What's frustrating politically about the Democrats' trying to pretend the genocide doesn't exist is that the "military action" in Gaza is unpopular, and extremely unpopular among Democrats (23 percent support it according to the most recent Gallup poll) and independents (34 percent). This isn't to say that policy should be driven by polling but the centrist argument of "shut up! you're going to alienate everyone and they're going to stay home!" is utterly backwards. I care first and foremost about the lives of the Palestinian people and would support them and the people protesting on their behalf even if 95 percent of the United States agreed with the genocide and it was a ballot box loser. But it isn't! The centrists clutching their pearls about how this issue is going to lose this election have it all backwards. They should be pushing the Democratic Party to change their stance because it is an unpopular one, not imploring voters to shut up and abandon what is a mainstream viewpoint within their base.
Spot on takes here. I was just thinking about more or less this contrast yesterday because I walked into my office to CNBC on TV where the hosts where in full cope and seethe mode about Kamala’s proposal to tax unrealized capital gains for high income earners and it immediately occurred to me that I would be absolutely over the moon about this from the democrats in any other circumstance but it was impossible for me to come away from this week feeling anything other than disgust at the contrast between the celebratory atmosphere at the DNC and doctors breaking down in tears at the uncommitted press conference taking about what they saw in Gaza. Decided I need a break from social media for a couple weeks because the faction of democrats who not only has decided to totally ignore Gaza but shout down those who have the moral compass to continue highlighting Gaza was making me see red every time I logged on.
I don’t think the Omelas metaphor is at all trite— most people probably haven’t read the story, and it works perfectly. However, my friend suggested changing the title to “The Ones Who Walk Away From Kamalas”, for relevance. Feel free to use.
In Le Guin, the torture of the child literally enables and sustains the prosperity and happiness of Omelas. The blood of many Palestinians, and some Israelis, sustains only the power-play of the mutual extermination-fantasists of Hamas, and Otzma Yehudit, and the others.
Also, walking away from Omelas *doesn't change anything.* Is that really the model you want?
I haven't read the book. But I appreciate the analogy because it also exposes the hollowness of Dems' "Trump would be worse for Gaza" retort. It's as if they're saying "Oh yeah? Well Trump would lock up two kids instead of just one."
"The party is trying to cover its eyes and pretend Gaza doesn’t exist." Or their ears...
Incidentally, thoughts on the working class/unions taking on American foreign policy directly? What I mean is like what (I think I remember) happening in Northern Europe, with unionized dock workers refusing to allow arms shipments to Israel. Things like that. Possible in America?
I saw the one from UAW...I'll look for the others. Hopefully there will be some action to follow it up if the dems refuse to make a very obvious and morally correct change.
However much I’m tripping on hopium… I have and have had no doubt about the D candidate winning the popular vote. OTOH, there’s the Electoral College, SCOTOGOP and Republican voter shit-pulling and an assured reoccurrence of J6.
So even with the real world odds against Harris, I’m hopeful for no good reason that this is all the end of the Clinton project from the late 1980s in which the party decided to be attractive to Republican special interests because that’s where the big bucks were. By definition, that required being as little of an opposition party as possible. And it showed under Clinton and Obama. (Re the latter, don’t cite the ACA without acknowledging the negatives of it.) This attitude is reflected in the DCCC’s preference for putzes who bring in campaign money and use approved personnel instead of campaigning like AOC did.
As for Gaza; that’s a perfect example of the fallacy of the Green Lantern theory og POTUS omnipotence. Firstly, our leverage over Netanyahu is far less than assumed or believed because Israel’s dependence on us has been shrinking over the years. Add to that that anything short of begrudging full support is electoral suicide resulting in nothing being accomplished and whoever would try to do anything would be voted out of power.
What should be done is too obvious to discuss. What needs to be discussed is how to get that should into an environment of could. (If that’s being discussed outside the preaching to the choir outlets, I’ve missed it.)
Not a defense of war crimes in Gaza. And the hostage’s parents who spoke at the DNC convention should just fuck off.
