How we move forward

One of the many reading lists I am working on is a long post-election one that I started right after Trump's inauguration in 2017.

I wanted to get it done before the 2020 election. For the initial list of ten books that was realistic, but it kept expanding.

Currently, there are 2 books left after reading 92, but some of them split on into other lists, focused more on economics or specific forms of oppression. 

I can definitely get those other two in before November. I am not going to start writing about that list quite yet (and when it goes from a reading month to a reading decade, how does that affect the reporting?), but one of those books seems relevant for what I want to try and explain now.

Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror by Richard A. Clarke

Having served through multiple administrations, trying to prevent terrorism and respond to it when it could not be prevented, Clarke's account tied together many things I kind of remembered or partly understood, by providing individual and overall context.

There is one clear lesson: Democrats govern better. 

That's not just better economies, though that has been consistently true. It has also been true for national security.

Clarke never states that; I think he would deny it if you tried to attribute it to him. He does not seem to be liberal himself. However, the evidence is clear.

There are reasons that make a lot of sense for that, certainly relating to capitalism, corporate favor, and wealthy backgrounds, but I am sure the kinds of strategies and strategists that have been employed over the years has a huge effect. 

In general, Democrats are more likely to look at the overall picture and work for the greater good. In addition, embracing intelligence and reason -- instead of preferring cronyism --is a huge help.

For those who like to say the two parties are the same, here are a few questions:

• Do you believe Hillary Clinton would have appointed Supreme Court Justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade? (Even with lower court judges, it would be a huge difference.)
  
• Do you believe she would have imposed things like the "Muslim Travel Ban"?
• Do you believe she would have dismantled the existing pandemic preparedness plan prior to COVID hitting? 

And you know, there is still that focus on capitalism as the answer to everything, so in terms of lifting mask mandates and things too soon, that could totally have come up, but you would still see a huge difference.

Continuing to play... 

• Do you believe Al Gore would have ignored intelligence advice warning of 9-11 because it did not fit his goals?
• Do you believe he would have lied about weapons of mass destruction so he could invade Iraq?
• Do you believe he would have squandered the budget surpluses achieved under Clinton on tax cuts for the rich?

I am sure he would have handled the response to Hurricane Katrina better. With his concerns about the environment, he might even have worked to strengthen the levees before. 

I believe those are significant differences and that we can find others. 

Those who consider themselves "progressive" will often excoriate Dems for not being progressive enough. They have a point. They don't like the idea of incrementalism, where progress takes too long. I get that.

I also think it's worth noting that progress takes considerably longer if you keep sending in a wrecking crew, overwhelming the group that is not completely against progress with cleaning up carnage.

Do we have to keep doing that?

Allow me to mention dominator culture again. It is easy to look at people who are reluctant to come down on corporations or cut military spending, and we should put pressure on them. 

That pressure does not need to be driven by hate and contempt. People who are not radical enough for you do not need to be your enemies. When there are so many people actively promoting hate or working as chaos agents, surely we can appreciate people who are not doing that.

We can write letters and create petitions and hold protests and boycotts and campaign and education and run for local offices and become delegates and all sorts of things without deciding that burning everything down is the answer.

There are people who won't survive the fire. Those should be the people you are most interested in helping.

I can only assume that there is a visceral satisfaction in creating clever nicknames and shouting people down. I have strong doubts about it helping.

It takes longer to organize and to collaborate and it takes some humility to give credit where credit is due and find working ground, but if you want good things done that's the way you do it.

Destruction is easier and faster. I am perfectly aware. But it's not right.

Related posts:

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2023/04/dont-ask-dont-tell-1994-2011.html

Request: If you have found my writing helpful or enjoyable, please consider making a donation at https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/sultryglebe