Star Trek vs. Aliens: Which Future Will We Have?

by Russell Dobular

Sci-fi writers have a long history of predicting future technologies and social transformations. From Jules Verne and H.G. Wells predicting the submarine and the tank, respectively, to Philip K. Dick describing CGI, and Isaac Asimov foreseeing the self-driving car 50 years before Tesla began experimenting with the idea, science fiction authors have an uncanny track record of nailing the future. But aside from tech predictions, the heart of most great sci-fi lies in its vision of social and economic arrangements. In cinema, these visions are generally dystopian and/or apocalyptic, although in literature there’s a more balanced ratio between positive and negative imaginings. For every 1984 nightmare, there’s a Stranger In A Strange Land, projecting a future in which humanity overcomes it pettiness and learns to live in peace and prosperity.

But in film, setting aside Mad Max-type post-apocalyptic scenarios, there are two distinct camps: worlds in which corporations have essentially become governments unto themselves, and, well, Star Trek. One of the reasons the franchise is so enduring and beloved is that it’s one of the only positive visions of humanity’s future to ever come out of Hollywood. In Blade Runner, Tank Girl, Code 46, Resident Evil, the Aliens franchise, and a host of others, corporations have either entirely displaced the government, or become so powerful that governments are essentially working for them. Ripley and her crew of salty Marines aren’t fighting for flag or country. They work for “the company,” as a private mercenary force.

Star Trek, on the other hand, presents us with a Marxist utopia, in which technology has provided so much material wealth that the need to earn a living has been eliminated, leaving humanity with nothing to do other than to self-actualize. In a world of “replicators” that can produce food on demand, unlimited clean energy, and advanced, largely automated, medical technology, capitalism just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It may not seem like it with Donald Trump in the White House and corporate power over government a lot closer to the Aliens scenario than Roddenberry’s utopia, but both futures are at hand, and a lot of the social turmoil of our historical moment boils down to a battle between them.

Capitalism, as we’ve known it, can not survive without the need for human labor. The economic collapse of former manufacturing regions gives us a case study in what will happen to most of the country when AI comes for not only blue collar jobs, like truck driving, but service industry jobs like customer service, receptionist, sales clerk, waiter, and cashier and then goes on to displace white collar occupations like paralegal secretary, and medical assistant. In the next phase, even highly skilled professionals like doctors and architects will be displaced by AI’s that can do their jobs more cheaply and with less room for human error. At that point, capitalism can only be maintained in one way: with the use of force. Its no accident then that fascism is on the rise in America. Only a fascist state will be able to preserve our current economic system, even as more and more people fall into poverty and wealth becomes increasingly impossible to attain for anyone who isn’t a media celebrity, a politician, or an heir.

Seen in this context, the fight between Sanders-style progressives, and Donald Trump’s GOP, represents two different responses to the same underlying reality: the center will not hold, and a future in which jobs are almost impossible to come by, is going to be shaped by either socialism or fascism. In other words, its going to either be Star Trek or Aliens. We’re either going to be getting a UBI check every month and going to the doctor free of charge, or we’re going to be living in a corporate-owned police state in which dissenters are labelled “terrorists” and indefinitely detained. Neoliberal capitalism is no longer on the menu, and those who think we can return to a “normalcy” that could only have existed in an economic context that is further deteriorating by the day, are like the 19th Century royalists who desperately tried to preserve a feudal system that could not possibly have survived the industrial revolution, as demands for democracy erupted all around them.

This then is the fight of our times: not neoliberals vs. progressives, or “moderate Republicans” vs. Trump. In the end the real fight is between socialism and fascism. The economic arrangements and assumptions of the last century are simply no longer tenable in the face of rapid advances in AI and automation technology. If you’re still arguing for “good capitalism,” at this point, all you’re doing is throwing up white noise and getting in the way of society having an honest conversation about our most realistic options. The best thing you can do right now, is pick which of these two futures you want, and fight for that future with everything you’ve got. ‘Cause you’re going to be living in one of them either way. Personally, I’m for the one with UBI and transporters.

Thank you for reading! You can help support our independent media project by becoming a Patron on Patreon.com, where for as little as a dime a day you can access exclusive audio podcast & written content! Just click the logo!

