“Assume Bad Faith”

This is a lengthy piece I wrote before the 2020 election, but much of it remains relevant:

Voting matters, but seekers of equity and justice know that what we do between elections will determine our future. Still, please vote for Joe Biden. Yes, he’s too cozy with the finance and fossil fuel industries. Yes, he’s been part of efforts to make cuts to Social Security and Medicare. He’s been no friend to women, most famously Anita Hill. He’s supported war profiteering campaigns and mass deportations. And so on. But if you are one who thinks Biden’s as bad as Trump, the two parties are the same or that allowing Republicans to burn the country to the ground will somehow result in a more just society more quickly, I beg you to think again. Plus, thanks in large part to his two presidential campaigns, Bernie Sanders has forced corporate Democrats to make some concessions, which suggests Biden can be pressured. Now, maybe you think voting for Biden is only important in swing states, which California thankfully is not. I’m not going to spend time arguing that point, but I will say that the more resounding the defeat of Trump the better. Trump is so egregiously unethical and ignorant that the anti-Trump vote may overcome the pro-Trump vote, but what’s missing from the equation is an enthusiastic pro-Biden vote. Let’s consider some of the reasons why beyond those already mentioned.

Nando Vila, co-host of Weekends (a Jacobin Magazine production), commenting on a Trump retweet of a video saying “the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat,” expressed frustration with a woefully pitiful Democratic Party and media. “The kind of imbalance,” Vila starts out, “that exists in which, you know, the Right can weaponize, can do all the insane shit that it does…but as soon as the lightest — the lightest — insult comes their way from even the most loser liberal, they go apoplectic and lose their minds completely. And the sort of guardians of our institutions always grant them that in good faith.” Vila, becoming increasingly animated, continues, “Always assume bad faith, especially online, especially from the Right…The fact that anyone takes it seriously is, just, it’s an absolute joke.” Commenting on how the point isn’t that Democrats need to use the exact same debased tactics as Republicans, he remarks about the Right, “You have to understand their motivations and you cannot grant them good faith and respond accordingly…Liberals are obsessed with the magical reasonableness referee that exists in the sky, who is adjudicating reasonable points to either side, and that person doesn’t exist. There is no reasonable referee in the sky. So don’t try to play to that guy. No one cares. Voters don’t care. That person doesn’t exist; you will never get rewarded, you’ll never get the brownie points. So accept that and then act accordingly.”

By all means, mention how hypocritical, dishonest, greedy and bigoted the likes of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are. In fact, Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to call out many Republicans for being, simply put, terrible people. That’s hardly a radical statement. McConnell, Ted Cruz, Matt Gaetz, Lindsey Graham, Marsha Blackburn, Steve King, Joni Ernst, and Jim Jordan, among many others, aren’t good faith actors who merely have a different take on, say, the proper role of the federal government. They’re truly awful and corrupt human beings, fully aware of their own hypocrisy and lies. They actively, consciously cause great harm to people and planet in the name of power, money and a diseased ideology. It’s hard, frankly, to see how that could even be in dispute at this juncture. But don’t pretend like announcing such truths on MSNBC or CNN is the key to winning elections or fights over policy. It isn’t. More Democrats must demonstrate a commitment to a bold, transformative agenda, or else they should face primary challengers.

Trump, by the way, didn’t turn the GOP into a monstrosity. He’s a symptom of a party that’s long been ethically bankrupt and reliant upon fomenting hate. Never Trump Republicans who continue to worship at the altar of Saint Ronnie have somehow failed to make the connection between Reagan — with his anti-government vitriol and dog whistling — and Trump. All was not well pre-Trump, nor will all be well just because we excise the tumor that is Trump.

The truth is the Republican Party should have been obliterated years ago, but Democrats have consistently failed to make a strong enough case. And, as we know, the rhetoric and the platform can say one thing, while actions/policies say something else. People see the contradictions and become disillusioned. But there are cracks in the neoliberal facade. The time is now to turn those cracks into chasms. With a sustained push, leftists can and must take over the Democratic Party and put an end to the Republican Party, which Noam Chomsky justifiably — when you consider its scope of power and influence — refers to as the most dangerous organization in the world today. Recognizing the unsustainability of capitalism with its commitment to infinite growth on a finite planet, it may be tempting to just let nature take its course. Or to bank on increased diversity curing our political ills. But failing to fight for the future we want may just as well lead to empowerment of more right wing demagogues, including ones far more competent and intelligent than Donald J. Trump. We must bend the proverbial arc; it won’t bend toward justice on its own.