I agree. Thank you. Why cannot the U.S. force AIPAC to register as a foreign agent, which would help distance them from the American system ? I suspect that many of those billions the U.S. government sends to Israel are recycled back in the form of bribes (« donations ») to American politicians.
My only interpretation of the waffling and winking on Gaza is they want to withdraw funds but are especially circumspect regarding Israel's influence on American elections. Maybe they're waiting until right after the election to make a move. But playing cards so coyly seems to preclude any real action when it comes down to it anyway, so I'm not sure. You can say "we won't leave any stone unturned this time" to justify any level of laziness or depravity
I think your metaphor with Omelas is perfect, actually. I don't understand what the difficulty is in calling a thing by its name and and refusing to contribute further to actions that are profoundly wrong, as well as unpopular with your base. It's ridiculous and disgusting and if she loses it will not be because I and others like me didn't vote for her, but because she refused to do the simple and morally correct things she could have done to win our votes. I will never regret not supporting a genocide. I can't say the same thing for the DNC.
I don't disagree with your thoughts on Gaza but I think it is a very tough call for a presidential candidate. Harris has momentum in her favor. She also has a Jewish husband. My hope is that she gets elected and then has the political capital to assist Gaza. Frankly I was surprised she even mentioned Gaza and having a Palestinian state in her speech. Was it enough? No. But it was something.
Jewish Americans across the country have been at the forefront of the Palestinian protests, calling for the end of Isarel's occupation of Gaza and the end of the United States' support for genocide in Palestine.
"Having a Jewish husband" is irrelevant to how you view Zionism. Some of the most fervent American supporters of Israel are Evangelical Christians.
I am skeptical of these “hints.” This is because as long as voters’ behavior is vote blue no matter who, there is no incentive for Democratic politicians to do anything different. None. Democratic politicians will say anything to get elected, just like Republicans. They are no different. I don’t care to wonder what is in their hearts, what they would do if only they could, if only the filibuster didn’t exist, blah blah blah. The only thing that matters is what they schedule for a vote, and then how they vote. Promises are like assholes. Everybody has one and they all stink.
Consider Obama and the public option.
He talked out of both sides of his mouth regarding the public option in health care and secretly negotiated it away.
He did this partly to appease big money donors and the Senators they own, and partly in a foolish campaign to get Republican votes so he could be Mr. Bipartisan—and then still didn’t get a single Republican vote. So, Obama gave away the one thing that alone could have helped tens of millions, and still got re-elected by progressives and liberals because they voted blue no matter who, and no matter what.
And just to keep everyone in line in 2016, when there was real danger of many union voters finally deciding not to vote blue no matter who, Obama got all mealy-mouthed again.
This is so long ago many readers won’t remember details. One good thing to know is what Bill Clinton had to say about the institutions who made the difference for him. He couldn’t have won without unions (and without Ross Perot taking some Republican votes).
Note his language. That’s the language of Republicans when they want to scare pearl-clutchers about crime. The gist of the story is he shut labor leaders out of the negotiations, promised them they would have input, and then surprised them with a done deed. It’s so long ago I can’t remember where I read the story. In spite of this, union leaders encouraged their members to vote blue no matter who in 1996.
Consider Obama and the Employee Free Choice Act.
Two weeks after his inauguration he was already shining us on.
It passed the House and then Senate Democrats let themselves get filibustered on it.
Three years later Obama was re-elected with millions of union votes because labor leaders urged them to vote blue no matter who.
Consider the Progressive Caucus, She-Who-Tweets and her Squad, and the supposed Sanders wing. She-Who-Tweets and some Progressive Caucus members voted to take away the biggest power any working person has: withholding their labor.
I am still convinced by Hamilton’s previous argument about competing in the arena already built. My argument here is that if we always vote blue no matter who, then nothing will change. We saw that with Clinton for eight years and Obama for eight years. I lived through both. I remember their bullshit and double-talk.
Competing in the existing arena includes playing a long game, being willing to lose something for two years, or even four, in order to gain something for ten or twenty years.
If we are not willing to lose the House for two years, by withholding our votes from the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party has nothing to fear from us. If we support primary challengers who lose the primary, and we still vote for the Democrat, then the Democrats have nothing to fear from us.