Patreon-mattlumine-991x470-817x320

Or, you can make a secure donation via PayPal by clicking below. Every little bit helps! Thank you so much for your support!

kisspng-donation-computer-icons-portable-network-graphics-5b972c7ded3449.9709889315366339819716

**Subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use!**

**You can follow us via email by entering your email address in the field on the sidebar (computer screen) or below (phone), and/or by liking/following us on Facebook and Twitter!**

Democrats Can Either Defend our Democracy or Bundle Money in Wine Caves. They Can’t Do Both.

by Keaton Weiss

I love wine. My wife loves wine. The first vacation we ever took together was out to Portland, Oregon to visit her uncle, who took us wine tasting there. Then we rented a car and drove down to Napa for another two days of wine tasting before flying out of San Francisco back to New York. But until last week, neither of us had ever heard of a “Wine Cave.”

But because Elizabeth Warren recently called out Pete Buttigieg for his closed-door, high-dollar fundraiser in one of these wine caves, the term is now widely known, even among us working class slobs who’ve never been in one ourselves. This has ushered in a new iteration of the debate about the nature of political fundraising, and the influence that often accompanies it. Are these types of fundraising practices inherently corrupt and therefore intrinsically bad? Are they an unfortunate reality of political campaigning that we must tolerate, however undesirable? Or are they, as Jane Lynch, whose net worth is estimated at $16 million and who is also against “class warfare,” seems to think, completely benign?

For those struggling with this question, I can’t highly enough recommend Ryan Grim’s recent piece in The Intercept on this subject. I came across the article when I saw someone had linked to it in a Facebook group. Without disclosing the group itself or any of its members, I can say this was a very mainstream Democrat, #resistance-type group. Not particularly progressive, to say the least. But someone had posted a link to Grim’s article, and had quoted the following section in her post:

“The wine cave in question was named after, and the event was hosted by, a man at the center of the savings and loan scandal in the 1980s, the largest giveaway to the financial industry in U.S. history until the 2008 Wall Street bailout. This was Craig Hall, 69, a billionaire several times over. . .Hall is a longtime political donor, who, with his wife Kathryn, has given at least $2.4 million to Democratic candidates and causes since the 1980s. As Buttigieg hinted, he hosts an annual event for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the winery.

But Pelosi is not the first speaker he’s lavished money on. In the 1980s, he was a major donor to Democratic Rep. Jim Wright of Texas.

Hall first made his money both in the health care industry and in real estate. By the late ’80s he was badly overextended, with federal creditors looking to foreclose on his empire. Hall asked Wright to intervene on his behalf, and Wright did so, strong-arming regulators to go easy on Hall. When Wright’s machinations became public, it contributed to his resignation as speaker of the House.

The story of the S&L crisis is a particularly ugly one. Both parties, with many of the same donors, collaborated to allow the problem — and the eventual cost to taxpayers — to grow for years so that it would not become an issue in the 1988 presidential election. As soon as the voting was over, Americans found out that they were on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars. The government had to allocate $364 million just for depositors in an S&L owned by Hall himself, who eventually paid $100 million to settle a federal lawsuit. Just a few years later, Clinton named Kathryn Hall as ambassador to Austria. Yet the political donations behind this were, for the most part, completely legal and hence not “corrupt” by the narrow definition.”

Obviously, the person who posted the link was outraged by this, as anyone reading it should be. As an example of the corrosive impact of big money on our democratic processes, this is as obvious as it gets. Instead, however, the general consensus among those who responded to the post was that this is just a divisive distraction, and that we all need to just let it go because we have to unite and defeat the GOP. In essence, their attitude was, “Whatever. Vote blue!”

I can’t say I was surprised to read those reactions – I’ve had enough debates with the blue-no-matter-who types to keep my expectations in the sewer. Still though, it does boggle the mind how brainwashed the Democratic base is that they would shrug this story off while, at the same time, they’re trying to convince the majority of Americans that they’re serious about protecting our democracy and our constitutional norms from Donald Trump. If you read that passage and your response is that it doesn’t matter, or that we ought to just accept that this is how the sausage is made, then, to be blunt, you don’t care about democracy.

