic. Historically, the term refers to various social arrangements that have little or nothing to do with today’s world. But in recent years, it has become a catch-all critique for any politician seen to be too cozy with big, entrenched corporations. Even then, surely that usage is not difficult for any of us to understand.
As for “neoliberalism” and “oligarchy”, Bernie didn’t invent the words. These are standard scholarly terms with established, precise definitions from the fields of economics and political science. Jargon they are not. Incomprehensible they are not.
To those claiming otherwise, “Do your research”. I will even help you. Because I am nice like that!
Let’s keep it simple and accessible. It is not really that hard to, you know, google a term you are unfamiliar with and click the Wikipedia link:
Neoliberalism: en.wikipedia.org/…
Oligarchy (in America): en.wikipedia.org/…
To greatly over-simplify, neoliberalism is a form of free-market fundamentalism predominant in much of economics and policy work in the USA. Its outcome is oligarchy – a situation in which the ultra-rich have captured almost all the wealth as well as control of the political system itself. Thus:
In 2011, according to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined." [per above Wikipedia link]
Well-known and much-acclaimed mainstream political pundit John Cassidy further explores the meaning and nature of “oligarchy” in America today in that insane Trotskyist rag…er…I mean… bastion of bourgeois propriety, The New Yorker: www.newyorker.com/...
Fear not, Hillarians! As we see, “neoliberalism” and “oligarchy” are not freakish or inscrutable, but easily understood common terms of social analysis frequently used by all kinds of thoroughy moderate, thoroughly respectable people very much like you! Yep, even people like Paul Krugman, Nobel-prize-winning economist and hard-core Hillary advocate. Far from pretending the terms have no meaning (which would be inane intellectual folly), Mr. Krugman takes great pains to deride neoliberal economists and the politicians who mold their dictates into policy. He further argues that he and his favored politicians work hard to fight crony corporatism and oligarchy. His words!
Unfortunately, Krugman contents himself with politicians who make rather modest inroads in those efforts. Settling for only slight (or not at all) progressive policy is a characteristic weakness of this self-limiting “liberal” (i.e. not “left”) economist. In fact, it has been a consistent theme, dating back decades to his early and loud public advocacy in favor of the wondrous NAFTA and similar corporate-written free trade agreements. Only when he was no longer able to deny the disastrous results of the trade policies he promoted did Krugman -- slowly and begrudgingly -- walk his position back.
All too often, the Nobel laureate bungles the solution. But Krugman is absolutely correct in how he outlines the problem: neoliberalism and crony capitalism combine to create and sustain oligarchy in America. And as the great economist consistently contends, all three are very real dangers that progressives must fight. Hillary supporters would do well to heed their votive figure Krugman here, and better still, follow his lead.
MB: Speaking of the Dark Lord, many Republicans are currently suffering whiplash recoiling from their party’s nomination of a talking yam. What opportunities does this create for a unified Democratic Party?
IG: Not as many as we would like. The Presidency has been presented to us on a silver platter. Nice, but that’s about it. Trump will turn out the Teahadis, and if there really is any significant number of conservo #NeverTrumpers out there, they’ll just leave President blank and vote all-GOP down-ticket. We have no shot at all at the House, and it’s still going to be nip and tuck to get to 50 in the Senate. As you’re aware, like the House, most state legislature districts are gerrymandered to ensure GOP holds. To re-draw them, we’d need to sweep state legislature elections in 2020, and that’s a political millenium from now.
I don’t know what effect The Non-DK Great Orange Satan will have on the GOP long-term. If he gets trounced, as he should, there’s an opportunity there for the grown-ups (by which I mean raging a-holes like the Bushes and Kochs) to re-assert control of the party. But they still have the same old problem – how to draw (older, wealthier) non-whites into the GOP without alienating their white base, newly emboldened and more unhinged than ever, who they only retain by racist nods and winks they will forever stand for white privilege? Can’t be done. They’re stuck.
Still, don’t get too excited. Have you looked at the head-to-heads of Kasich v. Clinton the last few months? All they have to do is shepherd somebody half-sentient through their 2020 primaries, and we could be in big trouble.
MB: With our own presidential primary winding down, Democrats can start to revisit other races and goals. GOP chaos indicates that the Merrick Garland nomination to the Supreme Court might proceed before the general election. Is that nomination a worthy goal for Progressives to fight for, or should we delay until the next President is sworn in?