If senior labor leaders are always going to vote blue no matter who, then the Democratic Party has no incentive to do anything different.
If Harris wins, she will do it with indispensable union votes and votes from women who rightly fear Trump and the Republicans. And she will be just as mealy-mouthed as Clinton and Obama were.
I predict she won't get the PRO Act passed and she won't expand Social Security. She won't have to because if she wins, in 2026 the Trump danger will be gone and won't be able to scare everyone into voting for Democrats. Thus, Democrats will lose the House and Senate (assuming they win the House this November and keep the Senate).
Who will bet me?
I'll give you three to one odds in your favor, on a $25 bet.
If Dems stick with their current course, they'll either lose in November (very bad) or squeak out a win without a mandate (very bad, and will confirm Team Blue's worst impulses).
Those who want the party to realign need to be building institutions to force the change, with unions and third parties at the top of the list. Without that work, we will 100% be faced with lesser evilism again in 2028. And 2032. And 2036...
Honestly, how are those two things even remotely compatible with each other. You can't pretend that AOC is a true progressive when she pour adulation on Kamala for her stance on Palestine...or maybe you can.
Genuine question -- you write that the movement that wanted to speak supports the Harris ticket. But aren't they calling themselves Uncommitted because they are not committed delegates to Harris?
See also Zeteo panel with Georgia state rep Ruwa Romman, Democratic activist for 10years, knocked in doors for Biden. She wants to support Harris. She’s struggling.
What's frustrating politically about the Democrats' trying to pretend the genocide doesn't exist is that the "military action" in Gaza is unpopular, and extremely unpopular among Democrats (23 percent support it according to the most recent Gallup poll) and independents (34 percent). This isn't to say that policy should be driven by polling but the centrist argument of "shut up! you're going to alienate everyone and they're going to stay home!" is utterly backwards. I care first and foremost about the lives of the Palestinian people and would support them and the people protesting on their behalf even if 95 percent of the United States agreed with the genocide and it was a ballot box loser. But it isn't! The centrists clutching their pearls about how this issue is going to lose this election have it all backwards. They should be pushing the Democratic Party to change their stance because it is an unpopular one, not imploring voters to shut up and abandon what is a mainstream viewpoint within their base.
Spot on takes here. I was just thinking about more or less this contrast yesterday because I walked into my office to CNBC on TV where the hosts where in full cope and seethe mode about Kamala’s proposal to tax unrealized capital gains for high income earners and it immediately occurred to me that I would be absolutely over the moon about this from the democrats in any other circumstance but it was impossible for me to come away from this week feeling anything other than disgust at the contrast between the celebratory atmosphere at the DNC and doctors breaking down in tears at the uncommitted press conference taking about what they saw in Gaza. Decided I need a break from social media for a couple weeks because the faction of democrats who not only has decided to totally ignore Gaza but shout down those who have the moral compass to continue highlighting Gaza was making me see red every time I logged on.
The shit those doctors have seen is far beyond what any human should have to see, let alone try to mitigate.
❤️ 💯
I don’t think the Omelas metaphor is at all trite— most people probably haven’t read the story, and it works perfectly. However, my friend suggested changing the title to “The Ones Who Walk Away From Kamalas”, for relevance. Feel free to use.
It doesn't work perfectly.
In Le Guin, the torture of the child literally enables and sustains the prosperity and happiness of Omelas. The blood of many Palestinians, and some Israelis, sustains only the power-play of the mutual extermination-fantasists of Hamas, and Otzma Yehudit, and the others.
Also, walking away from Omelas *doesn't change anything.* Is that really the model you want?
Omelas is an indictment, not a model. And no, it’s not a desired model, it’s what we have.
I haven't read the book. But I appreciate the analogy because it also exposes the hollowness of Dems' "Trump would be worse for Gaza" retort. It's as if they're saying "Oh yeah? Well Trump would lock up two kids instead of just one."
"The party is trying to cover its eyes and pretend Gaza doesn’t exist." Or their ears...