Democrats’ hypocrisy on this is one thing – we’ve grown accustomed to that by now. But their lack of self awareness is stunning. They’re in the middle of an impeachment process in which they’re attempting to rally support for ousting the president because his actions undermine our democratic system. While they’re doing this, their Speaker of the House, as well as one of their prized presidential contenders, is doing private fundraisers with a billionaire whose history of greasing Democratic politicians for personal favors is proven and documented. And even after he settled a $100 million lawsuit with the federal government, the Democratic President whose wife was the most recent Democratic nominee, awarded Hall’s wife an ambassadorship for which she was probably no more qualified than Hunter Biden was for his Burisma gig. This all gets laid out for them in a succinct, indisputable account, yet they have no real response except to gaslight critics into thinking this is no big deal. And on top of this, they can’t fathom why their impeachment is failing to work for them politically.

Democrats’ own lack of credibility on this issue isn’t the only barrier to impeachment’s success. As Grim mentions in his article, Craig Hall’s donations were legal, and “hence not ‘corrupt’ by the narrow definition.” What this means is that in the minds of many Americans, this democratic system is itself as illegitimate as the Democratic Party’s hollow, sanctimonious rhetoric about their duty to protect and uphold it. And if the system’s already FUBAR, then what’s the difference if Russia or Ukraine fuck it up some more? And as I mentioned in my previous blog post, it’s true that most Americans don’t know for a fact the details of these fundraisers that Grim outlines. But they do know enough about our system to assume that these stories are true, and now, what d’ya know? We have a detailed, documented example of what it is they know intuitively goes on all the time. Remember, this very wine cave in question hosts a fundraiser for Nancy Pelosi every year.

So now that this topic is front and center in the news, Democrats have a decision to make: they can either defend democracy or they can defend private fundraisers with billionaire oligarchs in crystal wine caves. They can’t defend both. And if they hope to convince the public that they’re the Constitution’s last line of defense against Donald Trump and the Russians, or the Ukrainians, or Moscow Mitch, or whoever, then the choice ought to be obvious.

Thank you for reading! You can help support our independent media project by becoming a Patron on Patreon.com, where for as little as a dime a day you can access exclusive audio podcast & written content! Just click the logo!

Patreon-mattlumine-991x470-817x320

Or, you can make a secure donation via PayPal by clicking below. Every little bit helps! Thank you so much for your support!

kisspng-donation-computer-icons-portable-network-graphics-5b972c7ded3449.9709889315366339819716

**Subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use!**

**You can follow us via email by entering your email address in the field on the sidebar (computer screen) or below (phone), and/or by liking/following us on Facebook and Twitter!**

Podcast: Impeachment – Yay or Nay

Trump’s been impeached. Can Democrats make the case? Will voters care? Or will it backfire?

Thank you for reading! You can help support our independent media project by becoming a Patron on Patreon.com, where for as little as a dime a day you can access exclusive audio podcast & written content! Just click the logo!

Patreon-mattlumine-991x470-817x320

Or, you can make a secure donation via PayPal by clicking below. Every little bit helps! Thank you so much for your support!

kisspng-donation-computer-icons-portable-network-graphics-5b972c7ded3449.9709889315366339819716

**Subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use!**

**You can follow us via email by entering your email address in the field on the sidebar (computer screen) or below (phone), and/or by liking/following us on Facebook and Twitter!**

Donald Trump Was Just Impeached. Why Don’t Voters Care?

by Russell Dobular

Corporate media is a helluva drug. Its single-handedly kept Democrats chasing one Trump scandal after another for the past three years, without ever telling them how little actual “resistance” to Trump’s legislative agenda there’s been from the same Congress that’s impeaching him now. Even as Pelosi and Schiff were straight out claiming that Trump was a Russian agent, they were simultaneously voting to expand his spying powers. Then they went on to vote for his military budgets time and time again. They gave him an extra $22 billion just this past week, even as they were preparing articles of impeachment. That’s on top of the $108 billion in increases they’ve already given him over the past three years. Democrats in Congress also joined with Republicans this past June to approve a $4.6 billion no-strings attached border bill, that included continued funding of ICE, even as children were being put into cages (more on that later).  These are very peculiar votes to take if you believe the president is a Russian agent, and/or that he’s dangerously unfit for office. But you’ll rarely hear about that on CNN, or read about it in the pages of The New York Times. Just like if you’re a FOX viewer, you won’t hear much about Trump admitting to charity fraud. In the end, these are business decisions. If you tell people what they don’t want to hear, pretty soon they’ll stop watching. This kind of “siloed” reporting, as Matt Taibbi calls it, produces news consumers who are so ignorant and propagandized that not only don’t they know what’s actually going on in the country; they actively resist knowing. Information that doesn’t fit the script goes right down the memory hole or gets branded as somehow “Russian.”

