A Party of Lemmings Led by a
Zombie: Why We Need to Keep Bernie Sanders’ Vision Alive
Posted on
Jul 31, 2016
By Alan Minsky
Well, I guess I won’t be
working in the Clinton White House.
I ran into Truthdig Editor in
Chief Bob
Scheer at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last week. I
asked about his take on the Clinton delegates. I explained that I wanted to
engage them on matters of policy, but I could hardly get an honest peep out of
them. Bob looked at me, shrugged off my question as if to suggest that they’re
not interested in that stuff, and quipped, “This is a job fair to them.”
Indeed, just as Thomas Frank
portrays in his magisterial new book “Listen, Liberal,” the core of the Clintonite
Democratic Party is the American aspirational class, and they’ve transformed
the Democratic National Convention into their natural habitat, the job
market.
Somehow, I missed the memo.
Look, I have no illusions. I’m from the same social strata as many of the
Clinton delegates—middle- and upper-middle class, well-educated, soccer over
NASCAR. Almost all of my longtime friends dutifully support the Democratic
Party, and while my pals went for Bernie Sanders in the spring, they will
probably fall back in line for “Her” in November.
Neither, I hope, am I naïve. I
understand why the Clintonite ideology is attractive to this post
graduate-degree, upper 10 percent, caste. They’ve all worked very hard their
entire lives for the right to continue overworking. Yet, simultaneously, I am
appalled that so many people who have shared so many of my life experiences
cannot recognize that the Clintons and their clique are the primary architects
of the contemporary national and global economic order that has made such a
mess of this country and has us hurtling toward a rendezvous with apocalypse.
There is no denying the
usefulness of a Marxian class analysis here (with capital, invisible yet
omnipresent, calling the shots), but I fear that Sigmund Freud’s terrifying
theory of the human death drive is equally relevant.
Before we go there, let’s
review the requisite backdrop to this moment:
By the second half of the
second decade of the 21st century, an increasing majority of people in
“advanced” technological societies have grown aware that the macroeconomy—i.e.,
the web of social relations they rely upon for their very existence—is no
longer working for them. This has led to a revolt against the political status
quo (Hillary Clinton, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French
President François Hollande), with two primary variations: 1) the right-wing xenophobic
response (Donald Trump, the UK Independence Party, Marie
Le Pen), and 2) a left social-democratic response (Sanders, British MP
Jeremy Corbyn, Syriza in Greece/Podemos in Spain).
Since option 1 posits a world
that no decent person should countenance, and for the most part is void of
coherent proposals (the most fully elaborated example, Le Pen’s, posits a
society in which the national population maintains a social contract that
slightly benefits them through the ever-more-egregious oppression of the
minority but in no way represents a fundamental challenge to current
socio-economic relations); and since option “status quo” represents only the
unacceptable more-of-the-same, only option 2 represents a sincere attempt to
respond to this crisis that actually addresses people’s needs and concerns.
Sooner or later, the left is
going to get a crack at this—and until that point, we’ll be stranded in
ever-deepening crises.
Tragically, it is just as
clear that the status quo will fight, with all of its overwhelming advantage in
terms of resources, against the left’s ever having an opportunity to rectify
the situation. Even as the leaders and supporters of the status quo mouth platitudes
that imply solidarity with the left—the convention that just ended in
Philadelphia is now the most elaborate confirmation of this transparently
deceptive behavior—they’ve yet to meet the corporate lobbyist they’re willing
to shun.
Let’s return now to the small
issue of humanity’s insatiable appetite for self-destruction.
From what I can garner from
the internet, lemmings are truly adorable—and no, they do
not have an innate “Logan’s Run”/“Heathers”-esque suicide drive. Rather, it is
our phenomenally creative (and destructive) species that has made lemmings into
such a powerful metaphor for our current condition. (Lemmings have earned their
reputation because they are willing to suffer tremendous casualties for a
higher purpose, much like Grant’s Army, which, of course, is anathema to
Clinton’s supporters.) Apologies to all real lemmings for the insulting
association, but the metaphor is too useful to abandon.
