Fear and Loathing in the Democratic Primaries: #bullying, #gaslighting, and #wolfpackjournalism

Sources: Darrell Nance / CC BY-SA Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America / CC BY-SA; AFGE CCBY

An audio podcast version is available on my Squarespace.com blog, Apple Podcasts and Spotify

What follows are some thoughts on the deteriorating political climate within and outside the Democratic Party. As with my previous article on Mike Bloomberg’s corporate raid on the Democratic Party, my worry is about the fate of the progressive and liberal wing of the party and its allied movements and organizations, especially at the hands of resolutely hostile mainstream media organizations.

Whipsaw Politics

The ups and downs of the Democratic primaries have witnessed:

· the spectacle of a panicked party establishment and its allies under pressure from:

- the faltering campaign of preferred candidate Joe Biden

- the surge of Bernie Sanders’s campaign, especially after the Nevada caucuses, that was based on a widening base of diverse support including Latino and union voters and the “army” of “hordes” of Sanders supporters

- the aggressive candidacy of Mike Bloomberg, initially welcomed by some Democratic elected officials and members of the DNC, but whose vast campaign operations ($500M on advertising alone) and resources threatened to upend the primaries by bypassing some of them, foregoing outside donations, having the DNC bend existing rules to allow him to debate, and calling on Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar to withdraw before the Nevada debate, a high-pressure demand that spectacularly backfired

Then came:

· the evisceration of Mike Bloomberg in the Nevada and South Carolina debates by Elizabeth Warren for his political and business record and public statements regarding women and communities of color

· the rapid consolidation of senior party leader support behind Biden after Biden’s 30-point win in South Carolina following important endorsement of Congressman Jim Clyburn, and the return of (mostly older) southern Black voters as a force in the Democratic Party

· the suspension of Amy Klobuchar’ and Pete Buttigieg’s campaigns before Super Tuesday and their endorsement of Biden

· Biden’s exceptionally strong performance in Super Tuesday leaving him with a delegate lead over Sanders, and more important, a tremendous political momentum

· The suspension of Bloomberg campaign after Super Tuesday and his endorsement of Biden

· Elizabeth Warren’s suspension her progressive campaign after, not before, Super Tuesday. She has yet to endorse any candidate

The Mainstream Media’s Targeting of Political Candidates

Beyond the whipsawing nature of these events, my experience as a longtime student of political intimidation and public bullying in the U.S. and Europe has taught me that this has much to do with the dominant mainstream media discourse. Political and economic establishments and their media allies push back hard when they feel challenged by progressive or liberal candidates’ social or political identity (Geraldine Ferraro, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren), past record (Vietnam veteran John Kerry’ anti-war activism), or platform (Howard Dean’s anti-war candidacy in 2004, Ralph Nader’s and Jill Stein’s green policies, Bernie Sanders’ economic populism). Each of these candidates experienced disrespectful treatment by the press including in some cases by important segments of the so-called liberal media.

The aggressive methods employed have generally been the same. The focus is on manipulating appearances and using aggressive timing:

· preemptive attack (the element of surprise is crucial in a media-saturated environment; creating a sensation or buzz is everything)

· extreme content (saying the unthinkable)

· guilt by association (however tenuous)

· stigmatizing one’s identity

· invidious interpretations of ambiguous statements or appearances

· taking statements out of context

· the most effective method is impugning a candidate’s character or motive (as opposed to questioning their record) because it is difficult to disprove in a cynical media environment and dominates the 24/7 news cycle before it can be stopped

· all the above are often done via passive-aggressive rumor-mongering (“I hear but don’t know…”; “Some people say…”; “Anonymous sources claim…”)

The point is to put the target in a defensive, reactive position with the ultimate goal of humiliating and dishonoring the target in the eyes of the public and of creating an impression of weakness, or of a potential weakness, one that may not manifest itself now but could at any time. In the current political theater of dominance this can be fatal. The sheer volume of lies and allegations ends up gaslighting the candidate, his or her supporters, and the general public alike. It constructs a wall of “common sense,” a negative frame that forever casts a shadow over the target’s every future statement and action. It reaches a point where no matter what the candidate says or does, she or he is perceived as, to cite past and present examples, “nasty,” “angry,” “rude,” a “screamer,” or even “violent.” The loss of control over one’s public image is irremediable. Such is the transformative power of this kind of verbal and psychological violence.

In this scenario and depending on one’s identity, one is always out of place and all too “present.” Just showing up can be perceived as “aggressive.” So the trap has been set, and, perversely, the potential for verbal or psychological violence has been transferred to the victim from the perpetrator. And as in any classic bullying scenario, should the victim respond and name the aggression for what it is, the bully answers, “Are you being hostile?” and then freely claims victimhood for her or himself.

I have written on this extensively beginning 10 years ago and again in my recent book on public bullying and political intimidation. Even Hillary Clinton, despite her deep ties with economic and political elites, wasn’t spared in 2016 any more than she was when she first entered the White House in January 1993 as an avowed feminist. Devoted as they were to speculative hearsay and cheap cynicism media reporting focused on the bogus Benghazi affair, her private email server, and her dysfunctional staff. In 2016 cable news organizations spent something less than 100 minutes on substantive discussion of her record and platform. The print media, including the New York Times were scarcely better.

The Politics of Destruction: Wolfpack Journalism

Let’s return to the present where my focus will be primarily on the case of Bernie Sanders.

Why so?

Because Sanders currently has been the object of disrespectful treatment by the media pretty much unmatched by any other candidate by virtue of his triple outsider status: in terms of his platform (anti-establishment economic populist), his record (progressive), and his identity (independent, longtime democratic-socialist and, less openly acknowledged in public discussions, secular Jew, who is also critical of current Israeli policies towards Palestinians).

Until the beginning of the year, mainstream media including CNN and MSNBC had ignored the Sanders campaign much in the way they did during the primaries in 2016 when media observers termed this non-reporting a media “blackout.” And at those times when they did turn their attention to him, it was almost always negative; the peak was reached by the Washington Post when in 2016 it ran sixteen negative stories in 16 hours according the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). This year with the first primaries he began to come into view but the coverage was uniformly negative. With his 26-point win in Nevada that made him front runner, there was an awkward, almost comical moment when some TV anchors treated him with a modicum of curiosity mixed with respect (it’s America after all: we admire winners) but it lasted perhaps no more than 48 hours.