IG: I don’t know any progressives at all who were enthused by the Garland nomination. Too old, too white, too middling, too corporate-friendly. But it’s not we who choose to delay, it’s the GOP. What possible pressure could we bring against the GOP, if, say, we decided we were worried about losing the elections for Senate or President? As George Costanza used to say, we have no hand. No hand!
GOP Senate leaders have stated publicly they will not confirm Garland in any lame-duck December/January scenario either. If they renege and try it, I would press Obama to withdraw the nomination if Hillary were the incoming President (to get a better but likely still too corporate-friendly justice). If Trump were the incoming President, of course I’d then push for a lame-duck confirmation.
MB: Can we expect Sanders supporters to get back on board with gun control?
IG: Can we expect Hillary supporters to drop the tired tactical regional wedge-issue talking point that Sanders (“D-“ NRA rating) and his supporters were ever not on board with gun control?
MB: Can we expect Sanders supporters to rejoin the fold of data-driven policy nerds?
We never left that fold.
If you mean “Teh Math” in terms of primary polls and pledged delegate counts, I said from day one Sanders was the obvious underdog trying to pull off the near-impossible against the prohibitive favorite. Life is hard sometimes.
If you mean policy formation itself, we’d stack our eggheads up against the Hillary eggheads anytime. Of course, it’s dangerous to stack up so many eggheads. Being smooth and ovoid, they soon start to wobble and topple. And they’re a real mess to clean up.
But seriously, what we’ve seen play out in recent months is Hillary’s more centrist policy wonks lambasting Sanders’s left-wing policy wonks for not being centrist like them. Over and over and over. Um, obvi. The lesson to be learned for future left insurgent campaigns is to develop a candidate and surrogates more adept at subverting the lingo and practices of the centrist folks from within. The candidate need only improve in strategy and communication – the ideas and policies are already easily superior.
MB: Support for the two Democratic candidates, Clinton and Sanders, broadly breaks down along established lines of age, race, gender, education and socioeconomic status. In short, demography is destiny. How can the demonstrated predictive power of demographics be squared with Senator Sanders’ claims of revolution?
What “demonstrated predictive power of demographics”?
2008 Primary Hillary generated a coalition of older and poorer white people.
2016 Primary Hillary generated a coalition of older white people, richer white people, and black/Latino voters (especially over 30 and over 45, respectively).
2016 Hillary lost 2008 Hillary’s poorer white people, but gained a large part of 2008 Obama’s black/Latino support, BUT didn’t gain Obama’s heavy white youth support.
So what does all that tell us?
Demographics don’t determine results. Candidates and voters do.
Different candidates in different cycles appeal to different demographics differently. Can you say that three times fast? That that that. I knew you could!
But yes, demographics still matter. From the start, I was furious the left insurgency, so near and dear to my heart, was running an old white male baby-boomer from Vermont. What can we learn from that? Simple. Run a left insurgent candidate who is non-white and/or non-straight and/or non-male and/or non-old. And if they are white, make sure they are dead-on fluent in black and Latino contemporary culture and implicated long-term in activism in black/Latino communities.
Underlying and rippling through all American politics today is the de facto neighborhood-level racial segregation that emerged out of the battles of the 1970s. Left insurgents must stop speaking only from the white side of that divide. Work to bridge it. All out. Not with words but with acts, day to day, in your life. Then we’ll easily dethrone a figure like a Hillary. This race was there to be had.
MB: One of the core arguments for Hillary Clinton’s nomination lies in breaking the metaphorical glass ceiling of the Presidency for women, a milestone comparable in significance to the election of Barack Obama. The scope of this significance has been a subject of controversy especially among supporters of Senator Sanders, many of whom claim that gender is not in itself an electoral argument. What value, if any, does demographic representation in elected office have for Progressives?
IG: Such a scamp you are, MB. You cleverly snookered me (not actually true but makes for good drama) into sending you my questions first, where you surely read my “glass ceiling” question and have now constructed a clever counter-question (may not actually be true but also makes for good drama).
Look, we all agree, enough with all white dudes all the time (present company excepted, of course).
Other countries have found a better way to do it. Many center-left parties simply imposed parity rules – half their ticket for the national legislature must be women. Minority and gay representation have, sadly and predictably, continued to lag. But there’s room for hope in Western Europe. The very popular former two-term mayor of Paris was openly gay, and the just-elected mayor of London is a Muslim of Pakistani immigrant descent.
