Now

[H2O Man]

It appears that Trump's plan to appoint Anthony Scaramucci as his administration's next ambassador to the United States was dropped today, when the president was advised against this by Vladimir Putin. It remains unclear if Trump still plans to name Stephen Miller as the new Statue of Liberty. But it has been confirmed that the president is preparing to tell the World Court to rule that he won the popular vote in 2016 by the largest landslide in human history.

Sad.

What's even sadder is that these three foolish statements are made of the same fabric as almost everything coming out of the White House. What is becoming increasingly more hopeful, however, is that the Democratic Party will have a unique opportunity in 2018 and 2020 to change the essence of Washington, DC, in a significant way …..and that Mr. Mueller's investigation will bear fruit in 2018, as the absolute corruption of the Trump machine is, to quote Richard Nixon, now “crystal clear.”

In part, our party's opportunity is looking better and better as the republican party is splitting at its seams. The “regular” republicans and the rabid republicans seem ready to separate, perhaps even to file for a divorce. The rabid branch will be awarded custody of Donald, while the regular republicans will definitely pay for their previous support of him.

This brings us to the topic of some divides that harmed the Democratic Party in recent years. We have a much wider variety of members than the republicans. For sake of discussion, we can apply the labels, from left to right, of progressives, liberals, moderates, and conservatives. There is, of course, a lot of overlap within these groups – for unlike plastic people and KKK members, Democrats are real people, with a wide range of personal experiences and beliefs.

Add to that the fact that in the 1980s with Jesse Jackson, in 2008 and 2012 with President Obama, and in 2016 with Bernie Sander's campaign, the Democratic Party showed that it can generate the excitement necessary to attract independent voters from the Democratic Left. More, in many other regions of the country, 2018 will show that moderate Democrats will get the votes of moderate (regular) republicans, who are repulsed by Trump et al.

That doesn't mean we can take victory for granted. We are in a hard struggle here. But nothing worthwhile – especially meaningful change – ever comes easily. We've lost far too many elections in Congress, and at that state level, to don rose-colored glasses as we approach 2018. We need a comprehensive fifty state strategy.

Martin Luther King said that we had to change to master change. And in order to change behaviors, as Malcolm X taught, people must change the way that they think. Both of these truths apply – in general – to the sub-groups within the Democratic Party, in the context of how they relate to each other. And that simply requires having an open mind, and recognizing that no one sub-group of Democrats holds “the” correct answer to all issues, or holds the reins of power.

There are sections of the country where progressives candidates can run and win elections. There are sections where liberal candidates can run and win, where moderate candidates are the best bet, and where conservative candidates have the best chance for victory. That is not a great mystery.

More, to obtain a well-functioning Congress, the goal should be to get that type of mixture. For unlike the republican machine, which can only produce two types of candidates – plastic Mr. Stepfords and rabid ankle-bitters – our party can find high-quality candidates capable of representing a wide variety of interests as part of a coordinated team. And that is how representative democracy is supposed to work.

We cannot afford the divisions that allowed Trump to “win” the electoral vote. His brand of nazi populism has the potential to utterly destroy this nation, in large part by fermenting hostile divisions on both the large and small scales. We witness it on the small scale each time we hear or read someone saying that they “refuse to work with so-n-so,” or that someone “isn't a real Democrat” – as if they have both the authority and intellectual capacity to determine such things. No, as Rubin often told me, a closed mind is like a closed room: both tend to be stuffy.

It's too late to prevent Trump's 2016 “victory.” For no dam ever built can hold back waters that have already passed by. But it is high time for people to prepare for the rest of 2017 and 2018. There are numerous options: help get people registered to vote, volunteer at the local party headquarters. Invest time or money in support of a candidate that represents your beliefs and values, even if she/he is not in your district. Write a letter-to-the-editor. Lobby your elected representatives. There's plenty to do, and no one else is going to do it for us. It's entirely up to people like you and me.

Fight the Good Fight!
H2O Man

[lunatica]

1. I agree with you

Sometimes it does come down to voting for a least worst candidate. If Donald Trump has taught us anything at all it's to never allow him to happen to us again. The only way to do that is to make sure we all vote.

It might turn out that in the most fundamental ways possible he'll inadvertently do truly great things for this country. Like unite us all against him.

[H2O Man]

3. Thanks.

Times that pose great risks also present unlimited opportunities. I am convinced that significant progress can be made in bringing about social justice -- not because of Trump, so much as in spite of him. (And a lot of us do feel spite for Trump!)