Meanwhile, Trump is enjoying his highest approval ratings since March 2017,  and because of the carefully curated information they have to work with, most Democrats have no idea why. If pressed, they’ll usually offer some variation on the “deplorables” argument: most of the voters are stupid and uninformed. Not knowing the rare pleasure of Jake Tapper getting into high dudgeon while interviewing a Trump administration official, they just don’t know what’s really happening. One of the most Orwellian manifestations of this mindset was the rash of articles and social media chatter after the 2016 election, claiming that the people who voted for Trump need to be “educated.” As if you could just send them all to Camp Neoliberal where they would slowly learn that the decimation of their communities over the past forty years is a good thing, because after all, the stock market is doing great and Ellen is on TV. As to why this nation of deeply racist and uneducated voters elected a black man with the middle name “Hussein” twice, they have no real explanation to offer. If pressed, they’ll often posit that 2016 represented a backlash against that same President, never considering how little sense that makes, given his re-election. If it were a backlash, wouldn’t that backlash have come in 2012, when all those racist deplorables had the chance to vote against him directly? But these are logical arguments, and rarely effective in the face of what is essentially a religious dogma, with its core mythology of light vs. dark and good vs. evil completely impervious to rational considerations. You might as well debate the trinity with a devout Christian. The Maddow doth offer the daily absolution, and yay it shall be received.

The smug arrogance of assuming that voters rank impeachment near the bottom of their list of concerns, with only foreign policy ranking lower, because they’re too dumb or intrinsically foul to “get it,” is pretty typical of the charm offensive that Democrats have been waging against the general public for quite some time, with predictable electoral results. The problem the party is running into selling impeachment is the same problem they run into in most elections; they’ve spent several decades alienating their most natural allies, from union workers, to the working poor, to the middle-class and POC, with policies that completely fucked over those same communities, and as a result, no one likes or trusts them very much. When you’re starting with that kind of trust deficit, rallying the troops is a tall order. Rallying them for an impeachment based on arcane process questions, which themselves can’t be explored without exposing the kind of nepotism in regards to Hunter Biden, that Washington insiders may consider a simple perk of the job, but the average person understands as the legalized corruption that it very obviously is, is nigh unto impossible. Imagine you’re a voter whose once stable middle-class job evaporated with NAFTA, and now you’re working three degrading low-wage jobs just to keep your head above water. Now imagine a Congress made up almost exclusively of millionaires tells you that the thing you really need to be concerned about is the fact that the (maybe) billionaire who won the last election threatened to withhold military aid to a country you couldn’t find on a map, if that country didn’t look into why the son of another millionaire who now wants to be President, got a $50K a month gig with a foreign energy company, without having any relevant qualifications. If the politician who told you that was standing on your lawn, you’d probably beat the living shit out of them on the way to your minimum wage delivery gig at Pizza Hut. I know I would. And so would you. So would anybody. The problem is people with that story have left the party, and the people who remain don’t even know anyone with that story.

The answer you’ll get when you raise these kinds of concerns is always, “But what about the GOP?!” What about them? If you’re the kind of person who cares deeply about whether or not a religious baker has the right to refuse service to a gay couple, the GOP is giving you something. Its not much, but its something. The Democrats are offering them nothing but Russian conspiracy theories and complaints about Trump’s demeanor; a demeanor which, if you’ve grown to hate the Washington establishment, isn’t a bug but a feature. The punditocracy losing its shit with every rancid tweet and every fresh assault on taste and decency, keeps his voters warm at night. Which is important when the heating bill is three months past due.