Even before the grace period was up, panicked pundits and anchors felt free to engage in over the top slandering of Sanders: MSNBC’s Meet the Press anchor Chuck Todd read a rightwing blog posting characterizing Sanders supporters as the “brownshirt brigade,” which earned him a public protest from the Anti-Defamation League; Chris Matthews likened Sanders’ Nevada landslide victory to the Nazi conquest of France in 1940 and insinuated that he would be executed under a Sanders presidency (which, among surely other but unstated reasons, may have cost him his job); and Democratic political consultant James Carville, who had previously termed Sanders a “communist” and his supporters a “cult,” after the Nevada results were in declared,”the happiest person right now is Putin.” These all occurred on liberal MSNBC/NBC newscasts.

Such statements recall the worst days on Hillary Clinton’s first years in the White House (deemed to be the murderer of lawyer White House Vincent Foster who had committed suicide) and attacks not so long ago on Obama by Fox and other Murdoch media as not American and a “socialist” and their claims that the Affordable Care Act had plans to create “death camps.” However, perhaps just as serious has been the relentless piling on in print, cable, and social media against Bernie Sanders and his campaign that have gone beyond legitimate adversarial journalism to create an unremitting negative consensus. This what former Village Voice columnist Alexander Cockburn used to call “wolfpack journalism.” It has effectively erased Sanders’ exceptionally consistent record on issues that liberals and progressives and their organizations presumably hold dear: civil rights, war and peace, immigration reform, the criminal justice system, women’s issues, LGBTQ issues, healthcare, student debt, global warming, etc. Finally, on cable television, anchors and their guests now feel free to interrupt and talk over Sanders national campaign co-chair Nina Turner, and one Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen lectured Turner (who is Black) on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Case of Elizabeth Warren

It is interesting to note that Elizabeth Warren has a similar progressive record and a strong populist, anti-Wall Street stance as policymaker and now as Senator and candidate. (This is why Sanders and activists associated with Occupy Wall St. had initially asked her to run in 2016; she turned them down.) In her case she has had to face the brunt of the reigning public misogyny hostile towards highly successful professional women, but it would appear that its expression has been more in the ballot box than in mainstream cable TV and print media. She hasn’t had to deal with quite the same level of active hostility from the so-called liberal news outlets as Sanders, though her healthcare and wealth tax proposals were not fairly considered in the press.

Warren has even enjoyed the endorsement of the editorial board of the New York Times and the active support of influential Nobelist economist and op-ed columnist Paul Krugman. This may have to do with her insider credentials as Harvard law professor and former Obama administration official that Sanders clearly does not possess. By contrast, and perhaps for in part for these very same reasons, Krugman has felt free to relentlessly mock Sanders’ socialist identity and Medicare for All and anti-free market proposals. Remarkably, Krugman has been joined by New York Times op-ed writers from across the political spectrum (up to three articles a day): from Michelle Goldberg, Timothy Egan, Roger Cohen, and Nicholas D. Kristof to Gail Collins, Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and Brett Stephens.

The differential treatment of the two progressive candidates by the mainstream liberal media was also made apparent in the lengthy interviews of Warren and Sanders conducted by MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow on March 4 and 5. There Sanders faced a set of leading questions from a smiling but hostile host narrowly focused on the disappointing results of Super Tuesday primaries that was capped off with a query about his age, gender, race, and sexual orientation status. By contrast, Warren was warmly greeted by Maddow and met with genuinely broad and stimulating questions concerning the unique nature and power of her campaign and what its legacy might be with a long segment devoted to the Bernie Bro phenomenon.

The Destructive Legacy of the Cold War Era

The New York Times op-ed writers’ consensus has been more than matched by the News Department that has published a drumbeat of news articles critical of Sanders and his followers. Rare is the in-depth feature that examines the reasons for his expanding, diverse base, his popularity among African American voters that surpassed Biden’s in nationwide polls prior to the South Carolina primary, his strength among working-class voters in the crucial upper Midwest, or his proven ability to attract moderate, centrist and even conservative rural voters in a less crowded field during the 2016 primaries. It would appear that the New York Times has a version of internal “wolfpack journalism” all its very own.

The negative reporting reached a high point on March 6 when the New York Times published a front-page article titled, “Soviet Papers Recount Ties with Sanders” and online, “As Bernie Sanders Pushed for Closer Ties, Soviet Union Spotted Opportunity” claiming his bid to form a sister-city relationship as mayor of Burlington, Vermont with Yaroslavl, Russia was a tool of Soviet propaganda. This earned the paper of record a sharp rebuke from Ronald Reagan’s former ambassador to the USSR for distorting history by omitting that this was actually in line with an official policy of the U.S. government and enjoyed its full support.

The days of pretending to keep in check misleading and slanderous reporting when a Public Editor like Margaret Sullivan was present are apparently gone. That position is now defunct. The liberties with which the Times News Department took with the historical record of Sanders’ visit speaks volumes about the current forbidding political environment in which we live. It is hard not to think that such high-handed reporting has been enabled by the revival old Cold War hysteria associated with the U.S.’s rivalry with the communist Soviet Union by the breathless press coverage over the last three years of Trump’s presumed conspiracy with Russian meddling in U.S. elections.

As a child of the Cold War and former participant in 1960s social movements, I’ve watched with apprehension how liberal pundits and Democrats have started wielding once again the same old cudgel that Republicans such as Joe McCarthy routinely applied to Democrats and liberals (for example, Dr. Martin Luther King and the labor and civil rights movements) in an attempt to dismantle the social and economic achievements of the New Deal. But I have to remind myself that already back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s the same tactics were also applied by a good number of Democrats against progressives and the anti-Vietnam War and other social movements. Perhaps red-baiting of Bernie Sanders also shouldn’t have come as a surprise, since the recent media and political frenzy around Russiagate also seems to have re-empowered members of the Democratic leadership, journalists, and pundits who are obsessed with national security and take pride in their close relationships with the Pentagon and national intelligence and law enforcement agencies, government entities that have a record of surveilling, discrediting, and disrupting domestic progressive political movements.

The Power of Social Media

Finally, matters are made infinitely worse by online bullying, especially via tweets and anonymous postings whose destructive capacity to provoke and spread fear are quite real. Online aggression is all the more powerful in that while the toxic content is all too easy to interpret, it is another thing all together to measure its amplitude, reliably and quickly identify the perpetrators who hide behind tweeter handles, and make them accountable for their actions. As anxious users, swimming in the gaslit internet, we can always find what we fear and dread in the corners of the internet, but how to interpret what we encounter is no simple task. This task is all the more urgent as progressives and liberal grapple with reports from among their own ranks about aggressive “Bernie Bros” who have bullied followers of opponents, Warren supporters who have attacked indigenous critics of Warren’s testing for evidence of indigenous DNA, and followers of Buttigieg who sent abusive emails to Russian-American New Yorker writer Masha Gessen when she voiced mild criticism of their candidate. And then there’s always the threat of manipulation by provocateurs sowing division and divisiveness among the Democratic left to worry about.