Incidentally, thoughts on the working class/unions taking on American foreign policy directly? What I mean is like what (I think I remember) happening in Northern Europe, with unionized dock workers refusing to allow arms shipments to Israel. Things like that. Possible in America?
Possible and already happening. See the letter from major unions calling for an arms embargo on Israel for example.
I saw the one from UAW...I'll look for the others. Hopefully there will be some action to follow it up if the dems refuse to make a very obvious and morally correct change.
Well said Hamilton.
However much I’m tripping on hopium… I have and have had no doubt about the D candidate winning the popular vote. OTOH, there’s the Electoral College, SCOTOGOP and Republican voter shit-pulling and an assured reoccurrence of J6.
So even with the real world odds against Harris, I’m hopeful for no good reason that this is all the end of the Clinton project from the late 1980s in which the party decided to be attractive to Republican special interests because that’s where the big bucks were. By definition, that required being as little of an opposition party as possible. And it showed under Clinton and Obama. (Re the latter, don’t cite the ACA without acknowledging the negatives of it.) This attitude is reflected in the DCCC’s preference for putzes who bring in campaign money and use approved personnel instead of campaigning like AOC did.
As for Gaza; that’s a perfect example of the fallacy of the Green Lantern theory og POTUS omnipotence. Firstly, our leverage over Netanyahu is far less than assumed or believed because Israel’s dependence on us has been shrinking over the years. Add to that that anything short of begrudging full support is electoral suicide resulting in nothing being accomplished and whoever would try to do anything would be voted out of power.
What should be done is too obvious to discuss. What needs to be discussed is how to get that should into an environment of could. (If that’s being discussed outside the preaching to the choir outlets, I’ve missed it.)
Not a defense of war crimes in Gaza. And the hostage’s parents who spoke at the DNC convention should just fuck off.
I agree. Thank you. Why cannot the U.S. force AIPAC to register as a foreign agent, which would help distance them from the American system ? I suspect that many of those billions the U.S. government sends to Israel are recycled back in the form of bribes (« donations ») to American politicians.
My only interpretation of the waffling and winking on Gaza is they want to withdraw funds but are especially circumspect regarding Israel's influence on American elections. Maybe they're waiting until right after the election to make a move. But playing cards so coyly seems to preclude any real action when it comes down to it anyway, so I'm not sure. You can say "we won't leave any stone unturned this time" to justify any level of laziness or depravity
I think your metaphor with Omelas is perfect, actually. I don't understand what the difficulty is in calling a thing by its name and and refusing to contribute further to actions that are profoundly wrong, as well as unpopular with your base. It's ridiculous and disgusting and if she loses it will not be because I and others like me didn't vote for her, but because she refused to do the simple and morally correct things she could have done to win our votes. I will never regret not supporting a genocide. I can't say the same thing for the DNC.
If she loses, Trump will encourage Netanyahu to ramp up. "Get the job done," so Jared can build hotels overlooking the beach. But you'll be pure.
If Kamala loses in November, it'll be her fault. Not Rachel's.
You've obviously never read the story.
I don't disagree with your thoughts on Gaza but I think it is a very tough call for a presidential candidate. Harris has momentum in her favor. She also has a Jewish husband. My hope is that she gets elected and then has the political capital to assist Gaza. Frankly I was surprised she even mentioned Gaza and having a Palestinian state in her speech. Was it enough? No. But it was something.
Jewish Americans across the country have been at the forefront of the Palestinian protests, calling for the end of Isarel's occupation of Gaza and the end of the United States' support for genocide in Palestine.
"Having a Jewish husband" is irrelevant to how you view Zionism. Some of the most fervent American supporters of Israel are Evangelical Christians.
Very likely a dumb observation on my part.
I am skeptical of these “hints.” This is because as long as voters’ behavior is vote blue no matter who, there is no incentive for Democratic politicians to do anything different. None. Democratic politicians will say anything to get elected, just like Republicans. They are no different. I don’t care to wonder what is in their hearts, what they would do if only they could, if only the filibuster didn’t exist, blah blah blah. The only thing that matters is what they schedule for a vote, and then how they vote. Promises are like assholes. Everybody has one and they all stink.
