A Petard of One’s Own


Oral sex might not have been the subject of every ’70s rocksong, but it was the most discernible reason for ’70s rockbands’ existence. The Crazy Muchachos correct the record by lightly adapting a brief history of classic pop to work in the phrase “suck my dick” wherever possible. It’s like what two 12-year-olds would think was endlessly funny, and be right; the two 12-year-olds in this case were guitarist Jesse Krakow and percussionist Jon Damon, who came up with their persona-band The Crazy Muchachos in 1989. They show unlimited ingenuity and perfect comic timing in the application of their one idea; while titled “The Crazy Muchachos in Super Magic Destiny: A Night of Succulence” as befits an epic three decades in the making, in every sense this could have been titled “Never Get Old.” It’s as if some supervillain had reversed reality and, instead of tampering with recordings to make them all “clean” versions (like our own world’s supervillains do), took every innocuous ballad and dubbed curses over it (“Speaking words of wisdom, SUCK MY DI-IHHHCK!”, etc.). On premiere (and closing) night at Sid Gold’s Request Room, towering vocalists of New York’s divebar pantheon like Mike Fornatale, Joelle Lurie and Xavier Smith joined the Muchachos onstage, in ones and twos like a downsized Last Waltz and for a full-cast finale that put me in mind of some historic, “We are the world, we are the SUCK MY DICK” moment. Krakow is equally adept at orchestrating satirical bloat and sending up solo pomposity, as we see when he gives a lone guitar encore of a seriously soiled “Message in a Bottle”; that song seems to stem from the Muchachos’ promised followup suite, Fuck My Butt, and if this and the final encore by Krakow, Damon and fearless pianist Leslie Goshko of a similarly defiled “Don’t Stop Believing” are any measure, the duo can be counted on to produce an equivalent Number Two. With a gag a minute, “Super Magic Destiny” will get a clap from me every time!



Comics: Can They Be for Kids?

(Text of an address given to the OCM BOCES School Library System in Syracuse, NY, on April 28, 2017, in advance of the organization’s activities centered on Free Comic Book Day, May 6, 2017.)

This is a question that actually gets pondered a lot these days, as admirers of the artform lament its shrinking audience, and feel that a once youth-oriented medium has turned its back on the readership that first made it a phenomenon.


(art by David Mack)

The built-in irony, of course, is that at their height in America, comics were considered for kids but not good for them; at best a rudimentary gateway to “real” reading, in prose novels, and at worst a corrupting and coarsening pastime that would spoil them for literature if not indeed induce them to mass-murder.


The medium would hover between self-consciousness and self-confidence for many eras; the empirically unsound association of comics with so-called juvenile delinquency would help spell the demise of superhero and horror comics judged respectively fascist and depraved, but the readership too was hungering to stay loyal to the artform while putting away childish things — GIs who had just saved the world from a real-life supervillain in World War Two wanted to read about real life, so comics about their war experiences briefly became popular…


(art by Joe Simon & Jack Kirby)

…EC, the company that anti-comics crusaders had focused on, gambled to keep its already uncommonly adult audience by replacing its lurid horror parables with more grounded subject matter…



(art by Johnny Craig [upper] and Jack Kamen [lower])

…the first attempts at novel-length, everyday-world comics were made…


(art by Matt Baker)

…and romance comics, the most successful of any of these endeavors, flooded the shelves, both enforcing domestic norms and acknowledging the value of loving rather than fighting, for the largest female audience American comics had ever had to that point or would have for decades after.


(art by Jack Kirby & Joe Simon)

When superheroes returned with the optimistic, world-saving attitude of the JFK years, Marvel Comics in particular sought to split the juvenile/adult difference by incorporating the soap-opera of the romance comics into their superhero stories, and by actively engaging the social issues that raged in the 1960s and courting a college-age readership that began to gravitate toward their comics.


(art by John Romita, Sr.)