Conclusion

Given the unique virulence and scope of public denigration of Bernie Sanders and his campaign, its goal would seem to want to destroy more than Sanders himself but preferably his entire movement, which, ultimately, in my view, is deemed to be the real threat by the Democratic Party establishment and its allies. For the deep commitments of Sanders’ followers exceed his single candidacy and are devoted as much to the issues they care about and to responding to the current political emergency as to his person. These millions of followers are something party leaders can’t reliably control, unlike — in their minds at least — other electoral groups they call “firewalls” whose votes they take have come to take for granted.

There is much more that can be said but I’ll close by saying that the current public derogatory treatment of Bernie Sanders by the media and many pundits associated with the Democratic establishment approaches that which Jeremy Corbyn received during the last parliamentary elections in the UK that helped destroy the Labor Party campaign. Following that script, the next turn of the screw may indeed be to accuse Bernie Sanders and his followers of being anti-Semites and Sanders as a self-hating Jew. This is already underway among Likud-identified Jewish organizations and press, and it may be not long before it migrates to the mainstream media and political worlds in the U.S.

Roddey Reid is Professor Emeritus, UC San Diego (rreid@ucsd.edu) and is author of Confronting Political Intimidation and Public Bullying: A Citizen’s Handbook for the Trump Era and Beyond.

Mike Bloomberg's Corporate Raid on the Democratic Party

Sources: AFGE CCBY; Michael Valdon; DarrellNance / CC BY-SAGage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America / CC BY-SA

An audio podcast of this post is available here

---

Bloomberg as Trojan Horse

Should the Democratic establishment think nominating Bloomberg will not only defeat Trump but also help preserve its control over the party, Democratic leaders may be in for a nasty surprise. In their minds Bloomberg may be a stone that can kill two birds (Trump and Sanders) but Bloomberg’s actions are also those of a corporate raider engaged in a hostile take-over bid of a company faced with implacable competition (the GOP) and burdened with a sclerotic, inept management (the DNC) and falling stock price (after the failed attempt to remove Trump and the Iowa caucus fiasco), and over which frustrated employees (liberals and progressives) now wish to assume ownership. The exclusive focus on removing Trump may have come at the cost of neglecting many substantive issues that mobilize voters and left the door open to the former Republican billionaire whose main political asset is an assumed ability to beat Trump next fall.

As nominee, Bloomberg with his money, media empire, and vast pool of political operatives and grateful political beneficiaries would be well poised to re-make the Democratic Party in his own image (by replacing management, firing troublesome employees, and appealing to stockholders/donors). Or he could simply destroy it all together and found — like that other media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi in Italy — his very own party on its ruins that owes loyalty to him and to him alone. There is also a parallel with French President Emmanuel Macron, a former banker. His economic austerity policies while Minister of Finance destroyed Socialist François Hollande’s presidency and precipitated the final decline of the French Socialist Party, opening a space for the creation of his very personal probusiness Republic on the March Party that swept to power in 2017.

Déjà Vu

In many ways, we have been here before — as Republicans well know. Trump’s successful bid to become the nominee of the Republican Party in 2016 was itself a textbook raid on a corporation that had been memorably dramatized in the public’s mind by Michael Douglas as corporate raider Gordon Gekko in Oliver Stone’s 1987 film Wall Street. Trump appealed to the shareholders (the GOP base) to revolt against a smug and incompetent management (the Republican establishment) by promising a price that could not be beat: unalloyed expression of their voter outrage at the status quo in a bid “to make [white] America great again.” After their humiliating rout, GOP leaders and conservatives alike still held out the hope that the party and later on the Oval Office would transform Trump, but instead he transformed them concentrating all political power in his person.

Bloomberg’s candidacy is no idle threat. Like any successful businessman and entrepreneur, Bloomberg expects a return on his investment, even in the event that his Presidential gambit should fail. It would be naïve to think otherwise, especially given the vast sums he has already committed to the campaign (over $400M and counting). To underestimate Bloomberg’s ambitions and his ability to carry them out could prove fatal as it was with Trump in 2016. Even to this day, four years later, Democrats still refuse to take seriously Trump’s sharp political instincts while preferring to focus on his violent, dysfunctional character, chaotic governing style, vulgarity, and lack of education. Bloomberg’s more varnished style is very different and enjoyed success in appealing to urban Democratic elites during his three terms as Republican mayor. He is now taking those lessons learned in New York to the political stage nationwide and to a national party far more liberal than he is or the Republican Party he once belonged to.

Trump and Bloomberg: Savior CEOs as American Folk Heroes

There is much that Bloomberg and Trump share in the way of political authority afforded by their private-sector careers. Both are contemporary icons of fame, wealth, and business success. Both are products of the go-go 1980s and 1990s in New York that celebrated the magic of the marketplace and oversaw the financialization of the economy that traded long-term direct investment in capital improvements (machines, buildings, etc.), employee training, and workers’ wages so to increase productivity and output, for higher returns on costly debt-financed non-productive investments — stocks, bonds, unregulated exotic derivatives (so-called ”shadow finance”), speculative real estate ventures, and massive corporate mergers. The resulting financial pressures in turn led to the offshoring of companies, factory closings, massive layoffs of workers, downsizing of middle managers, and the raiding of employee pension funds. It also gave rise to ruthless short-term management and its new creature, the tyrannical, bullying boss or CEO.

A new American folk hero was born whose harsh methods were afforded every indulgence and every reprieve by an admiring business press. “Savior CEOs” were deemed to be the solution to all the ills of the private and public sectors alike. Flourishing in this brave new world Bloomberg and Trump have enjoyed the enviable clout and freedom of the independent businessman who owns privately held family enterprises and owes no accountability to boards of directors or aggressive mutual fund managers, and thus is politically his own man beholden to no one (clan, party, or donors). In an age still in thrall to the gospel of the free market and individual material success, they share a belligerent sense of political entitlement, and, by virtue of their business personas, they each have promised to get things done and save us from the dysfunctions of government by introducing private-sector forms of management and privatizing government services. In their case top-down executive control with no accountability was deemed a political asset, not a liability, let alone a danger. They parlayed business success into new forms of political authority.

