On HU
Ng Suat Tong on Frank Miller’s decaying art.
Ben Rietano on superhero parents.
Ng Suat Tong on the awfulness of Captain America: Civil War.
Me on how Frank Miller could be worse.
Me on why the white working class won’t save you.
Utilitarians Everywhere
At the Guardian I wrote on Sly Stone, who is still alive, thank goodness. (This is unexpectedly one of my biggest stories ever in terms of traffic, I think.)
At the Week I wrote about why Hillary Clinton needs a wife.
At the Establishment I wrote about manly male book clubs for men and also tentacle sex.
At the Daily Dot I wrote about how Google’s lobbyists will save the public domain (maybe.)
At Splice Today:
—my second Hammer dracula post! This one on Brides of Dracula, and how the male gaze falls in a plothole.
—I encouraged people to fear not the Sanders/Trump supporters.
Other Links
Emily Bazelon with a NYT feature on whether sex work should be criminalized.
Julia Serano on why trans woman should play cis roles on film.
Aaron Bady on the badness of Daredevil.
I totally agree with the basic analysis and sentiment of your Sanders/Trump voters piece…except for this, which I feel compelled to contest:
“It’s annoying when people claim that the run-of-the-mill-bad Democrat is exactly the same as the guy who encourages his fans to beat up black people at his rallies.”
Except she’s not a run-of-the-mill bad Democrat…just ask Abby Martin:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16150
As for why all those disaffected Sanders voters are stupidly saying they will throw a fit and vote for Trump, rather than making the much more reasonable and obvious choice to vote for say, Jill Stein, this might go some way towards explaining that:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16152
I disagree. I think her policies will be much like Obama’s, or other run of the mill bad democrats. Even if she’s worse, the suggestion that she’s as bad as the openly fascist reckless incompetent is absurd, imo.
Also disagree that Jill Stein is some sort of obvious pure choice. She’s quite bad on sex worker rights issues; probably would be worse than the other candidates, insomuch as she seems to actually have a commitment to doing harm. There are no pure choices.
“I think her policies will be much like Obama’s, or other run of the mill bad democrats.” Ok, so maybe your definition of “run-of-the-mill bad Democrat” is much more permissive than mine would be. I guess being wrong on pretty much every single issue isn’t as bad as it used to be. And I don’t think she’s as bad as the openly fascist reckless incompetent…I think she’s worse, because she has cultivated an air of competence and respectability that belies the fact that she is in bed with every rapacious industry known to man, openly supports imperial regime change, wars of aggression, the erosion of civil liberties and human rights, etc, and that she is extremely, EXTREMELY racist, and gets away with it because she calls black people “superpredators” and “welfare queens”, instead of just living up to the courage of her convictions and calling them “n******”. Oh, and she compares Putin to Hitler and I am pretty sure she’s no good on sex worker issues either.
As for whether Jill Stein is any good on sex worker issues, I’m willing to stomach the fact that we’ll have to fight to pull her to a better place on that issue when she openly opposes all the things I just mentioned above, amongst other vastly important policy positions. And I say “we” as in, people who hold the position we do, not as if to say we two white men are some special spokespeople for sex workers.
I apologize, that was a bit more confrontational than it should have been. Feel free to delete that if you want.
“And I don’t think she’s as bad as the openly fascist reckless incompetent…I think she’s worse, because she has cultivated an air of competence and respectability that belies the fact that she is in bed with every rapacious industry known to man, openly supports imperial regime change, wars of aggression”
this is crazy, imo. She’s not going to start a nuclear war; she knows not to default on the debt. She’s substantially less likely to plunge the world into a global depression and/or an apocalyptic conflict.
I disagree with her about a lot of stuff, but I’m pretty firmly in the camp that I don’t want a cataclysmic disaster. I understand that the left finds cataclysmic disaster appealing in a, “fuck it, burn it all down way,” but that will result in a lot of real people getting hurt. Harm reduction is where I’m coming from.
You want to vote for Jill Stein as a protest vote, go ahead. I’ve voted third party before; it’s a luxury I have since I’m in Illinois, and my vote doesn’t matter. I’ll probably vote for HRC this time out, though, since there’s a clear choice against fascism, which seems like a sufficient statement to make for me.
Putin’s not Hitler; he’s just a run of the mill authoritarian fascist thug. Much like Trump. If I had to choose between Clinton and Putin, I’d vote for Clinton also.
and no worries! Your comment’s fine.
Ok, I’ll try to be a little less…aggressive this time around.