This is not to say Trump shouldn’t be impeached, or that he hasn’t committed a wide variety of impeachable offenses. As our erstwhile publisher Keaton has suggested, children in cages would have been pretty good grounds. Smart too. Try defending children in cages. Good luck with that. But it’s hard to impeach a president over something that you’ve provided the funding for with full knowledge of exactly where the money was going. So, like the Bad News Bears of politics that they are, and with the total lack of moral clarity that is their calling card, the Democrats have honed in on the one thing you could impeach Trump over, that can’t be discussed without dragging the cokehead son of their former VP into the spotlight. The sheer political stupidity of that choice becomes increasingly evident as the impeachment process drags on, and with it, Donald Trump’s poll numbers go up. Pelosi, in a rare demonstration of political insight, never wanted to do impeachment, and now she’s wisely trying to get out of a Senate trial by demanding things from Mitch McConnell that she knows he’ll never agree to.  That’s about the best anyone can do at this point; dump this turkey and move on to talking about things that are relevant to people in a country where 63% say they couldn’t afford a $1000 emergency. That’s the country Anderson Cooper couldn’t find on a map, although I’m sure he could find the Ukraine pretty easily. The millionaires running the Democratic Party don’t know much about that country either. And it shows.

Thank you for reading! You can help support our independent media project by becoming a Patron on Patreon.com, where for as little as a dime a day you can access exclusive audio podcast & written content! Just click the logo!

Patreon-mattlumine-991x470-817x320

Or, you can make a secure donation via PayPal by clicking below. Every little bit helps! Thank you so much for your support!

kisspng-donation-computer-icons-portable-network-graphics-5b972c7ded3449.9709889315366339819716

**Subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use!**

**You can follow us via email by entering your email address in the field on the sidebar (computer screen) or below (phone), and/or by liking/following us on Facebook and Twitter!**

Listen: Michael Moore Captures the Zeitgeist – w/Justin Van Voorhis

Filmmaker Justin Van Voorhis returns to discuss the filmography of Michael Moore and how his brand of populist left politics has become more relevant than ever.

LISTEN BELOW:

Thank you for reading! You can help support our independent media project by becoming a Patron on Patreon.com, where for as little as a dime a day you can access exclusive audio podcast & written content! Just click the logo!

Patreon-mattlumine-991x470-817x320

Or, you can make a secure donation via PayPal by clicking below. Every little bit helps! Thank you so much for your support!

kisspng-donation-computer-icons-portable-network-graphics-5b972c7ded3449.9709889315366339819716

**Subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use!**

**You can follow us via email by entering your email address in the field on the sidebar (computer screen) or below (phone), and/or by liking/following us on Facebook and Twitter!**

Impeachment Will Backfire – Both Politically and Constitutionally.

by Keaton Weiss

So, it’s on. Democrats announced this past Tuesday morning that they are moving forward with the impeachment of Donald Trump on two counts: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House Judiciary Committee approved these articles on Friday, and a final House vote on impeachment seems poised to take place next week. Democrats, including many progressives who I know and love, are giddy with excitement. But they shouldn’t be. Impeachment is a loser, both politically and Constitutionally. In fact, it’s a Constitutional loser precisely because it’s a political loser, but for clarity’s sake, let’s take these one at a time.

The supposition that impeachment could be a political loser is baffling to many liberals. After all, Trump is guilty of everything the Democrats say he is. He certainly pressured the president of Ukraine into investigating Hunter Biden. He certainly, at the very least, intimated a quid-pro-quo kind of arrangement by which Ukraine would receive military aid in exchange for conducting an investigation of Trump’s potential 2020 election rival. It’s a rather open and shut case, isn’t it?

Well, yes and no. It’s open and shut in the same way that Hillary Clinton was clearly the more “qualified” of the two candidates facing off in 2016. It’s true, yes, but still, somehow, not persuasive. The impeachment dilemma, like the 2016 election itself, is one of those unsolvable riddles for the liberal class. Never forget, on Election Day 2016, 17% of Trump’s own supporters thought he was unqualified to be president, but voted for him anyway.

This paradox is because to his voters, Trump is a disruptor. Disruption, of one form or another (be it economic populism, fascistic nativism, or simply “shaking things up” in the halls of power themselves), was the animating principle of his coalition, and it still is. And part of the deal when you elect a disruptor is that he’s probably gonna do some shit that he’s not supposed to do. This is why, to the Democrats’ and their media allies’ amazement, Trump’s approval numbers barely ever move, despite scandal after scandal that would take down any other president.