It’ll take a mass movement to push leftward someone like Biden, who at his core is not the progressive Bernie Sanders recently and optimistically predicted he will become. Trump has to go, though, and a vote for Biden is necessary. Without ranked-choice voting and a parliamentary system, taking over the Democratic Party is more feasible than building a viable third party. Cornell West calls a vote for Biden an anti-fascist vote but cautions that we must not be under any illusions about who Biden is and which interests he has long represented. Biden, too, is seemingly caught in a time warp when he indicates that he’ll be able to reach across the aisle to his friends in the Republican Party. As Lee Drutman of Vox and anyone paying attention can tell you, the Republican Party is pathological. Yet it continues, even after the 2018 election cycle, to hold far more power than the Democratic Party nationwide. And, if not for a global pandemic, Trump would likely be on his way to re-election. What does that say about the only opposition party within this two-party system? Now, the Democratic Party isn’t entirely to blame. There are structural problems at work, though those problems could have been addressed over the years by a Democratic Party with more of a spine. But it’s worth noting some of those structural flaws, as it’s necessary to recognize what an uphill battle we face. First of all, we have a tyranny of the minority political system, which is incredibly anti-democratic and corrupted by corporate interests. Dark money blankets the US political scene. It’s predicted that by 2040 two-thirds of the US population will be represented by less than one-third of the US Senate. The judicial branch is increasingly used to undercut the legislative branch. Meanwhile, the US House, the body intended to be most closely aligned with the populace, is heavily gerrymandered. Not to mention the electoral college, which has its roots in slavery. And a heavily consolidated infotainment industry that is not serving the public interest.

There are glimmers of hope, however. When surveyed about individual issues, it’s clear that a large chunk of the electorate knowingly or unknowingly supports socialism, even as many misunderstand the term. Socialism, as defined by Oxford Dictionary, is “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Read that again: “by the community as a whole.” In other words, it does not equate to heads of government taking over all means of production, though the federal government does have a definite role to play when it comes to combating climate change, ensuring affordable health care for all, etc. I firmly believe that people from all across the political spectrum can unite in support of local control of institutions such as schools and even law enforcement. There’s great potential, as well, for support of worker-run co-operatives and public banks. I think, too, people can agree that affordable, quality health care and a living wage are reasonable demands. While the QAnon-believing, hardcore right wingers may be too far gone in their sickness, we must not give up on all who identify as Republicans or the approximately one hundred million nonvoters. There truly is much that unites us, even if that fact is clouded by propaganda. Labor unions nearly a hundred years ago saw people join forces in pursuit of improved working conditions in spite of pronounced bigotry, so surely the same can happen two decades into the 21st century. In-person organizing is key. Community unions and organizations such as Cooperation Humboldt could be instrumental in transforming this region, serving as a blueprint for other parts of the country. The level of support for things like a wealth tax and free college is all the more remarkable when you consider the intensity of the pro-capitalism, anti-socialism conditioning, especially throughout the neoliberal era. So intense, in fact, that most of today’s Democrats, members of The Squad and a few others aside, are more closely aligned with Reagan than FDR. Many of them need to be primaried out of a job.

Finally, some words of caution regarding what is commonly referred to as “identity politics.” I wish to highlight two passages from Adolph Reed, Jr.’s 2019 article on The Myth of Class Reductionism.

Reed writes, “As American politics shifted steadily rightward between the Nixon and Clinton presidencies, so, too, did the discourse surrounding race and the country’s political economy. Conservatives attributed black socioeconomic inequalities to bad values; liberals attributed them to bad values and racism. Once it was effectively decoupled from political-economic dynamics, “racism” became increasingly amorphous as a charge or diagnosis — a blur of attitudes, utterances, individual actions, and patterned disparities, an autonomous force that acts outside of historically specific social relations. Today it serves as a single, all-purpose explanation for mass incarceration, the wealth gap, the wage gap, police brutality, racially disproportionate rates of poverty and unemployment, slavery, the Southern Jim Crow regime, health disparities, the drug war, random outbursts of individual bigotry, voter suppression, and more.

The obvious racial disparities are cause for concern, but the way forward is precisely through the kinds of social and economic policies that address black people as workers, students, parents, taxpayers, citizens, people in need of decent jobs, housing, and health care, or concerned with foreign policy — not to homogenize them under a monolithic racial classification. Thanks to this misguided reflex, we now routinely act as though initiatives directed to address working-class concerns can’t suffice for African Americans, since they’re class reductionist and therefore racially exclusionary. Ironically, as Touré Reed also points out, this perspective is race reductionist: It presumes that key policies and initiatives must always and everywhere be tailored to singularly African American-branded issues in order to appear to address African Americans’ needs.”

As a recovering race-reductionist myself, I now recognize the inherent racism in the perspective being critiqued by Reed. While they may mean well, many liberals or progressives (including those who, ironically, consider themselves to be anti-racists) do have a tendency to ascribe to black folks, as an entity, narrow and homogeneous concerns. This failure to appreciate the diversity and breadth of perspectives within groups, and — more importantly — across the population as a whole is seemingly a key hindrance to building a massive, multiracial, multiethnic, multi-gendered working class alliance. Such an alliance threatens the ruling class like nothing else. Fred Hampton, before being murdered precisely because he was successfully building such an alliance, brilliantly stated, “We don’t think you fight fire with fire best; we think you fight fire with water best. We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism. We’ve stood up and said we’re not going to fight reactionary pigs and reactionary state’s attorneys like this and reactionary state’s attorneys like Hanrahan with any other reactions on our part. We’re going to fight their reactions with all of us people getting together and having an international proletarian revolution.”