Different Animals

But there the resemblance ends. Today within the world of unfettered capitalism they stand as almost polar opposites of each other as chief executives. A real estate mogul from New York City’s outer boroughs (Brooklyn and Queens), Trump is more a dealmaker than a manager, and affects none of the smooth talk of corporate communications but all the rough street speech of under-socialized Wall Street bond traders and the outsized personality of free-wheeling entrepreneurs. Managing a large bureaucratic corporate enterprise does not interest him. Rather, for Trump action and movement are everything; like Gekko he radiates the pure macho energy of risk and success. The original tabloid businessman turned politician, whose tumultuous business dealings (3,500 lawsuits) and private life (two divorces, countless girlfriends) fill the scandal sheets, Trump is the pure entrepreneurial subject that still fascinates large segments of the public in our new Gilded Age. That is the basis of much of his public authority.

Boston-born and Harvard-educated Bloomberg, on the other hand, has his rough edges but resembles more the disciplined senior executive who oversees day-to-day operations of a large corporation and rationally manages long-term investment strategies of a portfolio of immense wealth. Unlike Trump, he was not born to wealth — he is the mythical self-made man of humble origins. His personal fortune may be over fifteen times larger than Trump’s but paradoxically he cuts a lower profile. The spectacle of his persona and private life is more modest. His is one of the earned authority of firm, steady competence in business and politics backed by a harsh, autocratic manner.

Even the late investigative Village Voice reporter Wayne Barrett, a thorn in both men’s sides throughout much of their careers, admitted in a lengthy 2008 article detailing Bloomberg’s successful corruption of New York City’s political process to run for an unprecedented third term as mayor that at first “Some of us liked him precisely because his wealth insulated him from the kind of [political] horse-trading that diminished his predecessors.” By contrast, Trump’s spectacle is one of vulgar glitz and glamour. It potently mixes the extreme personalization of power with the enviable freedom and irresponsibility of media and Hollywood celebrities trailed by more than a whiff of notoriety and scandal while nonetheless displaying the savvy worldliness of the makers and shakers of capitalist America.

Outside of New York, Bloomberg enjoys a powerful but more subtle presence and name recognition via the ubiquitous Bloomberg News and Bloomberg terminals, the Bloomberg app on smartphones, unparalleled philanthropic giving, non-profit organizations and research centers bearing his name, and a deep network of grateful beneficiaries. Prior to entering the Oval Office, Trump’s aura had always derived from grandiose real estate projects and lavish lifestyle promoted by celebrity reporting, reality TV, and an overwhelming social media persona. These translated unto an unprecedented ability to bypass traditional communication outlets controlled by political and economic elites. However, unlike Bloomberg, philanthropic actions do not figure in his portfolio. Rather than “giving back to the community” from which he has taken, Trump continues to take, and to take. Openly acknowledged self-interest and defiant violent behavior are features of his brand — much to the delight of many of his angry followers tired of establishment hypocrisy.

The Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight

Donald Trump’s electoral victory in 2016 left the Democratic party and its allies demoralized. However, outside the party proper, progressives and liberals did rebound quickly creating new activist groups like Indivisible.com, Sister District Project, and Swing Left. They joined already existing groups and movements like Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and others to take back the House in the 2018 elections — which they did but with little acknowledgment by the mainstream press. That said, it must be noted that since 2016 the Democratic Party leadership has stumbled badly. First was the catastrophic mishandling of the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings. This was followed by squandering the precious political capital acquired by the Blue Wave’s spectacular congressional success in 2018 on the Mueller investigation that bore no political fruit after three years’ worth of breathless public discussion and speculation of Trump’s conspiring with Russian electoral meddling. Finally, there was the bid to impeach and remove Trump (strongly advocated by the youngest and most progressive members of Congress) that failed to turn public opinion against the current occupant of the White House. (Arguably, the whole endeavor was doomed from the start to anyone with a political memory and an appreciation for current Republican Party discipline under Trump.)

Trump as Political Focus

The almost exclusive focus on removing Trump from office perhaps came at the cost of substantive discussion other issues that voters care about passionately, such as such as Medicare for All, immigration reform, student debt, gun control, college tuition, climate change, etc. They were the core of the House bill HR1 that was introduced by Nancy Pelosi to much fanfare in January 2019 but has not been heard from much since. Despite the House impeachment and Senate trial that did no damage to Trump’s approval rating, leaders of one of the leading new activist groups, Indivisible.com, has decreed the focus of their fall election strategy will be holding Republican senators who are up for re-election accountable for their vote to acquit Trump.

In the end Democrats’ focus on removing Trump as the only substantive issue created an opening for the former Republican mayor of New York whose key qualification is the presumed power to defeat Trump with his vast resources and whose platform addresses little in the way of Democrats’ concerns beyond gun control and perhaps climate change. As for the power of the purse to craft budgetary priorities afforded by their new majority in the House, Democrats took little advantage of it to rein in Trump’s actions including initiating military action abroad and the unlimited surveillance powers of the executive branch.

Trump has emerged from an extraordinary constitutional crisis and Democratic missteps stronger than ever (his approval rating has risen several points to an all-time high of 49% among registered voters according to the last two Gallup Polls). An outside observer might legitimately wonder whether Trump, following proven methods of street toughs, hasn’t all along provoked Democrats into fights he instinctually knew they couldn’t win in order to make them look hapless and weak in the public eye. This would be a fatal flaw in the current harsh, take no prisoners political environment. Beneath Trump’s reckless behavior may lie a Machiavellian mind.

Sanders’ Success and Bloomberg as Plan B

Finally, the early caucuses and primaries have been disappointing for centrist Democrats and their network of donors, think tanks, and sympathetic pundits: the Iowa Democratic Party revealed itself to be laughably incompetent, and the inept maneuvering of Tom Perez, chair of the DNC, around on-going primaries and the upcoming summer convention has managed to alienate liberal and progressive Democrats. Worse still, when they weren’t looking, Bernie Sanders’s campaign, studiously ignored by CNN and NBC/MSNBC, has unexpectedly surged demonstrating a broad appeal in a 26-point win in Nevada that caught party elders unawares. Meanwhile, Obama’s former Vice-President Joe Biden, visibly mentally diminished, has failed to gain momentum. Nationwide and swing state polls now indicate that Biden doesn’t perform markedly better than his rivals against Trump and in some polls he performs worse. “Electability,” long a club with which to promote safe, centrist candidates against insurgent progressives and to bludgeon Sanders and his supporters, has lost its some of its potency as an argument against progressive candidates. That the party establishment seems to have no Plan B for a viable alternate candidate of their liking from within their own ranks is a sign of a mounting sclerosis that has gripped its upper echelons. That same outside observer might be tempted to interpret their actions to mean that they are devoting more energies to controlling the party than to winning the fall elections.