We have to find our own American way forward on this, but putting more non-white-male Democrats into positions of power is a must. Doing so is not just symbolic, it is a key element in the struggle toward freedom and equality.
As we work to do so, however, we are still called on to elect people to the most powerful political office on the planet – at a time when, in addition to a litany of pressing life-and-death domestic concerns, we must also act to thwart global warming or face grim and tragic consequences.
Everyone votes as they wish, but it is always wisest to vote for the politician best fit to act with the most force and commitment on the matters most urgent to us.
If both candidates are equal there, then vote for the non-white-straight-male one. And press the party on every level to get more serious about offering non-white-straight-male candidates. We’re still pretty horrible in that regard.
MB: Blue-sky best-case scenario, thirty thousand feet, Democratic landslide: in November, Democrats hold the White House, secure working majorities in both chambers of Congress and take a number of strategically key statehouses. Elevator pitch: what should the first distinct goals of the new President be, and why?
IG: Wow, talk about unicorns, rainbows and free ponies. Are you sure you’re not a Berner? That is the mother of all counterfactuals.
But, OK, let’s pretend it’s Christmas in November. Here’s my list for Santa:
A). Ask Obama to withdraw the Garland nomination, and nominate a progressive force. Vet the choice thoroughly and insist on a real radical, replace any others who want to retire (Ginsburg) likewise. This would open the door to a Court that could break vital ground on voting, reproductive and LGBT rights, repealing corporate-friendly nonsense (Citizens United) and even undoing mass incarceration/War on Drugs/militarized law enforcement, etc.
B). Race/Gender/LGBT equality: supplement the Court’s acts with legislation fighting race discrimination in education, employment, wages and housing as well as police abuse; implementing equal pay for women, and cementing and enhancing LGBT equality and protection under federal law.
C). Economic progressive legislation: $15 minimum wage, Wall Street Tax on financial transactions, Heavy raise on capital gains and wealthy income taxes, crackdown on corporate tax evaders and “domestic offshore” havens, withdraw from TPP and renegotiate a new trade treaty, move toward quasi-single-payer universal health care, move toward tuition-free higher education.
D). Global warming: Amp up transition off fossil fuels and negotiate hard to bring all powers to the table to join together and make stronger, swifter commitments. Now.
All four planks work together and stem from a real commitment to social justice. We would need to show tangible progress in each arena year by year, which could be a tough act to manage. Within each, we would prioritize based on what programs and laws could be enacted quickly and successfully, then surf on their popularity to scale the loftier peaks (e.g. enact minimum wage, then a year later reform higher ed).
Or, if feasible, we would introduce the big bills that would need a year or two to get through Congress and show results before future elections could scuttle their enactment. To win, we’d have to be canny about tactics and politics, but also not be afraid to set out a bold and aggressive legislative agenda.
Today’s Democratic party excels at the former, but at the latter, it’s been pretty much crickets for a good forty years.
MB: Lastly, why in the name of all that is good and right do we care so much if somebody is wrong on the internet? Do we not have lives? What the fuck is wrong with us?
IG: Dude, what makes you think I care?
No, actually, I think we’re all quite endearing. We seem to believe, all the nasty proofs to the contrary be damned, that reasonable discourse and friendly interchange can still actually produce some enduring good in the world.
I love you, man.
And there you have it!
I’m sure this diary leaves you with many questions such as “Hey Hillary Bro and Bernie Bro, do you even lift?”
[Origin story of the “Do you even lift?” meme as well as multiple examples of its meme-age.]
But among those questions are hopefully some about where such collaborations between Bernie and Hillary supporters could go from here moving forward. MBNYC has spoken to me about possibly forming a DK group to develop thoughtful discussions (not insult-fests or screaming matches) between Hillary and Bernie supporters.
We’d also greatly encourage similar collaborations to ours. Would you like the two of us to take our collective work in a new direction? Have an idea of how to do one yourself? Suggested topic or format for other co-authored pieces?
Please use the comment spaces in this diary or MBNYC’s companion diary to let us know any ideas you have along those lines.
Because if either of us have learned anything from our interaction, it’s that online politicking gets better and better the bigger and more generous the circle of collaborators becomes. Help us grow this thing. Welcome to our Bad Bromance!