Hampton’s words remind us that Democrats should work not to diversify the executive board of Goldman Sachs or Bain Capital but to abolish predatory capitalist institutions. Getting back to The Myth of Class Reductionism, Reed points to how universalist programs centered around improving the material conditions for the working class will inevitably benefit most of all those who are most oppressed.

“Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, Communists, Socialists, labor-leftists, and Marxists of all stripes characteristically were in the forefront of struggles for racial and gender justice. And that commitment was natural, because such leftists saw those struggles as inextricable from the more general goal of social transformation along egalitarian lines; they properly understood the battles for racial and gender equity as constitutive elements of the struggle for working-class power. Class reductive leftism is a figment of the political imagination roused by those who have made their peace with neoliberalism.

The myth, moreover, obscures important contemporary and historical realities.

Black, female, and trans people tend to be disproportionately working class. So any measure to advance broad downward economic redistribution — from Medicare for All to a $15 hourly minimum wage — can’t coherently be said to thwart the interests of women, racial minorities, or other identity groups. What’s more, this brand of class denialism artificially separates race, gender, and other ascriptive identities from the basic dynamics of American capitalism. True, African Americans, Latinos, and women are disproportionately poor or working class due to a long history of racial and gender discrimination in labor and housing markets — conditions that have worsened alongside the postwar deindustrialization of American cities. But this means that these populations would benefit disproportionately from initiatives geared to improve the circumstances of poor and working-class people in general.”

Touré Reed, in his book Toward Freedom echoes his father, as well as Cedric Johnson, in critiquing the Black Lives Matter movement.

“Although [Cedric] Johnson finds many of BLM’s goals laudable, he contends that the movement’s commitment to a “black exceptionalist” interpretive framework has led it to look past the carceral state’s political-economic foundation. Even as BLM’s “Vision for Black Lives” laid out what Johnson concedes is “an impressive platform of progressive ends” that would surely make for a more just and democratic society, he ultimately contends that this project proceeds from the erroneous assumption that “ethnic affinity,” rather than coalitions based on shared material interest, is a viable basis for building the kind of broad political coalition needed to realize its ambitious legislative agenda.” (p. 51)

As focused as I’ve been on racism for all my adult life, I can no longer argue the point that emphasis must be placed on universalist programs if we’re to develop a coalition substantial enough to change entire systems. Organizing such a coalition will undoubtedly require the humility to set aside, at least temporarily, differences and to do outreach to those not engaged in the political process. Differences, including highly objectionable points of view, can be overcome in due time just by way of sustained close contact with “the other” in common cause. Again, labor union history has proven this to be true. A more equitable society would do wonders for combating racism and sexism, as well as xenophobia and homophobia. In other words, focus on bringing about said society and the rest will follow. Class consciousness, therefore, is critical. It’s taken me a long time to realize that, but it’s pretty clear that the status quo (where the social is separated from the economic) isn’t working. We need substantive, fundamental, concrete reforms that alter the course of humanity, and not mere symbolic victories. We need a Green New Deal, and we need it now.

Regarding the BLM movement, I do think it’s a net positive. We should all be outraged by every instance of cops murdering people, and with white ignoramuses calling cops for the most absurd reasons. People from all walks of life have taken part in protests against state-sanctioned violence, and that’s heartening. Socialists can engage in the BLM movement while at the same time promoting egalitarianism or economic empowerment. Socialists, in fact, should make clear the link between capitalism and cops killing people who are predominantly poor. While police brutality most definitely disproportionately impacts persons of color, who are disproportionately poor, John Clegg and Adaner Usmani point out that a white high school dropout is far more likely than a black college graduate to be incarcerated, reinforcing the notion that class consciousness is paramount. We should encourage questions such as, “Why are persons of color disproportionately poor?” and “Why, really, are there police?” Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers write convincingly that policing has always been about protecting commercial interests.

A problem with Occupy Wall Street was the lack of clear demands. I don’t think that’s an issue with regard to the BLM movement, but if the primary demand of activists is for cops to stop killing people, how exactly will that demand be met? What concrete steps must be taken? I don’t think cultural sensitivity training is going to do the trick. Studies indicate that such trainings, increasingly popular at various workplaces, tend to backfire, and Cedric Johnson makes the case that decades of whiteness studies haven’t accomplished much. Community-controlled policing must be the central demand, in my opinion. Make that a reality and then you’ll have people asking, “What else should be community-controlled?” Questions start to snowball. Why is it that ‘capital’ can come and go as it pleases, but human beings can’t cross arbitrary borders? Why is health insurance a for-profit industry and why is health care coverage tied to employment? As fascism tries to take hold in the US, it’s never been more important to have these discussions and fight these battles. We’ll stand a better chance with Joe Biden in the White House and a Democratic-controlled Senate. Go vote.