Still, upon reflection, perhaps Mike Bloomberg has been the Party establishment’s unstated Plan B all along. After all, he was featured speaker at the 2016 Democratic convention in Philadelphia where, his voice dripping with sarcasm, he declared Trump a failed businessman. (The charge failed to move public opinion.) That was his first opening extended by party officials. He followed up by committing in 2018 $100 million to Democratic candidates for Congress. And in February 2020 the DNC was more than happy to relax its rules for the televised primary debates, which they had refused to do prior for other candidates, allowing him to participate in the debate two days before the Nevada primary in which he wasn’t running.

The Nevada Debate Fiasco

That Bloomberg’s debut debate was something of a disaster may give party leaders pause: eviscerated by Elizabeth Warren for racist and sexist remarks and policies, he struck viewers as ill-prepared to answer aggressive criticism of his record and public statements. What’s more, on the eve of the debate the attempt by the Bloomberg campaign to bully Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar by releasing a memo calling them to step aside and cease campaigning clearly antagonized them and opened a potential deep split between Bloomberg and segments of the party leadership. To all appearances he overplayed his hand: the high pressure tactics that worked well when he was mayor of New York boomeranged on the national stage. It’s also worth noting that beyond intimidating reporting of Bloomberg’s $400M juggernaut, Bloomberg hasn’t received much positive press from mainstream media that has been subjecting his political record and philanthropic activity to close scrutiny after years of neglect. This may have to do with the fact that they are worried that that with his matchless resources he, like Trump but for different reasons, will be able to simply bypass them via his vast ad campaign: no press conferences, no off-the record interviews, no personal profiles. Still, up to the time of the debate Bloomberg accumulated Democratic endorsements including from many politicians of color that make him a serious contender: 16 U.S. congressional representatives, 9 mayors including London Breed of San Francisco and Sylvester Turner of Houston, and 5 DNC members.

Beware of CEOs Bearing Gifts

At present there are no clear polling data indicating that Bloomberg surpasses other candidates in terms of his ability to beat Trump. Confident claims to his electability seem to ride on the aura of his unexamined record as a three-term mayor of New York and of his vast wealth. Clearer, perhaps, is the effect of a Bloomberg Democratic nomination, most likely by a brokered convention: by reneging on what remains of the Democratic Party’s historical identity as the party of the middle and working classes and the poor, it would effectively destroy the progressive Warren/Sanders wing of the party. In particular it would put Bernie Sanders in the impossible position of choosing between his longstanding populist commitments and supporting a billionaire who is the world’s fourteenth richest man with a poor record of social policies and respectful treatment of less-privileged citizens and residents Thus, in this scenario, if Sanders remains faithful to his political values, he effectively destroys whatever leverage he has enjoyed in the Democratic Party and confirms accusations made by its establishment that he is no true Democrat and cannot be trusted; if he supports Bloomberg, then he undoes his entire political career and betrays the millions who have supported him. The very starkness of the choice leaves little room to cut a political deal that saves face and promotes a progressive agenda, unlike in 2016 when Sanders was able to leverage his primary successes to create a more populist Democratic platform and then campaign for Hillary Clinton.

So, initially Bloomberg would not have to dismantle the Democratic Party outright. His mere nomination would set in motion a train of events that would do that for him. At which point he could then step in once again and save the party, not from Sanders, Warren, and their progressive supporters, but from itself. He would be its “savior” twice over but also its undisputed owner and boss. The destruction of the rising progressive wing may be the fondest dream of some establishment Democrats right now, but it is fraught with perils in terms of party unity and voter turnout, not to mention what it would mean to have a second autocratic CEO in the White House but as a Democrat this time. After all, American businesses may be centers of innovation, but as U.S. historian Elizabeth Anderson reminds us in her book Private Government, they are not leaders in promoting democratic values and respectful citizenship. Bloomberg would have little incentive to dismantle the increasingly authoritarian government under which citizens and residents live and suffer today. And like any corporate raider, Bloomberg would most likely want to re-structure his latest acquisition transforming it is a way that best suits him and his managerial priorities.

What in fact would that mean? One can easily imagine him gradually having his own people and network of grateful political beneficiaries appointed to the DNC; working to convert all primaries to winner-take-all; expanding the number of unaccountable superdelegates; reducing the number of pledged delegates elected in primaries and caucuses; taking control of congressional funding away from the Democratic Congressional and Senate Campaign Committees and centralizing national Democratic fund-raising if necessary by replacing traditional sources with his own money; removing all rules and procedures meant to ensure transparent decision-making; and so on. Were he to be frustrated by party member resistance, Mike Bloomberg could always threaten to finance third-party candidacies (something he has done before) including his own if necessary.

Trump, Bloomberg, and Sanders

Trump’s right-wing populist genius has been at once to personify all that unfettered capitalism promises and to lead a revolt against all its disappointments in the name of those very same promises. His powerful melding of fear-mongering and racist and misogynistic content with his aggressive entrepreneurialism and harsh management style was the hallmark of his campaign then and will be in 2020. It is not clear how billionaire Bloomberg with his Wall Street aura as nominee of a fractured and even demobilized Democratic Party coming out of a brokered convention would be poised to counter Trump’s far-right populism that enjoys disciplined support from Republican officeholders and extraordinary loyalty among the GOP base. Bernie Sander’s gathering momentum as he broadens his appeal across all categories of voters while working to unite the party may just be the antidote to Trump that the party establishment has within its grasp but cannot see. His supporters are more than just voters who show up every four years. They approach being something called a “movement,” whose commitments are to issues as much as to Sanders’ person and extend beyond any one election cycle.

Roddey Reid is Professor Emeritus, UC San Diego (rreid@ucsd.edu) and author of Confronting Political intimidation and Public Bullying: A Citizen’s Handbook for the Trump Era and Beyond (2017).

An audio podcast version of this post is available here.

Creating Courageous & Robust Strategies, Part II: Confronting Acts of Political Violence & Domestic Terrorism

Article also available here in Medium.com.