Kids do tend to sense when they’re being condescended too though, and attempts to “elevate” the medium, which were prefaced on the assumption that the medium was inferior and its readers in need of intervention, were often the true ephemera. Several generations will still remember being dissuaded from reading comics or literature from the stiff, institutional Classics Illustrated…


(artist unknown)

…and the wave of “relevant” comics, though legitimate benchmarks in the artform’s process of maturation, were ridiculed widely even in their day, by kids who didn’t know, and didn’t have to, that many of these comics originated in then-President Nixon’s appeal to comics publishers to somehow influence the tide of youthful drug use.


(art by Neal Adams)

The inauthenticity was plain to kids and teens being lectured across the so-called generation gap, though this experience probably gave a lot of them their first exercise in ironic distance from pop-cultural proselytizing.

Still, we find ourselves participating in a lecture about comics today; and in classrooms and cultural centers around the world. This is partly because the ambition and sophistication of the medium has steadily evolved; we don’t need comic abridgments of classic novels, because some comics fill the role of complex reflections on eternal issues themselves.


It is also in part because the very currency of cultural legitimacy has shifted; through a combination of generational turnover and dissolution of top-down definitions of what qualifies as significant art — not just academic but vernacular, not just European but Global, not just industrial but aboriginal, not only narratives and perspectives which favor the patriarchal — the value of art in different modal voices is more recognized as a scope of inquiry into how we can express ourselves and understand each other.

There is in fact scholarship dating back to the first half of the 20th century that indicates that the immediacy and attractiveness of comics helps develop literacy by engaging reluctant readers. A typical sentiment comes from a 1944 study that affirmed that “instruction must begin in the ongoing activities and concerns of the learner and that its effectiveness depends on the efficiency of the form of communication that is employed.” In the post-World War II period, Will Eisner, who had made his name with an adult-aimed, newspaper-supplement comic, The Spirit, which established many of the techniques we see in acclaimed graphic novels today…



…was employed by the U.S. military to produce a journal in comic form to impart techniques of preventive maintenance on vehicles and weaponry, which saved real lives; to this no-nonsense branch of government, the educative potential of comics was clear.



Ben Katchor, a contemporary cartoonist who was the first to get a MacArthur fellowship, amusingly yet pointedly asserts his view that literature without pictures is a relatively brief anomaly in the history of human narrative; that heavy illustration was common in the Victorian novel, for instance, and this tendency has reasserted itself in the current surge of graphic literature.


(art by Gustave Doré)

Much has been said and studied about the way that meaning is constructed, and shades of interpretation enabled, by the comic form’s requirement of simultaneous textual reading and visual experience, and the higher understanding that coalesces in the mind’s reconciliation of these modes. The most groundbreaking exploration of these ideas, and of the way that comics can embody the processing and perception of complex relationships because each page is both a linear progression of narrative, and a system of juxtaposed images, moments in time, etc., is Unflattening by Dr. Nick Sousanis, a thesis on cognition that he produced as a comic, to demonstrate to us and keep discovering for himself the way that creativity by its nature is a path to comprehension.




(art by Nick Sousanis [above three])

This of course is a scale model of the information environment we all now live in. The visual has more primacy now than it has since the eras of hieroglyphics or religious stained-glass windows; in the current day, this is not just a matter of the displacement of the page by the (smartphone/tablet/TV) screen, where the image is dominant even though literal text still plays a major role; the complex of media we now experience is sensed spatially, a concept which makes the visual more accentuated because it is more unframed.



The page of a book is a container of information; now, the information stream surrounds us — in simultaneous audio feeds to our earbuds, textual information on our phones, and news or personal messages while we work on a computer, along with the animated billboards, monumental projections, lasers and neon of the modern public space and, soon enough, the cartoon phantoms and floating readouts of augmented reality and head-up display.

Helmet & shield


Comics both model this simultaneity, and provide a means of following it at a personalized pace. (And, often, at a size comparable to the intimate scale that we have become attached to in handheld devices.)