Hush money to a porn star? If any other president, particularly Trump’s predecessor, had been caught using campaign funds in that way, it’d be game over. But Trump isn’t any other president. In fact, his election was in many ways a rebuke of the norms – behavioral, procedural, and perhaps even Constitutional – established and upheld by the White House’s 44 previous occupants and their administrations.

That’s one dynamic. The other dynamic is that there’s a sense out there that Trump’s transgressions aren’t actually unique to him, but that he’s just big enough, brazen enough, and unpolished enough to do this stuff out in the open for all to see. This is the “they all do it” defense, if you will.

And whether or not it can be proven that “they all do it,” enough people know enough about politics, and have enough rightful contempt for the rot that’s been at the core of our system for enough time now, that they pretty much feel they can bet on it. Bill Maher, ironically, does a tongue-in-cheek segment on his show called ‘I Don’t Know It For A Fact, I Just Know It’s True.’ The premise of the segment is essentially what I’ve outlined above, though it’s not actually a satirical take on Trumpism. Rather, one of the jokes, for example, is:

“I don’t know for a fact that Betsy Devos thinks Ronan Farrow is a Jewish holiday – I just know it’s true.”

Though Maher deploys this concept as a joke, he actually walks, obliviously, right past an important point about our current political climate.

The notion that one can know something without actually having to prove it is precisely what gives Trump the wiggle room he needs to get away with everything he does, because it allows him to paint his opponents as equally corrupt without actually substantiating his claims. For example, we don’t know for a fact that some of Bill Clinton’s mistresses (and/or victims) received envelopes of cash in exchange for their silence, but we can safely assume that some of them probably did. So really, what’s the big deal if Trump paid Stormy Daniels for her silence?

When it comes to the Emoluments Clause violations, which many liberals think are impeachable in their own right, you have the same type of situation. Sure, Trump has steered some money towards his different properties on different occasions throughout his presidency. For example, during a golf trip to one of his clubs, Secret Service agents spent over $28,000 at the Trump-owned resort. This is one of many instances in which Trump has certainly used his position as president for personal profit. So how does he get away with it? Why not impeach him over that? Well, was Dick Cheney’s $30 million severance package from Halliburton before starting a war that made them over $30 billion in contracts really all that different? Sure, technically it was. . .but not really. Or when Barack Obama failed to instruct his Justice Department to pursue indictments of the Wall Street frauds who caused the financial crisis, and then accepted six-figure paychecks for speeches given to some of those same financial institutions after leaving office, was that not an Emoluments violation? Of course, technically, legally speaking, it wasn’t. But, to us average Americans, yeah, it basically was. It’s certainly close in spirit. Because there’s no doubt had he cracked down on the financial services industry as he should have, he’d not have been offered those speaking gigs in his post-presidency. And how did Nancy Pelosi accrue a net worth north of $100 million while in office? Do we believe all of her dealings were on the up-and-up? True, we don’t know for a fact that there was any foul play there, but. . .you get the point. So again, when it comes to Trump, the average American thinks “28 grand at a golf club? Come on. Who cares?”

When you view the impeachment matter through this same lens, it’s obvious why this will be a political loser for Democrats. It’s not just that they, as Democrats, lack the moral authority to prosecute the case against Trump, it’s that to so many Americans, the Constitutional norms themselves lack the credibility to be worth defending against Trump’s infringements. Just as we don’t really care that much about payoffs to inconvenient women, or about politicians using their positions as public servants for personal enrichment, we also don’t really care about foreign interference in our elections. After all, the Democrats themselves just three years ago not only nominated, but anointed, a woman whose family charity organization raised hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign donations, all under the guise of philanthropy, only to have those donations dry up as soon as it became clear she wouldn’t be president.

For these reasons, whether you agree with them or not, I think impeachment will ultimately hurt the Democrats politically. Lament it all you like – call it false equivalency, call it muddying the waters, call it “whataboutism” (a word liberals simply made up to gaslight anyone who calls them out on their hypocrisy) – it’s the political reality.

Now, there’s a fairly large segment of the population who seem to think that impeachment is worth pursuing regardless of political consequence, because we simply have a Constitutional obligation to hold Donald Trump accountable. And while this sounds good, and noble, and brave, it really doesn’t make any rational sense.