Author’s note: This is Part Two of a two-part article on how the Democratic Party and its liberal and progressive allies should anticipate and counter rightwing political intimidation and violence. I argue that if ignored, such violence could threaten to undo the achievements of the Blue Wave and cause to founder the best efforts of Indivisible, Swing Left, and other new activist organizations to “pave the way to the post-Trump era” (Indivisible on Offense, p. 2).
Part One, “Indivisible on Offense and Galvanizing the Democratic Party in the Current Climate of Political Violence,” (published Nov. 20, 2018) focused on how to renew the Democratic Party as an effective political force in today’s harsh national environment. Part Two below reviews the challenges of dealing with the threat of rightwing domestic terrorism in the U.S. as a political problem and proposes possible responses to it as an existential threat to democratic institutions and progressive values.
Fallout
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are now busily pursuing their investigations of the attempted mail bombings targeting Democratic politicians and Trump critics as well as the massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh and the failed attempt to shoot congregants of a Black church in Jeffersontown, Kentucky by avowed white nationalists just before the midterm elections. It is astonishing to note that these extraordinary incidents of political violence had virtually disappeared from the press and social media two weeks after they occurred. Thanks to the news media’s short attention span and to the rush of events — from the midterm elections and the firing of Attorney-General Jeff Session to the California wildfires and the mass shooting in a restaurant in Thousand Oaks, CA — today these acts of domestic terrorism have largely dropped out of the national conversation in old and new media. Even Donald Trump, Republican and Democratic politicians, and progressive and liberal groups have fallen silent on the topic, though it must be noted that the House did pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism on Nov. 15th. Perhaps part of the story also has to do with the longstanding tendency of the U.S. as a former settlement colony and one of the most violent industrial democracies simply to forget and repress its violent past, especially its political past. But, as I argue below, also part of the story is that it has become all too apparent that our political and legal culture is poorly equipped to deal with the roots and methods of political violence in its various forms.
It is not clear what direct effect, if any, these horrific events had on the elections. We will have to await the findings of post-election research, but it would appear that they did not deter voters, for voter turnout reached historic levels for both Republicans and Democrats. The wider political fallout is unclear as well: Trump’s overall approval rating remained unchanged even as he continued his attacks on George Soros and other “globalists” (the revived codeword for Jewish financiers) after news broke that one of the mail bombs was destined for George Soros himself, or Trump blamed the Tree of Life’s small congregation for not having posted an armed guard. At 43% it is about the same as Barack Obama’s two years into his first term at the end of 2010 when the Democrats lost a record 64 seats in the House. This is a far cry from Richard Nixon’s ratings (24%) when he left office in 1973 under the threat of impending impeachment proceedings for his role in the Watergate scandal.
Call It by Any Other Name
Since the kick-off in 2015 of the last presidential campaign, a climate of fear and intimidation has dominated national life in the United States to a degree not seen in a long time, poisoning our politics and reaching into our very relationships with family members, friends, co-workers, and neighbors. Trump and his Republican allies do not hesitate to deploy all manner of political intimidation and public bullying against their opponents including publicly encouraging violent acts by supporters or otherwise unstable citizens and residents through straightforward racist and anti-Semitic appeals. With the rash of acts of political violence on the eve of the midterm elections, the unthinkable has now happened striking fear in the body politic and risks transforming our political landscape for many years to come.
Unprecedented acts of intimidation and domestic terrorism demand an equally unprecedented response. However, any robust response to rightwing political violence and acts of domestic terrorism in the U.S. immediately comes up against a legal and bureaucratic void: there are no terms designating this type of violence or its perpetrators as such. Simply naming the problem is a challenge in and of itself. There are several reasons for this. As the Nov. 3, 2018 New York Times Magazine overview by Rolling Stone investigative journalist Janet Reitman reminds us, domestic terrorism is not a criminal category nor is domestic terrorist a criminal identity (p. 49). There is “international terrorism” committed on U.S. soil by either “international terrorists” from abroad or “homegrown violent extremists” (or, H.V.E.s, born in the U.S. but inspired by foreign ideologies or groups). But no domestic terrorists supported or encouraged by U.S. organizations. There are domestic “hate crimes” that target victims because of their membership in a certain social group or race but they are not considered “political” (tied to a political ideology or group); and there are “violent extremists” who often commit them but who, if they are white nationalists or supremacists, are not rigorously tracked by national law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This government omission has been partially filled by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League that focuses on anti-Semitism.
Why is this the case? Perhaps most obviously, there is the fallout from 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. and the prosecution of the War on Terror. The international terrorist threat posed by Muslim jihadists absorbed the resources and attention of the FBI and other agencies as well as those re-organized under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. This fixation continued right up through the Obama administration. Many readers will recall their frustration upon learning that both Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey declined to designate Dylann Roof, the young white supremacist who shot to death nine Black congregants in Charleston, S.C. in 2015, a domestic terrorist even though he presented his act as meant to “protect the white race.” Like virtually all mass shootings and bombings targeting specific groups in the U.S., it was classified as a hate crime emptying it of practically any political valence. It also had the effect of reducing his motivation to personal animus as opposed to viewing it as an expression of white supremacist violence pure and simple worthy of law enforcement’s attention.
Perhaps Reitman’s most important point was this: the neglect by law enforcement and intelligent agencies of threats to public safety by white nationalist groups was the result of a political process whereby Congressional Republicans and their rightwing allies including veterans groups effectively had them removed as an object of governmental expert policy and public concern by pressuring successfully for rescinding a Homeland Security 2009 report on violent white supremacist groups, banishing the term “rightwing extremism” from the law enforcement lexicon, and halting investigation of far-right groups promoting violence (p. 47).
Trust in Legal Institutions
Further hampering effective responses to the threat of rightwing domestic terrorism is the apparent willingness among Democrats and their liberal allies to trust in existing law and legal institutions alone to carry the day as if writing criminal statues, issuing court rulings, and practicing law enforcement existed in a political vacuum. This would appear to be especially the case among well-known jurists and legal journalists. For example, in response to the nomination of a Brett Kavanaugh, who had been groomed by the rightwing Federalist Society and led a well-documented career as a political operative and deeply conservative jurist, prominent liberal commentators refused to see his appointment in political terms (the culmination of a thirty-year GOP strategy to create a hard-right Supreme Court majority) or as an agent of a political agenda.
