“Elections have consequences,” as President Obama himself said after his 2008 win. And for Obama, it’s hard to imagine a more consequential outcome Tuesday night.
With Republicans maintaining control of the House and Senate, President-elect Trump would be in a position to repeal large parts of Obama’s legislative agenda, repeal his executive orders with a stroke of a pen, and install conservative Supreme Court justices.
Consider the opposite scenario: Clinton’s election would have ushered in a new era of American politics: The Obama era. With his former secretary of State in the White House, Obama would be able to count on on a successor who will pursue some of his most transformative and controversial policies: immigration reform, the expansion of health care and environmental regulation.
Idk if this is a comforting thought for The Youth but, at least based on my memories of being a college student during the early Bush years, is that Bush’s policies were wildly, enormously popular. Yes, there were protests at Bush’s inauguration, but they were mostly the frazzled remnant of the anti-globalization movement that was struggling to re-define itself in opposition to Neo-Conservatism as opposed to Clinton era Neo-Liberalism.
The Iraq War and the Afghan War were both incredibly popular. While there was a huge march in New York to protest the Iraq War before it began, that march was lightly covered by mainstream news. The left wing belief at the time was that broadcast and cable news deliberately under-covered anti-war activism because they were afraid of losing (even more) viewers to the new and ascendant Fox News. (this was probably a combination of truth and wishful thinking bias). News anchors all wore giant american flag pins on their lapels to symbolize there patriotism and there were periodic mini scandals about any given person’s flag pin being missing or simply not large enough. The New York Times generally covered Bush favorably and they even had infamous Bush propaganda hack Judith Miller on staff (until she outed a CIA covert operative).
Now, I’m just a regular non-expert who was all of 22 years old when this stuff went down, but, to me, none of the reporting on the protest movements against Trump would have looked normal in 2001-2005.
Edited to add summary: If you are young-ish and wondering “is this what it felt like to be looking down the barrel of eight years of Bush-Cheney?”, then my hot take, right now, today, is No. Bush in the spring of 2001 wasn’t like this. Bush in the spring of 2002 had something like a 90% approval rating.
@pins-abigail it doesn’t have to be a reading of authorial intent to be a reading of the text so this was me processing a reading of the show that I keep arriving at
all my shit abt the AIDS reading of the plant and its threat is in terms of audiences approaching this show in the wake of what has happened , and how the show looks and feels . But as u may know , the tropes of the Reagan and Clinton eras and the fear and racism and the imaginary Destructive or Diseased Other (especially in the form of the black man or woman, and/or the homosexual or sexually deviant man or woman) was already in place. The fear of blood I think was already excited somewhat in the public mind. certainly the fear of infection , though this fear had a number of disparate targets before HIV. And this fear was not of course articulated with the same tone as it would be by 1990. The show is interesting bc it is so visceral with the language and bodily and sexual undertones of the “feed me” scene. Those things come to mean new things to audiences post 1981. But even at the shows creation it means something to the audiences, it must. It like. I don’t know it seems like it comes from sort of the same place as “desire and the black masseur” by Tennessee Williams . same cringe spot , same political moment of white guilt and crisis and imagining a black rage directed at oneself and feeling it as cathartic and then also sort of lampooning oneself for all that . But mixed up in there is this loud violent image of a black male predator and a gay male predator and it’s like okay what are you Doing with this why is this show constructed the way it is
Because I don’t know that it would be the same show or an interesting show if the plant had a spooky deep white man voice. And if it was a woman’s voice or a voice with a foreign accent it would have another meaning too. Choices mean things.
I don’t rlly care about arguments abt whether or not a show is problematic as in Bad or non problematic as in Good . the fact is when white ppl write an alien man-eating sexual innuendo-spewing plant in a show with white protagonists (coming back to authorial intent, if you care about this u must note that the creator at the time did Not choose black actors and framed the narrative in black music but cast the leading roles as white) to understand it and think about it we have to be able to describe racism . It doesn’t mean withdrawing from or condemning anything morally as a part of an argument about the plays text because that has no real use in criticism and it also automatically simplifies things that may not be simple. With the plant it’s like, this thing is using racist tropes, and is emphasizing at every turn the difference between the white protagonists and the plant and the black chorus is ever present but also invisible. Is this on purpose ? If it’s not on purpose what can it tell us about media at this time or about the authors mind? If it is on purpose that framing is interesting in yet another way. this is a camp show, and what it is trying to do and what it does on accident are interesting questions to me
the invasion of iraq was not some spontaneous resumption of hostilities between the us and iraq after a decade of peace the 90s and the clinton era consisted of multiple military strikes against iraq the ultimate invasion by bush was a continuation of these policies
They look at that, and here’s Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he’s representing emotionally. We’ve had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we’ve had to fight them to get them to represent us.”
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people’s concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a “creative class” that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn’t need to listen to them any longer.
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who’s dipped a toe outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. As Trump says, “we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart … Our airports are, like, Third World.”
Trump’s words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trumpism is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
This election cycle has been leaving me really knotted up and angry for a lot of reasons, one, Trump being pure evil, but two, it’s really been highlighting my problems with liberals as a group. And this article really does sum a lot of it up. I’m a rural liberal, who was poor, and I know those fears, and frustrations that Trump supporters are feeling. I can see why they turned where they did, liberals are abysmal to blue collar Americans, and have been for a long time.