After the election – Part 3

In the last couple of posts, I talked about the Democrats’ failing strategy and how they could – potentially – win over disaffected working-class voters. We looked at a couple of brief examples: AOC’s continued success in the House of Representatives and her outreach to voters who split their ballots and; An out trans city councilor in deep-red Kentucky who won a close race. That second bit, I now think, deserves a little more explanation about why it’s so important. So, bear with me while I go on a little digression before talking about the apathetic vote and the only hope the Democrats have to re-engage people.

If you saw any ads about campaigns running up to the 2024 election, you likely saw an unending stream of hate from the Trump campaign (and nearly all GOP candidates) directed toward trans people. I, luckily, was spared this because of a relentless approach to ad blocking that, often, cripples my own web functionality. (I do not consider this a loss.) With that amount of vitriol, you’d bank on a trans candidate in Lexington, Kentucky being obliterated in any vote. And yet, Emma Curtis won – narrowly, but she won. And yes, we must acknowledge that it is a city council vote and those, typically, are not high-engagement races. Consider, though, that high-engagement voters tend toward the conservative side. So, what does this show? To me, it shows that gender issues, trans issues, and the draw of hate is not as gnarly as I’d feared. This is, in my mind, one of the bright spots to cling to. This tells me that you can still get local progressives elected through showing up – authentically – to events.

And this, I think, is a good segue into how to get the apathetic vote. How to re-engage Americans. How to start cutting through the incredible cynicism people feel toward the political process.

Throughout my life, I’ve heard “both parties are the same.” For a chunk of time, that was not completely incorrect. Both parties were hawkish in the fallout of 9/11. Both parties turned sharp corporatist in their approaches after Reagan. The Obama years were different, but the problem faced there, centrally, was the staggering backlash toward his policies. What good the administration did (and there was a lot) was overshadowed by economic uncertainty courtesy of a neverending Great Recession as well as intentional sabotage by the GOP. The problem, there, is that over the years, America has defaulted to really only paying attention to the Presidency. For most people, keeping tabs on the skulduggery of Mitch McConnell, Boehner, Paul Ryan, and all the rest was simply not feasible. They saw the price of groceries and their rent go up and they blame the one guy they keep hearing about: Obama. It goes without saying that this is a deeply flawed perspective and needs to change, but that is the reality of the situation. By the time the GOP settled into their new strategy of crippling the government while claiming that it could never do anything right, the Obama camp had swung toward trying to appeal to independents and moderates while limiting direct outreach to working folks as a class – an incredibly ineffectual strategy as we’ve already seen.

The candidate approach

Obama’s greatest strength at the outset was tapping into FDR-style populism. He was able to talk to people in the same “fireside chat” way that FDR did and that did more to cement his wins than anything else. Even while he was being stymied by Congress, he retained that ability and could still approach people on a regular basis.

That is, ultimately, what the Democrats are lacking. You could not, in 2024, have had two more-different parties. The Trump campaign – and the GOP – ran on hate, nebulous promises, targeting minorities and at-risk demographics, and promising economic ruin in the name of repairing the economy. (???) By contrast, the Harris campaign and the Democrats attempted to approach the campaign like a church sermon, talking about greatness, unity, promise, and all of that stuff. It was as if they took a page from Marianne Williamson’s book and then, too late, realized that no one really liked Williamson. They chose Tim Walz, a progressive hunter from the midwest, as the running mate. They, in doing so, fronted a guy who showed up for his constituents and fought for peoples’ rights. And then, in a stunning own goal, took the spotlight away from him and then put it on endorsements from the most-ghoulish Americans alive. The Harris campaign, in other words, pivoted so much that you cannot blame anyone not addicted to political feeds for not knowing what they stood for.

What it came down to was, ultimately, that. The Harris campaign had principles and had plans, but it was lost in the noise of everything else they were doing. This was, of course, not helped by the fact that the national media is owned by the billionaire class who do not – absolutely do not – want anyone except Trump in office.

And so, here we are. You had a huge number of Americans who were not on board with what Trump stood for, but who were also not on board with what Harris stood for, sitting out. In what is rapidly becoming the narrowest popular vote victory since 2020, Trump is claiming that he has a deafening mandate to enact horrors on the country. And the country has two paths forward:

The first is to allow these horrors to go forth and hope that enough people wake up fast enough to put a stop to it.

