Don’t Feed the Beast
I’m watching and worrying as protests against Trump/Musk get overshadowed by Dem-trashing and “bothside-ism.” Brava to Rachel Maddow for resisting, and a plea for Bernie Sanders to follow her lead.
Rachel Maddow is Crafting a New Narrative
Every day the corporate media focuses on “what the Democrats are doing wrong” they normalize the reprehensible behavior of the Republicans in congress.
The GOP is predictable and predictable behavior doesn’t make “breaking news” or provide fresh meat for Op Eds and columnists showing off their superior insight.
In this totally banal, self-serving way the media fails us, and has for a long time.
The blame and shame should rest squarely on Republicans EVERY DAY.
Television commentators just love to talk about how bad the Democrats are at “messaging” and their need for a “new narrative.”
The corporate (and not-so corporate) media still just can’t get it through their heads—or don’t want to—that they themselves are creators of “message” and “narrative.” Media mediates, get it? They turn the raw data of the multitudinous stuff that’s happening at every moment into what counts as newsworthy. And in doing so, instruct readers/viewers on what the story of the day, of our times, of our lives, is.
Sometimes—too often—they latch on to something chewable and have trouble letting go, oblivious to any damage they’re doing. It happened with Hillary’s emails. It happened with Biden’s age. And it’s been happening again with “the people’s frustration with the Democratic Party”—for being “weak,” “not fighting hard enough,” etc.
Two events in particular set off the recent round of Dem-bashing: the absurdly polite non-response to Trump’s address to congress, and Schumer’s “yes” vote to the (justifiably) unpopular continuing resolution. I was disappointed by those, too, and wrote a couple of harsh posts myself But the the little protest cards against Trump’s address are now in the garbage, the CR vote has happened (and none of us knows what the long-term consequences will be or would have been with a different outcome) and it’s beyond time to move on.
But. Most of them just. can’t. do it. Yesterday, commentator after commentator on MSNBC found a way to make Democrats’ “Infighting” and/or “people’s anger at the Democratic Party” or “the need for new leadership” equivalent in importance to the growing national protest. They did it by making it the main “takeaway” of local town halls, by highlighting interviews with Dem-disgruntled attendees at the Sanders/AOC “Fight Oligarchy” rallies, by pointing out that Sanders’ criticisms of Democrats got the most resounding applause at those rallies, and by interjecting at every opportunity that “it’s not just the Republicans that are the focus of people’s anger.”
They don’t seem to notice that—yup, happening again—they’re doing that false equivalence thing. “Yes, the Republicans are terrible, BUT the Democrats are at fault too.”
Rachel Maddow, bless her, is creating a different narrative. Last night, noting that she didn’t even have enough “boxes” to represent the swelling national protest movement against the multiple abuses of Trump/Musk, she toured and celebrated resistance from the smallest towns to major capitals. And not one interview prompted people to kvetch about the Democrats.
She even got Lexington, Kentucky—where I’ve lived for the past 30 years—in there.
Did she include the crowds at the “Fight Oligarchy” tour? Yes, she did—but gave the Sanders/AOC rallies no more prominence than any of the others. Hers was a tour of a national movement, not (as was the case with most other MSNBC shows) a focus on a singularly impressive turnout for two high-profile political celebrities. “Don’t sleep on the fact,” she advised, that people are turning out “everywhere, everyone, all at once,” figuring out how to oppose the inhumanity, the criminality, the attacks on democracy of Trump and his “biggest campaign donor.”
Did she encourage officials in the Democratic Party (“especially in the Senate”) to “tap into” all this groundswell energy? Yes, she did, ending her tour with a “word to the wise” about upcoming events that offered Democratic officials opportunities to show up and speak their minds. But never once was anger at “the Party” or the need for “new leadership” mentioned.
That’s strategy. That’s using the media spotlight to be part of the solution, not (a big) part of the problem.
If you missed it or want to savor it again, I made a clip of this segment of last night’s program:
Dear Bernie: Please use your Power to Fight FOR the Democrats, not Against Them
A recent interview encapsulates my current problem with Mr. Sanders (no, I’m not going to rehearse my complaints about 2016 and 2024 right now.)1
Bernie starts out great. But then, after a very effective description of the Trump/Musk horror-show, he just can’t resist a little equalizing rant about how “neither party” is “capable” of generating a grass-roots movement (apparently not true, if you watched Rachel last night), how Democrats have “failed the working-class” (all depends on how you define “working-class”—see footnotes for my stack on Sanders’ dissing of Kamala Harris’ campaign) and how both parties are “controlled by billionaires”:
“You got a Democratic Party, in general, that is dominated by billionaires, just as the Republican Party is. That operates under the leadership of a bunch of inside the Beltway consultants very well paid who are way out of touch with the 32,000 people here today.”
It’s a theme that he’s repeated in other interviews:
I don’t disagree about the pernicious influence of big money on our politics. But of what possible value at this particular moment is Bernie’s constructing an equivalence—of any sort—between the Democrats and the Republicans? This isn’t a class on the abuses of capitalism or a seminar on the consequences of Citizens United.
Moreover, “the party,” as Rachel’s narrative demonstrates, is more than elected officials. As
posted on Facebook:“Just a quick favor to ask of anybody planning on speaking to a rally of 34,000 people: we know that you know that the resistance needs to grow not shrink, so could you please not bash the great majority of us in the resistance, who are in fact Democrats, and who actually comprise the Democratic Party? Thank you, and welcome to our cause!”
