“We do have to defeat Trump, but we don’t have to do it in the way the Democratic establishment wants us to,” Becky Bond, senior Sanders advisor, told People’s Summit conference-goers, according to Newsweek.

I have a problem with this statement. But I wouldn’t give it more than a moment’s attention had not others on social media referenced it as some kind of new and penetrating idea and practice. It isn’t. In fact, it is simplistic and, if taken too seriously by too many, even dangerous. Here’s why:

First of all, educating and mobilizing voters independently of the Democratic Party isn’t an original idea. The labor movement, communities of color, women, environmentalists, gay rights activists, and many more have been doing it for some time. But they don’t consider it a badge of honor that distinguishes them from “run-of-the-mill” Democrats. Nor do they turn it into a rationale that closes the door to collaboration with the Democratic Party. In the election and reelection campaigns of President Obama, for example, we saw this independence-collaborative dynamic on display, and to very good effect. And, this fall I expect we will see more of the same, as these same social organizations and social forces mobilize independently and jointly for Hillary and other Democrats down the ticket.

Second, the notion of a “Democratic establishment” can be very misleading, if it isn’t qualified. But Bond doesn’t do this here. Nor does Bernie Sanders in most of his speeches. In their rendering, the Democratic Party is corrupt, awash in corporate money, and in the pocket of Wall Street. But what goes unsaid, or comes in as a minor note, is that the Democratic Party also embodies different political currents, not simply a neoliberal one. In Congress – especially the House – many of its representatives and caucuses take consistently progressive (anti-neoliberal) positions on a broad range of issues. Much the same could be said about many grassroots Democrats. Nor from what Bond and Sanders say would anyone realize that the Democratic Party possesses a broad base of social power – labor, people of color, women, etc. – that the Sanders’ campaign, notwithstanding its many positive features, never made substantive inroads into. Indeed, any effort to “Crush Trump” in November, not to mention rein in the billionaires, banks, and global corporations in the years ahead, will take a coalition that includes these same social and political forces in its leadership as well as its base who for now and the foreseeable future operate loosely under the umbrella of the Democratic Party. Thus, these sweeping assertions, even if they capture an important aspect of reality, can mislead people at the strategic and tactical level at this stage of struggle. And again, this takes on special significance since neither Bernie’s movement nor the left generally are constructed broadly enough to defeat Trump in the near term or erect a new model of political and economic governance in the longer term, thereby making broad alliances with people and organizations who don’t share identical political views and loyalties necessary. Only a very clumsy, gendered, and racialized representation of the working class can give any credence to the claim that “workers” are in Sanders’ camp.

Finally, drawing hard and fast lines between Bernie and his supporters on the one hand and the “Democratic Party Establishment” on the other, as Bond did in the above statement, is problematic on the eve of the Democratic Party convention. Along with pressing positions on matters of rules and platform, the repertoire of Sanders and Clinton supporters at this point of the election process should also include – in fact give accent to – cooperation, compromise, and the search for common ground. After all, the primaries are in the rear view mirror and what should command everyone’s attention is the defeat of Trump and his GOP gang. Nothing will change the political dynamics of the country and open up the wellsprings of democracy more than a landslide victory over Trump in November. If there is a “Date with Destiny” for the American people, it isn’t today or when Democratic Party delegates gather in Philadelphia. It is on Election Day, Nov. 8, 2016, when the fate of the country will hang in balance. Everything else pales in significance and should be subordinated to making that day a dawn for a “new burst of freedom.”

Little, if anything, is to be gained by pushing one’s agenda to the point where one side wins a “victory,” but at the cost of an irreparable breach in the very coalition that is the only guarantee of a resounding defeat of Trump and his enablers. We should be mindful that in any forward looking coalition that avows high hopes and big dreams – and we need such coalitions in a world that is increasingly unstable, crisis ridden, interdependent, and unjust – cooperation and conflict will exist in an uneasy, but necessary tension. Expecting to get one’s way in every instance in coalitions of a broad and diverse character is at once a fool’s errand and a poor formula to guide the complicated and contradictory process of alliance formation and social change. Our nation’s history provides ample proof of this proposition. Let’s hope that this tension finds a positive resolution in the present moment. There is no reason why supporters of Hillary and Bernie can’t – to employ a familiar saying – “walk and chew gum at same time.” Tens of millions are counting on it.

A comforting song in an unstable time. Sung by the great Bob Marley,

Watching ESPN coverage of Pat Summitt, who died last night at 64. Summitt, if you don’t know, was the legendary and beloved women’s basketball coach at the University of Tennessee. It is hard to overstate her impact on women’s basketball and everyone who came in touch with her. She was, as sport’s commentator Dan Levetar said this morning, a gender pioneer. No one, not even John Wooden the revered coach of UCLA’s men’s basketball team, stood as tall as her in the profession of college basketball. Wooden, nick named the Wizard of Westwood, created teams for the ages, but Summit’s hand – albeit with an assist from the passage of Title 9 – was nearly singular in bringing women’s basketball out of the shadows and turning into a sport that commanded national attention. No one did more to make the playground and the gym into a welcoming space where young girls and women honed their basketball skills, fiercely competed, and grew in confidence and so many other ways. Time won’t easily erase her legacy.

http://www.wsenetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Screen-shot-2012-05-29-at-9.04.49-PM.png

(Receiving Freedom Medal from President Obama in 2012)

UK voters decided to leave the European Union yesterday. From this side of the pond, things don’t look good. The right wing drove what turned into a very ugly process and initiative is in its hands in the vote’s wake.