The second is that the Democrats can stop stepping on rakes and listen to the people in their party who are winning. There are people in the Democratic party who manage to get voters to turn out, but they’re not the people that get support from the party. They’re the people who, rather, listen to constituents. They’re the people who, like AOC, have a campaign office that’s open year-round to work with their constituents, hear them out, and develop a plan for how to react to what’s going on around them. That is what must happen on the candidate level: The Democrats in charge of funding must start listening to their grass roots and stop listening to the consultants squirming out of the Ivy Leagues and top-ranked universities.

Community building

But that won’t get Democrats a long-term base. That will only get them spikes in engagement like we saw with Obama or the 2020 Biden win. The only thing that will get the Democrats a long-term base is consistent, honest engagement with people. They must, at a local level (county and maybe state at the highest), develop a plan for recreating community. That could look like regular events at parks, free movies for families, open access to Democrat headquarters, stocked with books, grub, coffee, and people to pass along feedback to reps. It could also look completely different. The reason that this cannot be directed from any level higher than county is that it will look very different for every area. The needs of Multnomah County in Oregon, for example, are very different from neighboring Washington County. From my brief time at the Multnomah County Democrat organization, there’s some promise there. You have a group that’s not fully made up of rich, older people from the West Hills, people who are engaged with their communities. They have a better sense of what’s going on than the politico class: They must have the funding and the imagination to create community, or the Republicans will do it in their stead.

What do I mean by that? I’ll give you a vague, but real, example. The online left, at some point, has determined that the correct approach to ignorance is to completely shun people and ostracize them. To be sure, there are a substantial amount of people out there who feign ignorance in order to troll, and determining who is actually trying to find answers and who is not is damn near impossible. But what this has wound up doing is alienating a lot of people who then get snapped up by the right. There are many, many accounts of right wingers swooping in when someone is alienating and offering a sympathetic ear. That, then, establishes a bond with the person and sets them on a path toward, say, voting for Trump when, four years ago, they may have voted for Biden. It’s not that they were yelled at, it’s that the people who talked to them were of a certain political persuasion. That, at its base, is community building.

(I want to say, at the outset, that there is absolutely a time where you are justified in cutting ties with people because of their beliefs. I’ve done that multiple times in the last few years because, at a certain point, some people are just too far gone. But that should not be our first recourse. What that decision looks like is different for everyone, but in my opinion, it’s pretty clear when someone is a misled-but-good person and when someone is too far-gone to be worth your time.)

My friends, I come to you, ultimately, to tell you a message you’ve heard before: We need community. We need the dumb, cheesy joy of hanging out at bowling alleys. Public spaces with chess boards. Big, publicly-owned centers that have daycare facilities, community classes, workshops. You know, the sorts of things that featured heavily in 80s comedies where the villains were, universally, the Donald Trumps of the world. If the Democrats want to make inroads with the working class, the lower-middle class, and, indeed, anyone who is not a college professor, they must start taking this sort of thing seriously. They must begin to draw people in by making these sorts of improvements. They have to, in other words, actually show up and help people.

Throughout the last several months, every email I received from the national Democrats was a shrill screech for fundraising. Prior to that, the only content that I received from the Multnomah County Democrats was either fundraising or notifications about upcoming fundraising. These people have my email – they send me leaflets in the mail. They know who their voting base is – why do they not do anything to directly reach out to people? Ed Koch was a deeply problematic politician, but at least he showed up in public and looked people in the eye. That’s something that more in-office politicians must do.*

I don’t know, what do you want from me?

America is in a deeply terrifying place right now. The Trump administration will have complete control of the US government with an incredibly slight mandate, propped up by an all-too-eager media owned by kowtowing billionaires. The only solace, right now, is that by choosing loyalists to run his government, Trump is choosing the dumbest, most vicious people alive to enact his policies. This will, I think, cause more chaos in his government than we saw before and, hopefully mitigate the worst of the damage he can do.

Beyond that, I don’t know what to expect. No one does. We, once more, will have a horse in the hospital.

I’ve had deeply worrying conversations with friends (both in and out of the country) in the last week – the sort of stuff that really, literally, keeps me up at night. We’ve talked worst-case scenarios and what to do if the worst happens. I’ve strengthened connections with friends abroad in the hopes that that will help ground me. I don’t know if it will, and I don’t know if that will be a rescue. The thing is: Nothing about that matters. Regardless of what happens to me, there are huge swaths of people in the US who did not ask for this. Who did not want this to happen. The only thing that will help them is community. I know this is very much in the zeitgeist right now, and I hope it continues to grow. And I hope that, in the next couple of years, I’m proven to be wrong about what I think will happen to elections and politics in this country and that the Democrats do get a chance to salvage things. But the only way they will is if they get off their asses and start building community and, in doing so, winning people over.