“She’s not going to start a nuclear war”
When you openly compare Putin to Hitler (whatever he is) you heighten tensions with a major nuclear power, and damage vital channels for diplomacy with a world power whose help we desperately need to solve basically any international problem. Stephen Cohen argues that we are in greater danger of nuclear war with Russia than we were during the Cold War, because of proxy conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, NATO’s persistent trudge to the Russia border in direct violation of treaties signed by Clinton, and recurring incidents like the illegal shoot-down of the Russian plane in Turkey, almost certainly with the knowledge and complicity of the US.
“You want to vote for Jill Stein as a protest vote, go ahead.”
It’s not a protest vote. I think JS should be POTUS and HRC shouldn’t. And I am absolutely unconvinced HRC, with her rabid war-hawkishness and dedication to Wall Street, Big Ag, and oil wars, is any less likely to bring on the apocalypse than Trump. I agree with your harm-reduction ethic. I just think voting for HRC does not advance that ethic at all.
“Putin’s not Hitler; he’s just a run of the mill authoritarian fascist thug”
First part’s true, the second one, not so much. A strong criticism can be made (and has been by the Russian left, insofar as it exists) that Putin is authoritarian. He might even be a thug, what with his KGB background. But he is not a fascist. He has actually spent almost the entirety of his presidency/prime ministry mish-mash fending off the policy proscriptions of the far right in Russia, who say he is too soft on the US, and call for open confrontation.
He builds national identity on hatred of foreigners; in particular gay people and Muslims. That’s fascist enough for me, thanks.
“There are people to his right” doesn’t mean he’s not a fascist. It just means that there are folks who are more fascist out there.
I’m not a fan of US Russia policy, or of Nato expansion. If you think Trump’s pro-Putin stance is likely to work better…well, I disagree.
You should vote for me for President. My views are to the left of Stein’s, I’d bet, I’m better on sex work issues, and I have as much a chance as her of getting elected.
I am unconvinced he’s the one doing the building. The critique here to make is his insufficient opposition to existing homo/Islamophobia. But I would have to study it more to support this. In any case, homophobia, and even Islamophobia, in Russia is built on anxiety of a longstanding population crisis exploited by many layers of local, regional, and national politicians. I think it’s far more accurate to critique Putin on allowing this to happen than actively encouraging it…but again, I would have to study up to build an argument.
On your second point…fair enough.
I don’t think Trump is better than HRC. I just think HRC is no better than Trump. At least Trump says, “I’ll make a deal with him.” I don’t have any illusions that Trump really knows how to enact diplomacy, or that he even will, given that he thinks he’s Marlon fucking Brando in Godfather (“I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse…until he does”). But at least he openly entertains it as an option, for Christ’s sake.
You know who actively supports a detente with Russia, and has some idea what that actually means? Jill Stein. So a pox on both their houses, I say.
Also, hell yes. Can you still file?
Also, I’m getting real tired of that “lesser of two evils” argument. It delivers everything you’re afraid of. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you’re just paving the way for the greater of the evils. It doesn’t help.
“I think it’s far more accurate to critique Putin on allowing this to happen than actively encouraging it…but again, I would have to study up to build an argument.”
This is complete BS. Seriously, Putin’s a fascist shit. He’s allied with the Orthodox Church, and part of that involves targeting gay people and Muslims. You don’t have to like US policy to recognize that Putin is a corrupt, bigoted, authoritarian asshole.
Purity in politics is not something you generally get to do. At the moment, we’re faced with probably the most frightening presidential candidate of my lifetime…and a normally flawed democrat.
Again, if you want to vote for Jill Stein, that’s fine; individual voting choices aren’t all that consequential.
He is certainly corrupt, probably (almost certainly) bigoted, and definitely authoritarian. And an alliance with the Orthodox Church could just as easily have been a politically expeditious appeal to longstanding Russian identity politics (if Russian Orthodoxy is anything like Serbian Orthodoxy, then being Russian Orthodox might as well be the same as being Russian). Again, I don’t know if he’s a bigoted shit. I do know he allows bigoted policies to happen, when he shouldn’t. All I dispute is that the animus behind that legalized bigotry is significantly his or not.
I am not talking about purity in politics. I am talking about not electing a known war criminal, security risk, and war hawk. I don’t think Clinton is really any better than Trump, so I will vote for somebody that is.
I don’t care what Putin’s personal issues are or aren’t. He’s governing as a bigoted shit. That makes him a bigoted shit, in my book.
The security risk thing is nonsense, imo; that’s the sort of thing you say when you’ve got other issues and are grasping. “War hawk” is true…but it’s not clear to me that she’d actually be worse than Obama.