Later in the interview, Bernie seems to grok that he’s been baited by ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who was clearly salivating to stir up a story about divisions within the Democrats (note the way the interview is framed from the start by comments from rally-attenders who are pissed at the Dems). When Karl, who introduces this part of the interview by speculating about an AOC challenge to Schumer, asks him if he’d like to have AOC in the senate, Sanders starts to leave the interview and calls the question “nonsense.” He doesn’t want to talk, he says about what’s happening “inside the beltway.”
Fine, Bernie. Then take a look outside the beltway yourself at what Democrats are doing all over the country. Neither the opposition or the future of the Democratic Party is confined to the progressive caucus of the House. 2
Then there’s Bernie’s recommendation that the very progressives that he sees as the future of the Democratic Party actually leave the party and run as independents.
It’s both typical and tragic that Bernie persists in dividing Democrats into the good guys (the “left”) and the bad guys (“the establishment”—a term that he’s thrown around indiscriminately since his 2016 campaign.) In my opinion, the last thing we need is a big exit of young Dems because Bernie says the “establishment“ isn’t fighting hard enough.
From Ed Kilgore”s New York Magazine article:
“When Democrats are now already perceived as losing adherents, and as many progressives believe their time to take over the party has arrived, Sanders’s counsel is both oddly timed and pernicious. Yes, those on the left who choose independent status may still work with Democrats on both legislative and electoral projects, much as Sanders does. And they may run in and win Democratic primaries on occasion without putting on the party yoke. But inevitably, refusing to stay formally within the Democratic tent will cede influence to centrists and alienate loyalist voters as well. And in 18 states, voters who don’t register as Democrats may be barred from voting in Democratic primaries, which proved a problem for Sanders during his two presidential runs.
More fundamentally, Democrats need both solidarity and stable membership at this moment with the MAGA wolf at the door and crucial off-year and midterm elections coming up. Staying in the Democratic ranks doesn’t mean giving up progressive principles or failing to challenge timid or ineffective leadership. To borrow an ancient cigarette-ad slogan, it’s a time when it’s better to “fight than switch.”
But division seems to be Bernie’s super-power.
He could be such an asset. He has tons of people that adore him, he can be quite terrific (although of the two of them, I think AOC is much better) when speaking AGAINST Trump/Musk, and he’s drawing huge crowds.
It would be so easy, Bernie. Just stop speaking as though the opposition has two enemies: the GOP and the Dems. There are plenty of great Dems who are NOT being the “weak” “corporate” cowards that Bernie suggests everyone is except for the progressive caucus in the house. He should be throwing support for them, too—especially since they often are in districts/states that have lots of voters that don’t identify as progressives but are just as pro-democracy (or could be brought into a pro-democracy coalition.)
Instead, people are leaving his “tour” muttering about their disappointment with other Democrats.
Just who does that serve? The corporate media, for sure. They’re bored with reporting on the everyday horrors the Republicans have brought down on us.
And of course Trump himself. He’s giddy with delight, I’m sure, to see Bernie’s wrecking ball thrown at the Dems.
If you’re interested, see my book on the 2016 election and many other articles, including this stack:
In fact, the “progressive” brand and all its ancient Marxist jargon did nothing but give 2016 to Trump and in 2024 feed the successful campaign of Republicans across the country to label the Dems as “radical socialists”—a label that got “working-class people” running straight into the arms of the GOP.
Elections matter. One would have thought lessons were learned from 2000 and 2016. They own the government because 8 million voters failed to turn out. The preliminary data suggests the Bernie/AOC/MSNBC ideology of affluent, elite university educated zealots are the reason. Because they are zealots there is no introspection.
Either the AOC wing is right and their religious version of reality is true or the establishment is right.The short of it is electoral victory means power. Biden was not the 9th choice of the “progressives” and yet he was the apotheosis of a liberal president- in part because we controlled Congress.
Left populists want to join right populists and play chicken with the nation’s credit by not funding the debt. It was an insane idea when right populism did this and it is insane that the left is making this argument. This shows how similar both populisms are in fact. Do not tell me the consequences are unknown. You will not know the outcome of holding a gun to your head and pulling the tigger until you actually put a bullet in your brain?
If voters dislike your position on trans rights than stop advocating for trans rights. Or get to work persuading voters you are right about trans rights.
Do what you have to do to win power. Being right and claiming the high ground is a luxury only entitled, affluent elites are privileged to indulge.
If the left was right they would win more elections at every level. Tell me how right Socialist party was because of its 1896 platform. Then explain why most of that platform was not enacted till the New Deal.
How do you stop Trump when he controls all 3 branches of government? Why did Democrats lose control of Congress and why are key demographics deserting Democrats? We lost Black males, youth voters and Hispanics.
Protest? Sure. But in a divided electorate Democrats are divided and Republicans are not. Should we protest Trump’s ME policies? In Deeerborn and Cambridge perhaps. I suspect Lexington’s tiny Jewish community would share that opinion ( and as you know well, Lexington votes Blue - and bleeds UK Blue- in a red state.
Perhaps social issues will divide liberals in ways that give the Koch Network victory. As long as the politics of position dominate politics we will remain divided and protests will fail. Politics are transactional but too many voices are proceeding as if holding the moral high ground is better than swimming in the muck of political reality
Totally agree. The “disorganized Dems” meme is a media creation, and only distract from this administration’s outrageous failures and authoritarian wet dreams.