The future is going to be perilous and anxiety-filled, but, ultimately, that’s the only way authoritarian regimes win. The way to combat it is to find a niche within a larger organization with enough clout to stand a storm and work within it. There will be challenges and they will feel insurmountable, but, short of fleeing the country, this is all you can do. I’ve spent way too much time over the last week feeling helpless and frightened, and I’ve had enough of that. It is, in the immortal words of the IWW, time to organize.


* CAVEAT: I am ALSO not someone who goes to the usual Portland meccas – farmer’s markets, Saturday markets, etc. It may very well be that the Democrats do show up to those, but from the limited exposure I’ve had at those, that has not been the case.

In Between Things

So I’m in a weird place right now, you know? I’ve just finished a rough draft for a novel. I think it’s good – or at least entertaining, which I classify as “good,” though I’ve run into plenty of other writers who draw a distinct, bold, Berlin Wall-sized line between entertaining and good. But this puts me in the position of having to wait a couple of months before I start editing it, you know? The strategy, picked up originally from inhaling Stephen King’s On Writing when I was in high school, then bolstered by dozens of other people through the years, is based on the idea that you need to put some distance between you and the thing you’ve been working on. If you try to edit it right off the bat, then you’re going to be too close to the material and won’t have the presence of mind needed to think, “Does a human who is not me understand this sentence?” 

So, then, what to do with the time between now and then? Because my fiction writing has been focused entirely on that damn book for the last, ah, two years, I don’t have any story ideas in the chamber. (Or if I do, they’re buried in a Google Keep note somewhere on my phone. I need a better system for those, because hoo boy, Keep is trash.) And yet, I don’t want to abandon my practice of writing every morning. I came perilously close to doing that last year, when I was well and truly stumped by both the book and being stuck in a personal rut, and that’s the last thing I want to deal with again. 

I thought about that earlier and recalled that the advice I keep giving people whenever they ask is consistent enough to stick in my head. I then think that, if I don’t follow my own advice, what good is it? So, that advice: Just write something every day. Doesn’t matter if it’s trash, or unpublishable, or something aping Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness in a beleaguered attempt to just keep the gears going. Just write something every day. 

So why not? 

I thought back to my publishing history on my blog, or website, or whatever this is, and how it’s been beyond sparse over the last few years. That’s partly down to the book, partly down to the horrors of the pandemic, partly down to the horrors of an emboldened and growing American fascism, and partly down to the realization that not every damn thought I have needs to be broadcast on the Internet. (That last one’s been a hard lesson to internalize. Seems like I grew up in the first generation to grow accustomed to that, and it is only through the grace of God that my LiveJournal and Xanga are lost to the aether.) But would it kill me to post occasionally? 

So what I’m saying is that I figure I’ll post a few times, here and there, maybe queue up some ideas. Maybe in doing so, I’ll have some thoughts on short stories to write, tuck away for a bit, edit, and try to get published. Cause it’s like any form of exercise, you know? The more you do it, the easier it is to branch into other things. With writing, that has – for me – typically meant that the more I get in the groove of jotting something down on paper (or bits or bytes), the easier it is to come up with other ideas. It is, I think, the only explanation for why Stephen King wrote “The Mangler.” The guy just had to write something, lest the demons in his own brain consume him. 

So what’s on my brain and what is transmittable? Well, the main thing that’s been on my brain – safely compartmentalized so I don’t forget it, but also don’t give in to depression every time I think about it – is the ongoing genocide in Gaza. I’ve spent a lot of time over the last few months thinking about how various groups have tried to mold my relationship to Zionism throughout my life. Those groups ranged from my rabbis, to youth groups, to Taglit Birthright, to the left-wing organizations I ALLEGEDLY IN MINECRAFT have worked with, to people at parties who cornered me about being Jewish and how that, obviously, means I support an apartheid state. It’s been a lot to consider and I’m not going to start going through it now – not this morning – but I think that’s going to be at least something I throw up here. I don’t have any illusions that anything I write here will sway anyone one way or the other, but I do feel like it’s worth saying something about, in some manner that I can point to and say, “I assure you, I wasn’t completely twiddling my thumbs.” 