Thus, comics have gone beyond an aid to conventional reading; to decipher a way of life defined by systems of information is a matter not just of literacy, but citizenship; in the semiotic sense of symbols and social standards and competing beliefs all being a kind of language, texts surround us, and comics contain the apparatus to navigate these meanings.

The librarian and comics theorist Damian Duffy points out that comics fandom provided a prototype of the kind of selective cultural communities that later became common on the internet; Philadelphia librarian Matt Catron told me that his branch’s commitment to holding comic cons is intended to strengthen a sense of community by acknowledging and serving the distinct affinity groups of comics fans and cosplayers; Queens, NY children’s librarian Maryanne Olson told me that she mindfully builds graphic-novel and manga collections that will expose her dominant population to the narratives of cultures not their own, so that “the library can be a space of encounter.”

In doing this, she speaks of the balance between “the mirror and the window,” though the mirror can catch passersby too, and everyone has become more aware of how important that mirror is to those who have not been accustomed to seeing themselves reflected anywhere else.

Such identities are usually formulated in youth, of course, and it’s interesting, in light of our opening question, that the current wave of comic characters representing an unprecedented range of cultures and gender associations includes so many who are also kids. The most publicized ones have been Kamala Khan, the Muslim-American teen Ms. Marvel…


(art by Adrian Alphona [left] and Sara Pichelli [right])

…and RiRi Williams, the 15-year-old successor to Tony Stark, known as Ironheart.


(art by Jeff Dekal)

The latter is part of a telling parallel trend, of youthful heroes, often female and kids of color, who excel at science or other cerebral pursuits. Myths of inferior intellect are dispelled and ambition is modeled by Lunella Lafayette, the 9-year-old inventor known as Moon Girl…


(art by Amy Reeder)

…Nadia Pym, the young-adult Russian exile who’s recruiting an institute of unheralded girl scientists and is known as The Wasp…



(art by Elsa Charretier [upper and lower])

…boy-genius (and current Hulk) Amadeus Cho…


(art by Stonehouse)

…and my and artist Paolo Leandri’s own oceanography prodigy and highschool-sophomore mutant mermaid, Mirta del Mar, Aquaria.



(art by co-creator Paolo Leandri, colors by Dominic Regan)

Each issue of The Wasp’s comic has an interview with two real-life woman scientists in its backmatter, and popular comics from entirely on the real-life side include the recent Primates, a charming and textured entwined biography of Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Birute Galdikas.


(art by Maris Wicks)

Characters like these represent what I believe is a fundamental shift in the aspirational nature of superheroes. In his pioneering work of comics analysis, The Great Comic Book Heroes, Jules Feiffer recalls how much he hated Batman’s sidekick, Robin, for the reason that he could dream about one day being Batman, but he had no time to become this perfect boy champion. By contrast, characters like Ms. Marvel and Ironheart are the headliners, and very popular with fans. Whereas Robin is someone a 1940s boy already couldn’t be, yet a standard they felt held to, the Lunellas and Kamalas, flawed, promising and underestimated, are each variations of who a 2010s girl already is, but hasn’t been valued as.


The Queens children’s librarian, Maryanne Olson, told me that when she surveyed the kids about what they wanted to see more of in comics, “more girls” was the choice of both the girls and the boys; this is one demonstration of how comics can create and cross communities.

Another is a remarkable project by the Italy-based NGO known as COSV in which kids from mainstream Lebanese society collaborated on making comics with kids from Palestinian refugee camps, as a way to get these mutually isolated groups to appreciate each other; the program has paired kids and comics professionals from several other countries as well, including Jordan, Morocco, and Macedonia.




Free Comic Book Day programs could include such collaborations — cooperative activities provide a good social model for developing personalities, and the enjoyment of the process helps endear kids to a lifelong-learning practice.