And we know from our own experience that initiative counts for a lot. Reagan grabbed it upon his election in 1980 and George W., notwithstanding quite substantial protests actions, did the same in the wake of 9/11. And I don’t have to remind you what followed from that.

If I lived in the UK, my watchword would be “watch out.” Especially if you are an immigrant or person of color. Too often people on the left discuss political events without taking a close look at the actual balance of class and social forces.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/eu-vote-uk-diminished-politics-poisoned-racism?CMP=share_btn_fb

The visit to Orlando by President Obama and Vice President Biden surely gave some comfort to the people of that city, first and foremost, to the grieving families and the gay community. But only the passage of time and sustained mutual support will relieve the profound grief, despair, and anger that so many feel.

After all, nothing prepares people to absorb the horror, shock, and pain when hate, violence, and guns fuse and descend on a city. Orlando is no different. The mass killing of 49 people, only because they were following their hearts and desires, tore a gaping wound in its emotional fabric.

What adds to the grief is that this terrible hate crime took place in a space where the victims and survivors were able to love safely, freely and unapologetically.

The killer knew that. And it informed his twisted calculus and actions.

That the perpetrator, whose humanity had left him long before he pulled the trigger on his automatic assault weapon, made an allusion to ISIS in his conversations with the police, doesn’t make it any less of a hate crime. It tells us something, but exactly what, we don’t yet know. And political leaders should be careful not to draw any premature conclusions – not least a decision to rain down bombs on the traumatized people of Syria. We tried that before in the same region and look where it landed us.

At this moment, appeals to pass gun control legislation make obvious sense, but if nothing was done in the wake of Newtown it is hard to believe that something will be done now. The likelihood is that Republican lawmakers, dutifully following script, will act as the water boys of the gun manufacturers, echo right wing radio talk show hosts, coddle their reactionary grassroots base, and blame the president.

Which is ironic because the president by and large stood tall, spoke eloquently, and acquitted himself quite well this week. The same however can’t be said about Hillary or Bernie. Bernie was slow to the switch, while Hillary’s narrative pivoted on the “fight against international terrorism,” which we know only too well can be very problematic, to say the least.

But what troubles me much, much more is the reaction of Trump. His remarks have been off the charts, indecent, and inflammatory. He has made no effort to give comfort to the families or unify the nation. Everything that has come out of his mouth has sown hatred and division.

His talking points are an affront to our country’s best values, traditions, and habits of everyday life — solidarity, neighborliness, celebration of differences, pride in our diverse peoples and cultures, welcoming place to immigrants, and commitment to equality, peace, and justice.

Trump hung his hat this week on suspicion, paranoia, fear, and retaliation. He repeated that all Muslims, including those born here, are strangers to be shunned and despised, even hunted down, locked up, tortured, and deported. In his view, whole regions of the world are enemy zones and prime targets for the unrestrained use of military force.

I have to hope that the unintended consequence of all this is to give millions reason and incentive to do whatever is necessary to defeat Trump and his right-wing Republican cohorts in a landslide in November. Such an outcome would save our country from a very bleak future, create a favorable terrain to pursue a progressive agenda in 2017 and beyond, and constitute one way to honor the lives of 49 innocent people.

Over the next few months, progressive should join with labor and the many other social organizations in their efforts to register, speak to, educate, and bring voters to the polls on election day. This might not feel radical, but in this moment it is. It is counterproductive to squirrel ourselves off in initiatives that highlight this or that issue, or to spend too much time discussing the future of the “political revolution,” while keeping a distance from the practical tasks and conversations that are necessary to win the election.

Indeed, the challenge is to convince 70 million or more voters to cast a ballot for democracy, equality, economic security, and sanity. In the Democratic Party primary, Hillary received roughly 16 million votes and Bernie 12.5 million. It doesn’t take a math genius to figure out that much work needs to be done to convince approximately 45 million more voters to pull the lever for Hillary and other Democrats in the fall. No, Hillary isn’t the ideal candidate, but to insist on pure choices in this — or any other — election reflects a political immaturity that will leave the left on the margins of the struggle, during and after the election.

For radical social movements, Bernie’s included, the imperative is always to scale up and out, to embed themselves among particular sections of the people — working people, people of color, women, and the young — who possess – when united – the strategic power to turn protest actions into sustained challenges to the existing social order. But in recent years, no social movement, as promising as each has been, has able to do that.

Which brings me back to this moment. In the next few months, Bernie’s movement — and other social movements and the broadly defined non-sectarian left — have an opportunity not only to give a big-time licking to a right-wing extremist strongman, but also to extend and deepen their connections to these (strategic) sections of the people’s movement, and thus acquire transformative potential. Let’s hope we set aside sectarian and purist notions and practices and seize this moment.