(On the note of not completely twiddling your thumbs, you should all find organizations like Medial Aid for Palestinians or Doctors Without Borders or someone [who’s not the Red Cross, because oof] on the ground in Gaza and throw resources their way, because governments all around the world are failing Palestinians yet again.)

Of course, there’s nothing as solipsistic as blogging about something and calling out to the world, “I’m doing something!” Part of that writing exercise will, thus, be self-flagellation for not doing much more and me thinking about why I haven’t done more. I’m sure I’m going to feel real great about myself afterward and this will do wonders for my already-bleak outlook on humanity and the state of the world. Trust me, I’m as psyched as you are.

So anyway, I’m hoping that I’ll have more things pop into my head aside from bleak reflections on reality, but from such things come short stories. (Sometimes.) So I’m hopeful that something’ll pop in there.

Barring that, I’ll wade through the horror-show of Keep notes and try to find my list of story ideas that I came up with a few years ago. 

Celebrating Death

I’m writing this the morning after a momentous event. One of history’s literal greatest monsters, Henry Kissinger, died on November 29, 2023. A man whose policy advice, consultation, and naked grabs for power, wealth, and authority led to the deaths of millions and the propping up of a world structure that allows for the continued slaughter of religious and ethnic minorities has finally died. He was over 100 years old which, really, is the big shande, here. 

But this isn’t an obituary. If you want one of those, you should go read Rolling Stone’s obit which slaps. (Or this article in The Atlantic, which is more reserved, but is also good.) What this is is a brief reflection on celebrating death.

See, the last time I was this happy that someone died was when Rush Limbaugh croaked. While Limbaugh didn’t have as much of a negative net impact on humanity as Kissinger, he was a repellant human being whose on-air persona did more than we talk about to prop up America’s burgeoning fascists. It was a role he never dropped. Why? Because it made him money. 

At one point, Henry Rollins – in a podcast, I think – talked about a time when he was at one of William Shatner’s parties and Rush Limbaugh walked in the room. Rollins told Shatner that he, Rollins, couldn’t be in the same room as Limbaugh, and Shatner lectured him about separating who Limbaugh was on air from who he was as a person. It should, of course, be known that Shatner was, by all accounts, a real shithead to work with throughout his entire career. Someone who treated (treats?) people he worked with like dirt and needed to be reminded that such behavior is intolerable at every turn. (I recall at one point hearing that Michael Dorn threatened to kick his ass after Shatner was a dick to Wil Wheaton on set.)

The point being, I thought of that after Limbaugh died. I, along with a couple of other people, toasted his death. In reaction, a couple of other people I was with said that doing so was wrong and immoral, and was not much better than anything Limbaugh said or did.

We, the toasters, laughed at that.

Of course it’s better than that. Limbaugh was a terrible person and we are, in fact, allowed to rejoice at the removal of terrible people. For, you see, there are people whose continued existence makes life worse – in many cases, almost irreparably worse – for many, many people. In Limbaugh’s case, it was because he continued to provide talking points, ammunition, and ideologies for the worst kinds of people in America. He set up at least 30% of the country – based on how voting shakes out – to see their ideological opponents as less than human and only worth mocking. He did it all for money and fame and there is no way that one can argue it otherwise. The only opposing argument is that he believed in the things he was saying, and I’m not sure which is worse. 

See, here’s the thing: We live in a fundamentally unjust world. Our society – and, of course, I’m speaking of American society, though this statement broadly applies to “Western” nations – is built upon an economic and political structure that hinges upon exploitation. Regardless of what is being exploited, be it people, natural resources, or good-will, the methods and outcomes are the same. The ruling class is, more or less, incredibly stable and steadfastly opposed to bringing new people in. This does, of course, happen. Look at the Obamas as an example. When new people are brought in, they are successfully enveloped in the ruling class and become just the same exploiters as the rest of them. This is not a magical, wondrous thing: It’s just the way humans are wired.

Humans, at our genetic core, are fundamentally neurotic and set up to act as if we are on the constant edge of starvation or depravation. It takes a lot of willpower and resilience to get past that, but when faced with a downward shift in one’s status (i.e., moving from an upper to a lower class), one embraces brutality in order to retain one’s status. This is why we see on a daily basis people acting like monsters: We are all, every one of us, terrified of losing what we have and, when faced with that possibility regardless of whether or not such a possibility is realistic, we turn into crabs in a bucket. Again, this behavior can be trained out of us, but it takes a lot of time and effort. 