Rather some argued that he was very well qualified for the job and that his testimony should determine his fitness for the job (ACLU Legal Director David Cole). Legal reporters were content to note that his views on lying as an impeachable offense had somehow “evolved” from supporting it when Democrat Bill Clinton was president to being against it when Republican George W. Bush became president (New York Times correspondent Adam Liptak). Similarly, former FBI Director James Comey in an op-ed piece urged readers to trust the FBI to do a thorough investigation of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault — as if the FBI were naturally immune to political pressure or couldn’t be set up to fail in its task by a resolutely hostile administration and Republican Senate majority (which is exactly what transpired).
Later, such idealistic thinking appeared to extend to the Florida recount when after Election Day, Republicans sent operatives and angry crowds to intimidate the Broward County Supervisor of Elections and her staff chanting “Lock her up!” in what appeared to be a repeat of the 2000 Florida recount fiasco. The initial Democratic response was to reassure TV viewers that they had matters well in hand and would appeal to the courts. They left matters at that. No call was made to mobilize local Democratic voters to counter or deflect them so the recount could proceed unhindered. This is hardly an inspiring reply to what seemed to be a breaking political emergency. In the end Broward County failed to meet the deadline for submitting totals for the recounted ballots.
It is discouraging to observe that after decades of documented GOP skullduggery and political intimidation, Democrats continue to pursue strategies that assume that the law or existing protocols and procedures will triumph in face of opponents determined to corrupt current statutes and overtly politicize the courts, law enforcement, and the electoral process.
Relying on the First Amendment
Finally, buttressing Democratic and liberal trust in legal institutions is the interpretative tradition of the First Amendment that defends robust, uninhibited, and wide-open political debate as essential to effective self-government and focuses on the consequences of utterances rather than on their content. It stems from court rulings going back to the 1920s that views all public forms of speech as free trade in “the marketplace of ideas” and thus protected by U.S. law however hateful and injurious they may be unless they lead (so-called “fighting words”) immediately to acts of physical violence. This has been the basis of Supreme Court decisions up through the 2010 Westboro Church ruling and for the ACLU’s opposition to “hate speech” codes, which the courts have systematically struck down.
It also is the rationale for the ACLU’s support for granting public permits to march or hold rallies to groups with records of violence including neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan to parade in full regalia through heavily Jewish neighborhoods with many Holocaust survivors and the neo-Nazis and white nationalists to march through Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017. The implication of this unbending stance has been that by protecting freedom of expression so defined, the First Amendment will foster liberal democracy and that our institutions are sound enough to repel the siren call of white supremacy and neo-fascism. The assumption seems to be that the state is the principal source of threats to democracy, not civil society groups, that governmental authorities who might be called upon to regulate public speech generally pose a greater threat to democracy than the speech and actions of demonstrably violent rightwing organizations.
However, it did not take long for the alt-right and white nationalists to figure out how to manipulate and “weaponize” this interpretation of the First Amendment and to deploy it very successfully to intimidate and threaten opponents and incite followers to violence in any space deemed “public.” They are quite aware that rare is public speech that has been blocked because of its violent intent or content. Instead of a positive tool of political dissidence in majoritarian democracies, in their hands the constitutional right of free speech has become one of political intimidation and dominance.
In international legal parlance, the existing U.S. doctrine of freedom of expression is termed “absolutist,” namely, one of no “proportionality,” that, as Berkeley philosopher Judith Butler points out, is not balanced by consideration of other constitutional rights and social values such as safety, privacy, dignity, equality, respect, and so forth and can overlook the distinction between protected “speech” and unprotected “conduct.” It is deemed “exceptional” in international law, and one that its defenders claim to be one of the defining features of U.S. democracy that sets it above all other constitutional democracies — and, in the minds of some, essential to the functioning of democracy pure and simple as if public speech weren’t regulated at all in the U.S., unlike under other existing governments. As Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen has commented, “A great many Americans are convinced that the right to free speech in this country is absolute, as though various American authorities did not police pornography, the portrayal of sex in movies, and the language used by broadcast media, to name just a few of the most obvious speech-regulation practices that Americans encounter every day.” Of this First Amendment tradition the work of Dartmouth historian of anti-fascist movements Mark Bray asks the hard question: What if the First Amendment as currently interpreted and contemporary legal practices related to it don’t prevent rightwing violence, let alone stop what I am calling here acts of domestic terrorism? Where does that leave us as concerned citizens and residents?
Psychologizing Political Violence and Domestic Terrorism
Working within the narrow interpretive frame of the First Amendment it is virtually impossible to draw a meaningful causal line between individual and group speech and actions inciting violence on the one hand and actual physical assaults including shootings and bombings that occur “later” on the other. Compounding this difficulty is the marked preference by law enforcement officials and the press to view perpetrators of acts of violence as mentally “unstable” or disturbed. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine that authors of such heinous crimes possessing a balanced, normal psychological profile. But in such a view it is as if the psychological and political motivations operated in entirely separate spheres of human activity. It conveniently disconnects personal actions from larger social contexts and makes them a matter of individual psychology or idiosyncracy devoid of any political significance or consequence. Thus the family background of the accused becomes the center of investigation not, say, the enabling discourses and exemplary actions (that render such crimes sayable, thinkable, and doable) and the organizations that propagate them or carry them out.
This is the same script from which politicians, news outlets, and pundits preferred to read in their reaction to an earlier act of domestic political terrorism — the attempted assassination of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson) in January 2011. Clarence W. Dupnik, the local sheriff overseeing the investigation, begged to disagree and demonstrated a better understanding of how political intimidation can work to incite unstable citizens to engage in political violence:
“There’s reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol. People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences….”
In other words, Dupnik suggests, psychological and political motivations can go hand in hand even if current juridical practice is reluctant to acknowledge it. Adroit rightwing demagogues are perfectly aware of this, even if our political elites prefer to look the other way. They seem to count on it in their fiery speeches and to assume that the targets of their attacks understand this, too, in hopes of achieving the desired result of plunging their victims into a state of abject fear with the full knowledge that under existing law they stand exposed without any meaningful legal redress or protection. Taunting their political opponents, some speakers openly speculate that some disturbed listener may act on their words for which they deny in advance any responsibility.
Countering Political Violence and Domestic Terrorism
The attempted mail bombings and the shootings in Pittsburgh and Kentucky just two weeks before the elections plunged the nation into the political unknown: the unthinkable had happened and left the usual brokers of national agendas at a loss for what to do. As I have attempted to show, their political and legal toolkit has proven itself to be inadequate to the task. Building on the suggestions made in Part One that the Democratic Party and allied organizations adopt a more combative and resolute posture in political conflicts in government and the public media, below I list possible ways to anticipate and respond to acts of political violence and domestic terrorism. The new House Democratic majority will have a crucial role to play here, and, once again, Indivisble.org’s new action plans will be essential guides to galvanizing the new House majority into availing itself of the body’s full legislative, investigatory, and media powers.
