Neo-fascist Trump spoke publicly on Friday the day after a jury in NYC convicted him on 34 counts related to election tampering in 2016. I heard on the news about this speech and decided I should listen to it, see for myself what he said, how he said it and what the reaction was from his supporters listening live.

The most striking thing to me was how at the very beginning and at the very end Trump focused on the issue of immigration. He did so in his usual racist way, stating clearly that “we’re losing our country.” He said, as if it was happening all over the country, that “we can’t have little league baseball anymore because of migrants in tents on baseball fields.” He threw in “we’re living in a fascist state” within this immigration context.

For Trump, his campaign is a last stand for the so-called “white race.”

Also of note was Trump’s body language. For almost the entire 33 minutes, he looked in one direction, off to the side. He never looked in the direction of the cameras and only once, maybe twice, looked to the other side. It’s like he was in a trance, possessed by some strange force.

There were no jokes or humor in this speech.

Of some note is the fact that after receiving applause at the beginning from his supporters, there was only one more time that they applauded until the speech ended. It’s like they were thrown off by his crazy demeanor and hard to follow lines of attack.

In between his racist attacks on immigrants, the rest of his speech was lie after lie, attacks on the US legal system, incoherent rantings often about things that had no relation to his conviction or even his Presidential candidacy.

The possibility of this sick, evil and deranged man being President should motivate everyone who believes in basic human decency and elections-not-dictators, from the ultra left to centrists and even rightists. Nothing is more important electorally than his defeat on November 5.

Ted Glick has been a progressive activist, organizer and writer since 1968. He is the author of the recently published books, Burglar for Peace and 21^st Century Revolution. More info can be found at https://tedglick.com. 

So what’s the state of the horse race for the Presidency? I’ve done a little research, and here’s what I’ve come up with.

I looked at the polling results for the first three weeks of May at the Real Clear Politics website by pollsters who gave the option of not just Biden and Trump but Kennedy, West and Stein. There are six polls which did this: Fox, The Economist, I&I/TIPP, USA Today, ABC and NPR. When you count up and average the numbers, what you get is Trump and Biden each at about 41%, Kennedy at 8%, West at 1.5% and Stein at 1%.

Of course, under the USA’s severely antiquated political system, who wins the popular vote doesn’t determine the winner; it’s the Electoral College. But these polling numbers do give a pretty decent sense of the state of play 5 ½ months before the big November 5^th election. Here’s how I’d summarize it:

-It’s very much a toss-up between Trump and Biden, which is marginally better for Biden than it was a couple of months ago before his State of the Union speech.

-Kennedy’s campaign is not resonating with the vast majority of voters. Prior to this month’s polling results, he was sometimes at 12% or even higher.

-As has been true for every Green Party Presidential candidate since Ralph Nader’s campaign in 2000, it is likely to get no more than 1% of the vote (their 2020 candidate, Howie Hawkins, got 1/3 of a percent). And it looks similar for West.

If you’re a Stein or West supporter, these are not happy results. On the other hand, they are certainly the only ones who are consistently Left in their positions on issues. They are both strong on the need for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, an end to US military support for this genocidal war, etc. If you are progressive and believe that taking the right position on that issue and on other issues is the sole criterion used in deciding whom to vote for, one of them is your candidate.

As far as Kennedy, I would not be surprised if he ends up getting no more than 4-5% of the vote, possibly less. His support comes from both progressives and conservatives. I hope that many of those on the Left who are supporting him right now end up not voting for him and that all of those on the Right who support him continue their support all the way to the voting booth since it would take votes away from Trump.

It’s a fact that, historically, third party Presidential candidates who have no chance of winning usually see their support drop precipitously as election day nears and the handwriting is on the wall. A prime example is Nader in 2000, who I supported, so I know that three days before the election the latest polls had him at 5% of the vote. But on election day he ended up getting just 2.7%.

There is a way Stein or West could try to increase their voting percentages. They could start saying publicly that they appreciate the great danger Trump represents and, accordingly, despite their deep problems with Joe Biden, their campaigns will take a different approach toward battleground states compared to other states. They could say that they will not campaign in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia or North Carolina and that in those states they encourage their supporters to let their conscience be their guide as far as who they vote for. They would then campaign solely in the other states, which is a big majority of them, where there’s a near certainty based on past election results that either Trump or Biden will win—states like California, New York, most deep South, Rocky Mountain and New England states.