As long as our economic and political structure is set up the way that it is, this behavior is enabled. Capital’s stranglehold on resources and people props up this line of thought because, ultimately, it’s good for the stock market and the elite’s bank accounts. This behavior prompts the majority of Americans to go out and view themselves as consumers rather than people, to think about things in terms of scarcity of food or housing, when we walk past fruit and veg rotting on vines or in dumpsters, or when we walk past luxury condos sitting empty because of ill-placed bets on the real estate market. And every day, as we allow ourselves a wide range of excuses for allowing our worst behavior and impulses, we all prop it up. I’m not saying this to shame people, because after all, I’m typing this on a laptop that was undoubtedly created using exploited labor and, thus, I’m as culpable as everyone. I’m saying all of this to point out that our society is rotten to the very core. 

I could spend some more time talking about how we need to change that, and how changing that is possible, but I won’t. I will, though, put out a killer Ursula K LeGuin quote: “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”

Instead, I just want to say that, yes, things are bleak and unjust. 

Kissinger, to return to the point of this thing, lived to be 100 years old. He set up and encouraged mass-bombings of civilians. He tried to orchestrate coups and civil wars in Africa. He allowed genocide to happen in South Asia in the name of a convoluted plot to open China, which was, ultimately, unnecessary. He was a man without principles beyond attaining power, from a family and a time that should have taught him that power is ultimately abused to slaughter the innocent. Instead, he took the worst possible lessons: That power can and should be used at all costs, especially slaughtering the innocent, in order to prop up that power. He was a man who allowed the deeply primal human fear of change to excuse mass murder, and was celebrated by the establishment until the day he died. Probably afterwards. I haven’t looked at the New York Times yet, but I imagine their headlines are appropriately ghoulish. 

Kissinger and his cadres of psychopaths did things that resulted in vast swaths of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam being poisoned to this day. There are decades of reporting on this, but here’s a single article from The Atlantic as a preview. Kissinger’s legacy is one of pure, unadulterated evil and all it takes to realize that is a cold, honest look at the human cost of what he did. If, as a human being, you value human life on an even plane, then you must acknowledge that. If you do not acknowledge that, then it’s time to take a hard look at what you really believe.

The world is unjust because Kissinger was celebrated his entire life. He opposed the International Criminal Court, a body in front of which he should have appeared but never did. Perhaps, sometimes, people were mean to him in public. As far as I’m aware, that hypothetical is the extent of the repercussions he suffered for mass murder. It was not enough. The world is unjust because that may have been the most he went through for everything he did.

It is in the face of an unjust world that we must take the victories where we can get them. Often, that takes the form of little pleasures. Small indulgences we allow ourselves in the course of the day to feel better about ourselves or our choices. Sometimes, the little pleasures come in the form of a reminder that, no matter how much of an evil fuck you might be, you will one day die. By dying, you may no longer hurt another person. That is what is worth celebrating. The realization that Kissinger will no longer give advice to someone in power. The realization that Kissinger will never go on to cable TV and give an asinine interview to a fawning media that will, never, bring him closer to the justice he deserved. Celebrating the death of people like him may be petty, but it is a small joy in life, a reason to go out to a pub and give someone a high five and shout “Kissinger finally fucking died!” as the Dead Kennedys’ “Holiday in Cambodia” blares from speakers. 

Talia Lavin wrote on BlueSky that there’s a Jewish saying for evil bastards like Kissinger, the opposite of righteous humans: “May his name be erased.” 

It is in these times that we owe ourselves a modicum of joy, because these deaths are a reminder that people like Kissinger are mortal. These people whose lives and impacts seem inconceivable are as flesh and blood as the rest of us. Just as they put structures up, we can take them down. It is in people’s power to work together to create a world in which an age of mass murder is forgotten, where the effects of chemical warfare are erased, and where allowing individuals such huge amounts of power is inconceivable.

Celebrating the death of such people is a reminder that their names can be erased and replaced with things much better.

So yeah, go out there and toast to the death of Kissinger. Or better yet, donate to the International Refugee Assistance Project, or organizations that clear land mines from Cambodia, or – more news-relevant – Medical Aid for Palestinians. Do something to try and offset the pure evil that people like Kissinger put out into the world. It’s your duty as a human being.