You’re talking about purity. You’re vacillating between saying the problem is “lesser of two evils” and saying that there’s no distinction between the two. I think lesser of two evils is something you always end up voting for; all candidates (and people, for that matter) are flawed, so you’re always making a compromise. You’re also always making a compromise between electability and ideal; thus your decision to vote for Jill Stein instead of me (you could always write me in after all.)
I don’t think it does the left, or anyone, any particular good to pretend that Trump is a normal candidate, or that there is no difference between the GOP and the Democrats in general. But, again, you should vote for whoever you’d like.
“I don’t care what Putin’s personal issues are or aren’t. He’s governing as a bigoted shit. That makes him a bigoted shit, in my book.”
Fair enough. I don’t really know if I’m arguing any important distinction, or if I’m just being pedantic. I disagree with you, but oh well.
“The security risk thing is nonsense”
She hosted official emails of the Office of the Secretary of State on a privately owned server that the government doesn’t control, which means they could not control how her emails were secured, IF they were secured, WHERE they were (because most private services bounce data off overseas servers, such as in China), or who owned the server (a private corporation having privilege access to classified data, which, to be fair, is the norm anyway, is still a massive breach of security). Her emails are also out of reach of FOIA requests, which is a major hindrance to oversight of her office. I have family who work for the government whom, if they did exactly the same thing, would be fired, indicted, and imprisoned, and they work at much less sensitive clearance levels. It’s not grasping at all.
“You’re talking about purity…” I think you think HRC is the “lesser of two evils”. I argue that mindset is both specious and actively harmful, because with every capitulation, you allow that “lesser of two evils” to shift farther and farther right, just because they’re not as crazy as the other guy. “Always” voting for the lesser of two evils is a trivially true statement. The question is whether you vote out of fear, to beat the absolute evil, or whether you vote for the person who is most qualified, whom you most agree with, and who actually wants the job. I argue the former is a losing proposition, regardless, because you sacrifice whatever power you actually have, which is already not much.
“*Last bit*”
I don’t think it does the left any good to pretend HRC is a normal candidate. Also, as far as I can tell, the differences between the Reps and the Dems are superficial. They support essentially the exact same set of policies in every realm, with minor differences in social policy meant to play to identity politics. Oh, and the Dems don’t necessarily want to bomb Iran. That’s about it…
How is Clinton substantially different from Obama or Bill Clinton, the last two Democratic presidents? Or than John Kerry or Al Gore, for that matter? She’s a normal, center left dem.
Dems and Republicans are as different as they’ve ever been in the history of the country, pretty much. They have unfortunate areas of bipartisan agreement (on imperialism, most notably), but many, many differences. GOP would not have passed health care reform, which I think is an important if flawed advance. they wouldn’t have passed a stimulus. They’d cut taxes. They wouldn’t raise the minimum wage. They’s discriminate against gay people; they’d restrict abortions. These “minor differences” have massive effects on the lives of millions of people. Maybe they don’t affect you in any substantial way; maybe you don’t care; maybe you think there should be other issues that are more important. I’d even agree with you on some of that. But overall, I think the framing is seriously flawed.
“How is Clinton substantially different from Obama or Bill Clinton, the last two Democratic presidents? Or than John Kerry or Al Gore, for that matter? She’s a normal, center left dem.”
She is worse than those people, but not by much. You are right on one thing; she’s a normal, center left Dem. That means she’s a far-right winger in most developed nations (excepting countries like Russia and Iran, who also have politics shifted MASSIVELY to the right).
“Dems and Republicans are as different as they’ve ever been in the history of the country, pretty much.”
I am certain this is just not true. The Dems used to be real social democrats who believed in serious state intervention in the economy on behalf of the working class. If you seriously think that’s what they still are, you are suffering the same delusion as Robert Reich is. Obama passed health care reform because it Big Pharma and insurance companies wrote it and helped him push it, because it forces consumers to buy overpriced private healthcare. Both Obama and Clinton are wholly on board with corporate welfare, which is substantively the same as cutting taxes for the rich. It’s giving them free money. Hillary didn’t give a shit about minimum wage until Bernie made her do so. You think Clinton will do jack shit to help poor women access affordable healthcare? Or take on landlords to prevent them from evicting gay people out of homophobia? Or transphobia? Or whorephobia? You think Clinton will do fuck-all for sex workers? These “minor differences” do effect millions, but they do next to nothing to mitigate the vast breadth and depth of human suffering caused by various institutional bigotries and neoliberal policies. It’s like choosing between swallowing lead and mercury. I will opt out and at least try to get at the actual food, thank you very much.