Consider Obama and the public option.
He talked out of both sides of his mouth regarding the public option in health care and secretly negotiated it away.
https://www.salon.com/2010/10/05/public_option_24/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999
He did this partly to appease big money donors and the Senators they own, and partly in a foolish campaign to get Republican votes so he could be Mr. Bipartisan—and then still didn’t get a single Republican vote. So, Obama gave away the one thing that alone could have helped tens of millions, and still got re-elected by progressives and liberals because they voted blue no matter who, and no matter what.
And just to keep everyone in line in 2016, when there was real danger of many union voters finally deciding not to vote blue no matter who, Obama got all mealy-mouthed again.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/11/485228991/obama-renews-call-for-a-public-option-in-federal-health-law
Consider Clinton and NAFTA.
This is so long ago many readers won’t remember details. One good thing to know is what Bill Clinton had to say about the institutions who made the difference for him. He couldn’t have won without unions (and without Ross Perot taking some Republican votes).
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-08-mn-54558-story.html
Note his language. That’s the language of Republicans when they want to scare pearl-clutchers about crime. The gist of the story is he shut labor leaders out of the negotiations, promised them they would have input, and then surprised them with a done deed. It’s so long ago I can’t remember where I read the story. In spite of this, union leaders encouraged their members to vote blue no matter who in 1996.
Consider Obama and the Employee Free Choice Act.
Two weeks after his inauguration he was already shining us on.
https://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-silent-on-card-check-bill-018231
It passed the House and then Senate Democrats let themselves get filibustered on it.
Three years later Obama was re-elected with millions of union votes because labor leaders urged them to vote blue no matter who.
Consider the Progressive Caucus, She-Who-Tweets and her Squad, and the supposed Sanders wing. She-Who-Tweets and some Progressive Caucus members voted to take away the biggest power any working person has: withholding their labor.
I am still convinced by Hamilton’s previous argument about competing in the arena already built. My argument here is that if we always vote blue no matter who, then nothing will change. We saw that with Clinton for eight years and Obama for eight years. I lived through both. I remember their bullshit and double-talk.
Competing in the existing arena includes playing a long game, being willing to lose something for two years, or even four, in order to gain something for ten or twenty years.
If we are not willing to lose the House for two years, by withholding our votes from the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party has nothing to fear from us. If we support primary challengers who lose the primary, and we still vote for the Democrat, then the Democrats have nothing to fear from us.
If senior labor leaders are always going to vote blue no matter who, then the Democratic Party has no incentive to do anything different.
If Harris wins, she will do it with indispensable union votes and votes from women who rightly fear Trump and the Republicans. And she will be just as mealy-mouthed as Clinton and Obama were.
I predict she won't get the PRO Act passed and she won't expand Social Security. She won't have to because if she wins, in 2026 the Trump danger will be gone and won't be able to scare everyone into voting for Democrats. Thus, Democrats will lose the House and Senate (assuming they win the House this November and keep the Senate).
Who will bet me?
I'll give you three to one odds in your favor, on a $25 bet.
If Dems stick with their current course, they'll either lose in November (very bad) or squeak out a win without a mandate (very bad, and will confirm Team Blue's worst impulses).
Those who want the party to realign need to be building institutions to force the change, with unions and third parties at the top of the list. Without that work, we will 100% be faced with lesser evilism again in 2028. And 2032. And 2036...
Agree except for this: “There was no moral cowardice in the party’s approach to abortion.” See Mona Eltahaway’s writing here on Substack.
Honestly, how are those two things even remotely compatible with each other. You can't pretend that AOC is a true progressive when she pour adulation on Kamala for her stance on Palestine...or maybe you can.
Genuine question -- you write that the movement that wanted to speak supports the Harris ticket. But aren't they calling themselves Uncommitted because they are not committed delegates to Harris?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/08/dnc-speech-uncommitted-movement-harris-walz-ruwan-romman/
See also Zeteo panel with Georgia state rep Ruwa Romman, Democratic activist for 10years, knocked in doors for Biden. She wants to support Harris. She’s struggling.