As before during the last two years, this effort will require the mobilization of the activist groups that helped create the Blue Wave. To repeat some of our key points from Part One, this initiative will require departing from ingrained political habits of the past: 1) taking rightwing violence seriously; 2) ending the fixed practice of silence; 3) dropping a purely reactive stance; 4) developing a nimble politics of anticipation and imagining the unimaginable; 5) creating a rapid response infrastructure; 6) adopting a non-nonsense posture and going on offense. Just how “public” and how “discreet” these different types of activities should be will be a matter of careful strategy and forethought. It is question of smart political stagecraft:
· Naming it: perhaps one of the greatest tests of a new, no-nonsense Democratic Party will be its willingness to call out — not debate — political violence and domestic terrorism for what they are and not bury them: their authors, their violent rightwing and white nationalist organizations, their anti-democratic motivations, their methods and acts, examples of willing GOP collusion, other active enablers, support among law enforcement, and their political consequences. The operative meme would be “protecting democracy,” something Democrats are already considering as a leading theme in the months ahead. It would connect interlocking goals such as undoing voter suppression initiatives with pushing back against campaigns of political intimidation including threats of incarceration and assassination, racist and anti-Semitic speech, and inciting crowds to commit physical aggression. There are plenty of existing documentation and data to draw on in the public domain plus confidential private and government documents that could be subpoenaed.
· Educate the public and the press: start a considered campaign on what are political intimidation and violence, how they work, how they transform politics and poison national life, and how they can undermine democracy. It would include consideration of the limits of existing legal and political protections including the First Amendment. This effort involves more than issuing occasional high-sounding statements and press releases but creating a constant drumbeat in the press, local town halls, Congressional offices, and the halls of power. A start towards achieving this may be perhaps found in the next points:
· Take seriously the fearful legacy of past political violence, especially in the case of the Democratic Party whose leaders and allies still remember well the systematic violence practiced by the authorities and civilians alike against the Civil Rights and other social movements and the decapitation of liberal and progressive leadership by assassins in the 1960s and 1970s (John F. and Robert Kennedy, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Harvey Milk). It arguably still casts a shadow today over any Democratic Party or liberal initiative against political violence.
· Anticipate fierce GOP resistance and retaliation (especially once the Democrats assume power in the House and begin holding hearings and launching investigations): everything from attempts to co-opt and trivialize the issue of political violence much in the way Mitch McConnell after the Kavanaugh hearings called on Congressional colleagues to practice bipartisanship to personal smears and repeating accusations that the Democratic Party abets domestic terrorists (i.e, undocumented immigrants), that Jews and Blacks are fomenting violence (per 2017 NRA video), etc. to issuing straightforward threats of physical harm. To which Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to state that there is currently one political party — not just a single personality — that has made political intimidation and violence an entire political program and form of governing.
· Put domestic terrorism and political violence on the national agenda:
o the new Democratic leadership in the House can initiate a series of hearings on the inadequacies of current statutes and policies. They would compel officials from law enforcement and national security agencies to explain their domestic anti-terrorism policies (such as they are), and why they have ceased tracking white nationalist groups with a demonstrated record of political violence.
o Study the policies of other countries including Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. There is much to learn from their experience — both what to avoid (abuses of governmental authority, restrictions on democratic liberties) and perhaps what perhaps to borrow.
o Develop policy options. For example, one could include revisiting the FBI’s list of violent groups under surveillance; the recent reclassification of the far-right Proud Boys as an extremist group has already helped disrupt their activities. Another option is to consider how to move against imminent threats. Study examples of missed opportunities for discrediting political violence, nipping it in the bud, or breaking its momentum, such as the Gabrielle Giffords attempted assassination in Tucson, Arizona in 2011, the Charlottesville march of white nationalists and neo-Nazis in 2017, or abroad, the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 after an anti-violence rally in support of the Oslo Accords in Tel Aviv in the wake of an extremely violent Likud Party campaign to have him removed from office.
o Moreover, the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the Judiciary Committee, and the Homeland Security Committee could launch investigations into cases of egregious foot-dragging and failings by these agencies, possible support of rightwing terrorism by politicians and media companies, law enforcement agents’ relationships with violent rightwing extremists, and the political process whereby “violent rightwing extremists” were removed from law enforcement’s lexicon. This would have the added benefit of bringing House Democrats focused on national security (Schiff, Swalwell, Pelosi) to devote some of their considerable energy to these domestic threats to our democracy.
o The House hearings and investigations could be followed up by legislative “messaging bills” meant to correct lacunae in criminal statutes and law enforcement surveillance. They would have the advantage of signaling to voters the problem of white nationalist violence and domestic terrorism as a priority for the Democrats and of forcing Republicans to go on record on this issue (Indivisible on Offense, p. 8)
o These initiatives will be met by the full force of the GOP and rightwing media machine.
· Use budget authorization bills, perhaps even leveraging “must-pass” legislation to force Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and other agencies to change their inadequate policies (Indivisible on Offense, pp.11–12)
Conclusion
Rewriting the current inadequate script on political intimidation and violence from which politicians, the press, and citizens and residents have been reading will be no mean task, especially in the current harsh national climate that leaves little room for new thinking and innovative and courageous policymaking. It will be an eminently political process driven more by open conflict than by consensus. As such, it will draw establishment Democrats out of their traditional comfort zone of hopeful bipartisanship and will mean taking political risks of a kind quite alien to them. Which is why confronting political violence and domestic terrorism as a political problem will require the transformation of the Democratic Party in terms of its self-image, public posture, and overall approach to political conflict that I laid out in Part One. This transformation will come from below and outside. From newer and younger elected officials and people assembled in Congressional offices and hallways, town halls, and the streets. This will be a strenuous endeavor. and there isn’t much time to take back our democracy and restore dignity and safety to public life.
Thanks to the Blue Wave, U.S. “democracy is now back on life support,” and for now the steady march towards legal authoritarianism and illiberal democracy has been slowed. But the onrush of violent events has not diminished but rather has accelerated, and there is a political party and its allies that have willingly committed themselves to a program of fear-mongering, intimidation, and acts of skullduggery for decades and have no demonstrable interest in stopping the wave of political violence.
Roddey Reid is Professor Emeritus, UC San Diego (rreid@ucsd.edu) and author of Confronting Political intimidation and Public Bullying: A Citizen’s Handbook for the Trump Era and Beyond (2017). He is a member of Indivisible San Francisco.