[Kind of Blue]

5. Good point. I was never comfortable with voting for

the lesser of two evils is just evil. I think that's what kept a lot of us from the polls given our choices and so much disinformation. Still, I don't know what's wrong with less evil. It's just a shame that so many liberals/independent on that bent, conservatives, too, have to look evil in the face to realize it. I guess it's not real until it's experienced.

[longship]

2. I make it simple. Vote straight Democratic Party in every election.

R& for a fine post, H2O!

[H2O Man]

4. Very good!

It isn't always possible in rural, upstate New York to vote for a Democrat in every local election. There are far more registered republicans and independents than Democrats here. Thus, there are times that in a town or county contest, it is a choice between a republican and a tea party space cat.

There are other times when an independent runs against a republican. In those instances, our party has sometimes gotten the independent on our line, too. And we sometimes coordinate efforts with the Working Families Party.

But on the state and national level, it's a clearer choice.

[annabanana]

6. Perhaps the egregiousness will result in a big swing back to a functioning Republic.

Perhaps his sins are SO BAD that there will be a kickstart to the kind of civic engagement necessary for citizens to RUN this contraption. That is, at least, my fervent hope.

[H2O Man]

7. I hope so.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., often spoke of the cycles in government. I'm convinced that we have a unique, but dangerous, opportunity to make meaningful progress.

[ms liberty]

8. This right here:

"Martin Luther King said that we had to change to master change. And in order to change behaviors, as Malcolm X taught, people must change the way that they think. Both of these truths apply – in general – to the sub-groups within the Democratic Party, in the context of how they relate to each other. And that simply requires having an open mind, and recognizing that no one sub-group of Democrats holds “the” correct answer to all issues, or holds the reins of power. 

There are sections of the country where progressives candidates can run and win elections. There are sections where liberal candidates can run and win, where moderate candidates are the best bet, and where conservative candidates have the best chance for victory. That is not a great mystery. 

More, to obtain a well-functioning Congress, the goal should be to get that type of mixture. For unlike the republican machine, which can only produce two types of candidates – plastic Mr. Stepfords and rabid ankle-bitters – our party can find high-quality candidates capable of representing a wide variety of interests as part of a coordinated team. And that is how representative democracy is supposed to work. "

This is a truth some here cannot see, and they use a lot of characters every day sowing division over it. Great post. I'm getting caught up on my DU this morning...can you tell?

[H2O Man]

9. Thank you.

I've served on a number of boards over the decades. And they always work best when there are a variety of backgrounds and opinions, with people willing to coordinate. They do not work when people think that they are exclusively "right." For in many instances, there are not clearly defined "right" and "wrong" opinions.

[LWolf]

10. Sad

Waterman, while I agree with what you've written, in theory, what makes me sad in reading it is that there is no more "we," in my opinion.

Not if you are referring to the Democratic Party.

I'm doing all that you listed in that last paragraph. But I can tell you right now that the division within the party hasn't come together, isn't healing, and is driven wider by the day.

All it takes is a careful reading of DU to see that, let alone talking to people out in the real, uncensored world. This is perhaps the most critical issue facing those that oppose Trump, and I don't feel like I can safely discuss it here, but I'm sure listening and talking face-to-face, and it's troubling.

What I WILL say is this: I have no respect for political bullies; I, and my vote, will not be bullied, and I'm not alone. Attempts to create a fake "unity" through bullying are doomed to fail. I hope you know that I'm not referring to you or your post, and I hope you've seen what I'm referring to.

Meanwhile, I will support in every way that I can all candidates whose positions and records have earned my support. That's what my support is based on.

[H2O Man]

11. I hear you.

And I agree with you regarding DU. And while there may well be shit-stirring "trolls" from time to time, I do not consider them a serious factor. At their best, they are silly. It is the bullies that create real divisions.

At this point, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have a rational discussion with a certain group. It's not that they are purposely doing what they think is wrong -- sadly, they think that they are correct .....and that only they are correct. For the one thing they sincerely believed would be best for the country since 2000 has not happened. Hence, their frustrations.

There are numerous christians who eagerly await the "Second Coming." They are convinced it's an external event, certain to happen any day not. But they are confused, for that is a reference to an individual awakening, a psychological process, that happens only within the constant of "now" ....making it difficult to have serious discussions with them on this topic. Hence, their attempt to bully those who do not share their belief in stained-glass windows.

We need to be patient, with others, and with ourselves, for we are all sad and weakly human.