It is slightly strange to dub
Clinton a zombie. There’s been much delicious writing on how contemporary
“zombie mania” (“The Walking Dead,” et al) reflects our world of soulless 70-hour workweeks.
But this is no paradox. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presidential candidate,
refuses ever to die; as such, she is the perfect queen zombie.
After all, it was the Clintons
who, at the very time that they claimed to be progressive, designed this
deathlike life for the American middle and working classes. Sadly, Hillary’s
nomination is proof that historical fact cannot “gain traction” without active
assistance from “old” media. No amount of reiteration, on digital outlets and
alt-media alike, of simple historical truths—like that the Clintons are the
all-time greatest heavyweight champions of neoliberalism—has been able derail
her.
Remember, it’s not just NAFTA
that the Clintons pushed; not just the welfare bill or the reordering of
criminal sentencing in the ’90s that exploded the prison population, or
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, or the killing of Glass-Steagall—it’s also the 1994 Communications Act that deregulated
the media (wonder why CNN is overrun with stealth Clinton surrogates? And why
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in league with MSNBC?) Just about every other
successful shrinking of the social safety net and deregulation of business you
can think of was advanced by the Clintons, their allies or the state and local
GOP, who were swept into power with the collapse of the Democratic Party at
those levels after the Clintons’ conquest of the party.
Indeed, no amount of proof
that the Clintons’ public policy agenda has heaped misery upon 90 percent of
the population will dilute the mainstream media’s representation of Hillary as
one of history’s greatest champions of progressive causes—even if very real
social advances in race, gender and sexual-orientation equality, which have
become associated with the Clinton brand, reflects the political
establishment’s key co-optation strategy: minority inclusion on the team in
exchange for minority “markets.”
So here we have the 2016
Democratic convention: The “talented 10th” from all strata of society, marching
lemming-like behind an undead leader in support of ever more income inequality,
the maintenance of the prison-industrial complex and a planet on fire.
Surely, you say, the checklist
of progressive domestic policy positions in HRC’s acceptance speech proves she
has turned a page. My dear liberal-apologist friends, please know your history.
Your fellow Hillary fan, Bob Woodward, showed in “The Agenda,” his 1994
book on the early years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, that Bill campaigned
as a progressive populist and knowingly did an about-face once he took
office—with his economic policy team dissuading the president-elect of any
impulse to be seduced by his campaign rhetoric at the notorious economic
retreat held in Arkansas in the weeks after the election. Since that day, the
Clintons have understood their formula: flowery language for the masses,
legislation by corporate committee (with legions of lawyers).
Want more proof that Hillary
is a zombie? She lives off others’ brains. I suspect this is achieved through
an elaborate network, probably channeled through the Clinton Foundation’s
Canadian front organizations. Clearly
her supporters have abandoned the critical-thinking capacity associated with
the frontal lobe.
How else to explain their
belief in such nonsense as the idea that a subsidiary of Comcast (MSNBC) gives
voice to left progressive ideals? Even more worrying is the prospect that these
folks are so stupefied that they’re intellectually incapable of recognizing
that their beloved champion is a full-regalia oligarch, rightly despised by
tens of millions of Americans because she and her husband sold out the middle
class (let alone the working class and the poor) and who recognize that she has
no intention of doing anything different this time around. And, thus, she’s on
the brink of losing this election to a terrifying proto-fascist buffoon,
hellbent on empowering the most retrograde, reactionary/racist pockets of an
increasingly Godforsaken land.
Two Philadelphia stories: The Kensington neighborhood of
Philadelphia is one of the most distraught and shattered in the entire United
States. It’s like a war zone, and has one of the highest infant mortality
rates, suicide rates and now homicide rates in U.S. history. I went to a
political rally there, and at one point I strayed from the crowd, wanting to
check out more of the neighborhood. Someone ran over from the demonstration,
pulled me back and warned me, “Don’t be silly. It’s not safe to wander. You are
not welcome here.”