For one, if you think Donald Trump is a Putin puppet whose mission is to destroy our system of government from within, then surely you understand the urgency of defeating him in 2020. Should the House vote to impeach, as they no doubt will, an acquittal in the Senate is a virtual certainty. That means the 2020 election carries the only actual hope of removing Trump from office. Under this rationale, what helps Trump hurts the Constitution, period. Pretty simple.

But impeachment can do long-term damage to the very Constitutional systems and norms it intends to protect in another way, too. It’s a bit more complicated, but actually much scarier, because unlike the former, it’s not based on the ludicrous paranoid premise that Trump is a double agent for the Kremlin. It goes like this:

If Trump wins a second term, he will appoint at least one, probably two, maybe even three, Supreme Court justices before he leaves office. The probability of a 6-3, or even 7-2, conservative majority on the Court is very high in that scenario, and if such a majority were installed, the Right would essentially be able to strike down any and all progressive legislation for decades, if not generations, to come. We’re not just talking social issues like abortion and gay marriage, which would be bad enough. We’re talking issues of labor, healthcare, the environment, finance, etc.. Progressive priorities would be stuck in neutral for the foreseeable future – unless an eventual Democratic president were to take drastic and unprecedented steps to either undo or render meaningless the conservatives’ stranglehold on the judiciary. This could involve things like court-packing, term limits, or major reforms to the confirmation process. Necessary as they’d be, the conservatives would certainly decry them as “attacks on our Constitutional system,” and they’d have a point.

So you see, if impeachment backfires politically and helps Trump win a second term, then we on the Left must either live under conservative hegemony for the rest of our lives, or we must fundamentally alter the role of the judicial branch of government. We’re simply not going to settle for the former, and so the latter would become inevitable. In that scenario, we progressives would spend the next several decades upending the very Constitutional system we now task ourselves with upholding.

Therefore, there is no real distinction between the political case for (or against) impeachment and the Constitutional one. The two are inextricable, because if it’s bad politics and it helps Trump win re-election, then we’ll have to not only defend what’s left of the Constitution from Trump himself in the short term, but in the long-term, we ourselves, as progressives, will have to redesign the entire system of checks and balances, lest we resign ourselves to live in perpetuity under right wing rule.

I’m not entirely sure where my readers stand on impeachment. I imagine it’s a mixed bag; but I know that just about all of you want Trump out of office as soon as possible. But when it comes to getting Trump out of there, I’m afraid, as the saying goes, ‘the only way out is through.’ He’s gonna be there til at least January 19, 2021, and if impeachment backfires and extends his stay another four years,  as I very much fear it could, the Constitution will be worse off for it.

Thank you for reading! You can help support our independent media project by becoming a Patron on Patreon.com, where for as little as a dime a day you can access exclusive audio podcast & written content! Just click the logo!

Patreon-mattlumine-991x470-817x320

Or, you can make a secure donation via PayPal by clicking below. Every little bit helps! Thank you so much for your support!

kisspng-donation-computer-icons-portable-network-graphics-5b972c7ded3449.9709889315366339819716

**Subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use!**

**You can follow us via email by entering your email address in the field on the sidebar (computer screen) or below (phone), and/or by liking/following us on Facebook and Twitter!**

Podcast: CA Primary Analysis, Convention Notes, Kamala’s Exit, and More. – w/Lauren Steiner

Lauren Steiner, activist, lead organizer for Los Angeles for Bernie 2016, and host of “The Robust Opposition,” gives in depth analysis of the all-important CA primary, recaps her convention coverage, dishes on Kamala Harris’ exit, and much more.

Thank you for reading! You can help support our independent media project by becoming a Patron on Patreon.com, where for as little as a dime a day you can access exclusive audio podcast & written content! Just click the logo!

Patreon-mattlumine-991x470-817x320

Or, you can make a secure donation via PayPal by clicking below. Every little bit helps! Thank you so much for your support!

kisspng-donation-computer-icons-portable-network-graphics-5b972c7ded3449.9709889315366339819716

**Subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use!**

**You can follow us via email by entering your email address in the field on the sidebar (computer screen) or below (phone), and/or by liking/following us on Facebook and Twitter!**