“The Dems used to be real social democrats who believed in serious state intervention in the economy on behalf of the working class”
Nope. Parties used to be much less strictly partisan. Great Depression gave Dems a chance to move to the left on some economic issues, but they had many Southern Dems who were massively committed to racial segregation. The parties now are a lot more sorted.
I would like US to be much more left too. But…the US actually did much better in terms of rejecting austerity than most European countries did. I think this election would also give the US a chance to lock in a more left wing supreme court for a generation, which could help substantially on issues like gun control, abortion…and possibly on voting rights, which is the big, big thing that needs to change if US is going to shift substantially to the left.
Why do I care about what Clinton really believes? If Sanders pushed her less on minimum wage, all the better. I think she’ll be quite a bit better than her husband, not because she’s a good person, but because the Dem party has shifted left on most issues, and she’s about being in the center of the Dem coalition.
YOu can’t opt out. You’re going to get Clinton or Trump. That’s what’s going to happen. Voting for Jill Stein (even twice!) isn’t going to change that.
“Nope. Parties used to be much less strictly partisan.”
They also used to be much more liberal on economic issues. Of course they were massively more racist, sexist and homophobic, and I’m not suggesting we’d be better off with FDR’s party (at least, that’s not what I mean to say). But they believed in actually using the power of the state to correct the economy in favor of the working class, a little bit. That’s all but gone in the Democratic Party now. We can argue why, but that point, I think, is a basic reality now.
“But…the US actually did much better in terms of rejecting austerity than most European countries did”
European countries tried to reject austerity, and Greece did. The whole reason they were not able to fend it off is because Germany and the Troika, acting on the Washington neoliberal consensus and basically on Washington’s behalf since Bretton Woods, rammed it down their throats and gave them no other choice. The reason austerity even registers as a problem in Europe is because they had a much more developed social safety net to begin. And austerity already happened in the US. It was under Clinton, and it was called welfare reform.
“You can’t opt out.”
Ah, finally we get to this point.
You are right, it’s basically a done deal who is going to be president, within some margin of error. But democracy requires a lot more of its people than voting. No matter who is president, the political interests baked into the system will assert themselves, and the president, whoever she is, will be relatively powerless to sway those forces in any significant way. The reason I vote for Jill Stein is because she is the closest thing America has to the political expression of a revolutionary movement. Organizing through an independent third party and showing numbers on election day actively contributes to the growth of that movement. I refuse to vote for HRC or Trump because in the end, I really think it’s irrelevant which on gets to be pres. I’ll be over here with the revolutionaries, trying to make the system a little less shitty.
I don’t think voting for Jill Stein makes the system less shitty, really. Third parties in the US are mostly irrelevant because of structural issues and the way our government is set up.
I think there are a lot of things you can do that don’t involve voting. Activism around particular issues, contributions to downballot candidates, protesting…lots of things. And of course some folks think green party activism is useful. I really don’t though; they’re nice to make a protest vote sometimes, but they are just about last on the list of people I’d give my money to.
Well, in the end, regardless of the HRC v. Trump debate and whether you vote for Jill Stein, I think we can agree(?) that politicians respond only to organized pressure, and so it’s actually everything that happens in between the elections that matters much more than voting. I think it’s much more useful to try and revitalize unions, help BLM, run a recall campaign like the one against Anita Alvarez. But there comes a point where you just have to elect people in order to get access to the resources and power controlled by the state. So you need another party. The question is how do you nurse it to the point where it’s relevant. Running a candidate for the presidency is the way the Greens are trying to stay in the spotlight and grow. And I’d like to try and reward that effort so that some day, the can win some offices and start enacting real change. I think a vote for them, in the long term, helps that effort, and therefore the nation.
I really don’t think the Greens are ever going to win diddly. Maybe some local offices, which would be cool…and maybe voting for the national party helps that. I’m pretty skeptical, but anything’s possible.
And yes, stuff that happens outside the elections is hugely important. Worth pointing out, though, that Alvarez’s defeat was result of *both* BLM activism *and* a concerted campaign by Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, who lined up party support for Kim Foxx and spent a ton of her own money on her. Preckwinkle is a longtime party hand who endorsed Clinton.
Fair enough. At any rate, I think movement politics are what is needed for any real change to happen. Winning over people in/with power and getting them to help is a huge boon, no doubt. To be entirely fair, even the Greens are not really the expression of a movement, they are just the closest thing to it at the moment. And it is currently the Party of Protest Votes for White Liberals. Not sure what they need to do to become a part of a cohesive movement for change, but it’s clear they haven’t done it yet.