Driving out of town at the end
of the convention, I passed through Main Line Philadelphia. It also took my
breath away, but for the opposite reasons. There can be few neighborhoods in
the world that are so lavishly wealthy. Mansion after mansion on gorgeous
grounds, betraying something that must be lost on the vast majority of the
American people: This remains the richest country in the history of humanity.
On any given day, I have very little desire to accumulate vast wealth; but
driving through Main Line Philadelphia, I can’t help but imagine what life
would be like living in these sprawling estates. I came upon a narrow street;
my instinct told me there’d be more beautiful properties ahead, but the sign
read simply, “Private Street: Only Residents Allowed.” You are not welcome
here.
So while the number of very
poor exceeds the very rich, the large majority of the American population lives
in between. Main Line is the unattainable dream; Kensington represents the fear
that renders those between the two extremes subservient. The very thought of
falling into the hell of Kensington keeps them running ever faster on their
gerbil treadmill of death. It is an insufferable, meaningless existence; no
wonder so many join their army of lemmings on their death march to the cliffs,
a zombie drum majorette in the lead.
The English philosopher John
Gray, like his kindred spirit Truthdig’s Chris Hedges, is a scathing critic of
the “myth of progress.” In his breakthrough 2002 work
“Straw Dogs,” Gray pointed out that progressives’ use of the term “evolution”
is a bastardization of Darwin’s theory of random selection. Like Hedges, Gray points to Freud’s theory of the death drive to help clarify how humanity
is not on an inevitable path to greater social harmony, but rather how we as a
species are just as prone to inevitable bouts of horrific destruction (let
alone daily, hourly acts that undermine). Freud’s theory posits that just as
humanity possesses a “tendency toward survival, propagation, sex and other
creative, life-producing drives” (dubbed Eros), we also have a drive toward
death and self-destruction (Thanatos).
Yet Gray points out how
science—in contrast to social and political organization—achieves consistent
advancement of knowledge through the acceptance of the scientific process by a
tightly coordinated and regulated network of well-populated international
institutions. So there is progress on that front.
In contrast to Gray, I am not
so certain that our social and political condition is so dire. I point to the
option 2 group I mentioned earlier as a source of hope. In particular, I felt
that Bernie Sanders produced one of the most hopeful and compelling visions for
how Thanatos could be contained and Eros flourish that I’ve heard in my
lifetime.
Indeed, one of the things that
struck me as most persuasive about Sanders’ program was how, almost like a
scientist, he began his campaign explaining that in the realm of the social
organization of “advanced” technological societies, we know where to look to
find positive examples, and he pointed to the social democracies of Western
Europe. While Sanders’ embrace of Scandinavia was dropped as a talking point
pretty early in the campaign, his program remained firmly rooted in the idea
that a truly democratic state is the most powerful instrument available at the
moment to contain the destructive forces (think Thanatos) unleashed in our era
of globalized capitalism and to initiate positive programs (think Eros) that
benefit people and the planet. Sanders remained unwavering in his radical
commitment to this project throughout a year-long campaign that ended with him
as, far and away, the most popular politician in the country.
Will the realization of
Sanders’ political program chase Thanatos from the human soul? No, Gray and
Freud have that right—all evidence confirms that’s part of who we are—at least
until the next transformational random mutation. But Sanders’ program does
promise to accent those “better angels of our nature” by utilizing pre-existing
institutions of the state to balance economic and political power (no
guillotines required).
As I wrote above, Sanders’
vision for utilizing the state to redistribute (and balance) socio-economic and
political power is gaining traction across many of the major world economies;
but as we see from Germany’s (almost sadistic) suffocation of Syriza in Greece and the British
establishment’s hysterical response to Jeremy
Corbyn’s victory as leader of the Labour Party, there is tremendous resistance
on behalf of the allies of capital to allowing this political tendency to
implement its program.
