I Don't See This Society Capable of Healing Itself

Failure is everywhere, but apparently we have no ability to correct our mistakes. When Trump and the Republicans swept the elections of 2016, change -- even of a "worst-case scenario" type -- seemed certain. Paradigm shift was right around the corner. But it has not been the case. Trumptime is merely a continuation of Obamatime, which was merely a continuation of Bushtime, which was merely a continuation of Clintontime, and so on.

As Caitlin Johnstone wonderfully summarized on Sunday in "The One Fact Which Disproves Russiagate, But Nobody Wants To Talk About":

Nobody wants to think about this because it doesn’t fit in with America’s stale partisan models; Democrats would have to admit that their best shot at getting a rival president impeached is pure gibberish, and Trump supporters would have to acknowledge that their swamp-draining populist hero is actually just one more corrupt globalist neocon like his predecessors. But when it comes to actual facts in evidence, that’s exactly what we’re looking at.

Over and over and over again this alleged Russian asset has been choosing to undermine Moscow instead of advancing its interests. He approved the sale of arms to Ukraine, a move loudly encouraged by DC neocons which Obama refused to do because of the dangerous tensions it would inflame with Russia. His administration forced first RT and now Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigning established Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shutting down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and throwing out Russian diplomats as part of continued back-and-forth hostile diplomatic exchanges, and signing the Russian sanctions bill despite loud protests from Moscow. If he is indeed an expensive Russian asset, then Russia got ripped off.

What of #Resistance, the outpouring of political engagement and civic renewal in the wake of Trump's election, as the one-year anniversary of the Women's March approaches? According to Farah Stockman in "One Year After Women’s March, More Activism but Less Unity" a branding-based split -- I kid you not -- is underway:

Now, on the eve of the anniversary, a rift is emerging between two groups: Women’s March Inc., which organized the march on Washington and spent much of the year creating more social justice protests, and another organization of activists who planned sister marches last year and believe that winning elections, particularly in red states, should be the primary goal. The split has raised questions about who can claim the mantle of the Women’s March — and the funding and press attention that goes with it.

The newer group, named March On, formed after some female activists in red states felt the protests being encouraged by Women’s March Inc., which is based in New York, were not resonating in their communities.

“We can march and take to the streets and yell about all the stuff we want to change, but unless we’re getting people elected to office who are going to make those changes, we’re not really doing anything,” said Lindsey Kanaly, who organized the women’s march in Oklahoma City and is now a March On board member.

[snip] 

Bob Bland, also a co-president, said the new group was “welcome in the resistance.” But she noted that its creation had led to “a lot of confusion” among activists on the ground who did not realize that it was a separate entity.

“That’s why it is so important for new groups coming into this movement, like March On, to make sure they have distinct branding and messaging that is specific to them and their group that doesn’t appear as if it is directly Women’s March related,” Ms. Bland said.

The best that can be said of #Resistance and groups like March On and Indivisible is that they are training people in how to actually do politics: knocking on doors, calling legislative hotlines, raising money. The problem is that at its best #Resistance is operating in a completely rigged system, helping to elect more Democrats, who will then turn around and vote to gut their own reform legislation. (See "Democrats Add Momentum to G.O.P. Push to Loosen Banking Rules" by Alan Rappeport.)

Ask yourself, "What could change this system?" Let's assume that Democrats win an amazing wave election this fall and take back both the U.S. House and Senate. What does that do? Nothing really. Trump might be impeached, but the drama would drag on for the remainder of his term.

Let's assume that there's another global financial crisis. Do the "too big to fail" banks get nationalized this time? Almost certainly not. It would be back to QE 4.0 or whatever iteration we are on now.

Let's assume a nuclear war with North Korea. In the aftermath of the Armageddon, do we ban nuclear weapons and roll back the Pentagon? Chances are the opposite. Our already militarist society (post-9/11) would become even more so.

I think it is going to take something huge, some cataclysm of the natural world, a continental drought or the death of an ocean, to bring about the kind of political and societal renewal we need. I hope it is not the case, but I don't see this society healing itself.