This is not a new idea. I was one of the Green Party members who in 2004-5 began to put it forward as an approach that took into account the 18^th century, US electoral college reality of who wins elections and the desirability of organizing under Democratic rule as we build toward an independent progressive movement to eventually win political power. Twenty years later, after five very weak showings in the GP’s Presidential vote totals, national GP leaders have consciously rejected this tactic, seeing it as an unprincipled and opportunistic capitulation to the two-party duopoly.

I wish Cornell West would take an approach different than the GP. Maybe his taking the lead on this question would have an impact on the GP finally changing their tactics to adjust to the unjust, US electoral college, non-proportional way of electing Presidents.

Ted Glick has been a progressive activist, organizer and writer since 1968. He is the author of the recently published books, Burglar for Peace and 21^st Century Revolution. More info can be found at https://tedglick.com. 

The recent decision by the Biden Administration to stop the years-long practice by the Department of Energy of rubber stamping proposed methane gas (LNG) export terminals was a definite victory for the planet and its peoples. It’s a “pause” for about a year, by no means the halt to ANY new fossil fuel projects called for three years ago by the International Energy Agency. But it is the latest sign of the growing political and organizational power of the US and worldwide movement for climate justice and urgent climate action.

This victory almost certainly would not have happened if that movement had not brought many tens of thousands of people into the streets of mid-town Manhattan in NYC on September 17^th. That mass demonstration, combined with 700 or so smaller actions around the world at the same time and hundreds of nonviolent direct action arrests in NYC before and after the 17^th, was not a policy victory but was definitely something which had a big political impact.

And there are other victories being won, such as in the state of New Jersey where I live and am politically active. Here, primarily because of the five-plus years of coordinated work by the Empower New Jersey coalition of 130 or so groups statewide, half of the 12 fracked gas infrastructure projects in the works five years ago when we were formed have been defeated, and two others are likely defeats. Only four of those 12 have been or are likely to be built and go into operation.

What do all three of these victories have in common?

-An EJ analysis: A very big one is a commitment to consciously working to have a broadly based coalition with an anti-racist, environmental justice lens and participation in decision-making from groups based in people of color and low-income communities. Sometimes those two things—a broad coalition and an EJ analysis/involvement—are in conflict, which then weakens the overall effort. But when there is success in doing both, experience has shown that there is an energy and a dynamic which yields positive, sometimes very big, results.

-A healthy internal process: Fortunately, more and more leaders of the many organizations fighting hard on the climate and other issues appreciate that organized efforts need a healthy, democratic internal process of decision making where the perspectives of frontline groups are given special consideration. Also essential is a commitment to listening to and involving young people, working class people, and lgbtq+ people.  This doesn’t mean that there aren’t disagreements and conflicts, sometimes pretty intense, but it does mean that when these develop there is a conscious effort to work to resolve them in an honest and upfront way.

-Multiple tactics: Over the five plus years of the Empower New Jersey coalition’s work there have been a wide range of tactics used, all of which have been necessary to achieve victories: outreach to and building relationships with mass media outlets—visible mass demonstrations—bird dogging those we are pressuring with our demands—nonviolent direct action involving risk of arrest—long distance, visible walks (we did a 50 mile one over five days)—lobbying of relevant elected officials—testifying, in person and online, at meetings of the relevant government bodies and agencies—and probably some more. The targets, the ones who have the power to do the right thing, need to be seeing and feeling us over and over again.

Sometimes, organizing is more like hanging on and refusing to give in despite very bad odds. Sometimes you are wondering much too often if there’s really much hope of defeating the bad things you are fighting. But history shows that if we don’t give up, little by little strengthen the core group of people taking action, increasingly involve significant numbers of people, and use our intelligence and creativity as best we collectively can, then yes, organized people really can defeat organized money backed by corrupt power.

And over time we can create a mass movement with the smarts and strength to bring about the systemic, revolutionary change so urgently needed in this troubled but wonderful world.

Ted Glick has been a progressive activist, organizer and writer since 1968. He is the author of the recently published books, Burglar for Peace and 21^st Century Revolution. More info can be found at https://tedglick.com.