At the same time, I don’t
think there’s any other political proposal on the table that will come close to
satisfying the public. And so, while I could be wrong, I foresee us stranded in
a myriad of crises until such a left formation gets a go at leading a major
government. Not that simply winning an election will produce magic. Indeed, you
can foresee the right wing’s counteroffensive from Paul Ryan’s words in
Cleveland recently, as he railed on how the left wants to give out free stuff
in a world designed by faceless bureaucrats. Indeed, if a government with a
Sanders agenda comes to power in the coming decade or so, it will be tasked
with instantly improving government institutions that have fallen into
disrepair during the current regime of austerity. In order to achieve such a
transformation, the masses in support of such an agenda will have to be
well-informed about the task ahead.
One thing I certainly worry
about after the convention I just left is just how well Sanders supporters
understand what they’re up against and what it will take to achieve their
goals. It’s clear to me that he understands these things—but, hey, I’m a
program director of a radio station that Sanders spoke on once a week until his
presidential campaign overwhelmed his schedule. (Note to Bernie: Please come
back to the airwaves.)
In contrast, there was a
tangible sense of frustration, and even desperation, amongst many Sanders
delegates at the convention. In contrast to the Clinton lemmings, the Sanders
delegates were always happy to talk policy; but, at least last week, their
favorite subject was the corruption of the Democratic National Convention. Yes,
Team Clinton stacked the deck, and this merited exposure, but it wasn’t
surprising. Achieving a true 21st-century social democracy through the
electoral realm would mean an incredible struggle. We need to build toward it
using every asset we the people posses. As such, nothing could be more
important than helping everyone gain the kind of sophisticated sense of what
we’re up against that Bernie Sanders possesses, since we can expect fierce
resistance from the social, political and economic elites and their
lemming-like allies.
Lastly, this essay is itself
an experiment in the political value of “contempt.” As it were, it’s a kind of
weapons test. I must confess: I am a product of the punk rock era. I grew up
believing Sid Vicious an intellectual paragon.
Malcolm Gladwell (for whom,
you can imagine, I have tremendous contempt) writes in his best-selling book “Blink” that
research into romantic relationships has shown that they can survive fighting
and all sorts of other negative components; but if either partner in the relationship
has contempt for the other, then the couple is doomed. Lovers, beware contempt.
Per Hillary Clinton, this is
good news for me, as I have no desire to be enmeshed in a romantic relationship
with any member of the Clinton tribe (strikes me as awfully messy). But I
wonder if, perhaps, contempt might be a necessary instrument to be deployed,
especially if she does become the next president. Hillary Clinton is very hard
to reach. You may not have noticed, but she is unique among recent presidential
candidates in absolutely refusing to give news conferences. In other words, we
may be on the brink of electing a president distinctly unaccountable to the
public, with a predilection for pursuing public policy in stark contrast to her
public promises (see the Clintons’ track record). And given the myriad severe
crises afflicting the country and the world, pray tell: How do we influence
such a chief executive?
My theory, and the inspiration
for the condescending tone of this essay, is that the contemporary American
professional class, the meritocrats—the very core of people Hillary Clinton
relies upon for maintaining any semblance of support—will not be immune to
scathingly caustic (and yet charmingly playful) truth-telling. They think
they’re both cool and (somehow) pro-justice, and thus invulnerable to attack on
this front.
Seriously, though, they have
got to wake up. All evidence suggests that they believe they can persist with
the charade that somehow, simply because they are not Republicans, they are opposing
the reign of the 1 percent, when it is clear to anyone with more brains than a
rodent that Hillary’s election will ensure the continued unabated rule of the
oligarchs, which leads working people and the environment (and thus the
meritocrats themselves) to their doom.
Unless Jill Stein’s Green
Party candidacy defies expectations, catches fire and makes this a three- or
four-person race (which I am praying for), we’ve got to break through the
meritocrats’ lemming consciousness, first in time to defeat Donald Trump, and
then, if that goal is achieved, by not dropping the attitude when Zombie
Presidents 42 and 45 move back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Otherwise, we’re
doomed to four more years of rampant and unaddressed economic, judicial and
environmental crises.
So, bring the contempt. It’s
what our political class and its sycophants deserve; and if it’s combined with
constructive activism, it just might save the world.
Worst-case scenario, it will
help us cope, as gallows humor will be the spirit of the times. Certainly, it
helped me survive the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