There could also be discussion sessions, in which views are respected but can be put to the test. Graphic novels like Marguerite Van Cook’s The Late Child, about growing up in the rubble of postwar London…


(art by James Romberger, color by Marguerite Van Cook)

…or Kindred, an adaptation of Octavia Butler’s classic tale of time-travel to the slavery era, can put kids in the shoes of those facing traumas we still feel the effects of today.


(art by John Jennings)

And cultural relations are portrayed at least once as farce and once as tragedy in the selection of Free Comics your area has received. The Fresh off the Boat: Legion of Dope-itude comic has fun with both the conventions of superhero fiction and the assumptions of ethnic stereotype, while tucked into the back of the Avatar comic is a story from Briggs Land, a series about a Cliven Bundy-style bunker community of White Nationalists. These two alone cover a valuable spectrum of both hopes for harmony, and anxieties about division, that may be on your kids’ minds in these times.



(art by Jorge Corona [upper] and Tula Lotay [lower])

Between hands-on comic-making, and discussion of comics, could be a concepting session for some new story or character.

What personal experience makes a good story? What would constitute honesty and how can the strict facts be imaginatively embellished? What kind of fictional world would you see as desirable, and which might you see as dystopian?


(“Ms. America”/America Chavez art by Jamie McKelvie)

What kind of hero might you create — when you think of a hero or villain, what traits of behavior or characteristics of appearance do you picture, and what may this say about how you view your peers of different backgrounds, or certain public figures you see in the media?



(art by Frank Espinosa [upper and lower])

Comic artist and educator Frank Espinosa told me how, in conceiving the content and flavor of some educative comics he and writer Sajan Saini did for the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab and School of Engineering, he wanted to aim the work at “the 10-year-old inside of the scientist. The more we talked to them, the more I could see their eyes light up at a sentence or a word — that moment in time was what I wanted to capture; the wonder that got them started on this long journey.”

So, comics are for villages, and children, and teachers and anyone else who isn’t done learning.

Great thanks to Matt Catron, Allison Comes, Damian Duffy, Frank Espinosa, Arlene Frei, Maryanne Olsen, Andrea Plazzi, Sajan Saini, Nick Sousanis and Andrea Viscusi

Fuller references and further reading:

Damian Duffy dissertation:


Nick Sousanis’ online journal: http://spinweaveandcut.com/

Be the Force

Carrie Fisher 1956 — 2016


Since a long time ago it’s been easy to forget that in a decade far, far away, the Empire and the Rebel Alliance were besties compared to the partisans for Lucas or Spielberg, some of us loyal to Close Encounters of the Third Kind‘s cosmic exchange-program ethereality, and others to the first Star Wars‘ galactic ass-kicking spectacle. I was a snob about Star Wars from opening week; the plotlines from Jack Kirby’s Fourth World and the checklist from Joseph Campbell’s collected works and the more-than-passing resemblances to Dune and Foundation and Flash Gordon, as well as the nostalgia for morally uncomplicated warfare, all seemed like stuff my 13-year-old self had seen before. One thing I’d never seen was the upfront, indispensable presence of a female hero, whose leadership and steely wisdom were admired more than (though at the same time as) her attractiveness and feminine identity were acknowledged. Carrie Fisher didn’t break any precedents with this role, she created one. And then went on to make her personal truth as much of a pop-culture classic as the fantasy she first became widely known for — all the more an achievement as we moved further into an era of filtered and staged “reality.” Redefining admissible womanhood with unapologetic self-acceptance and personal style; making marks as memoirist, novelist, scriptwriter, social observer and public counselor; hilariously disrupting the conventions of celebrity comportment because she was a continual, natural “character,” she showed generations what it looks like to be yourself. It’s why anybody can be as brave and irreverent and realistic and kvetchy and joyous as she was whether they’re fighting the addiction and mental illness her honest witness helped keep at bay, or some completely different demon, and why her life story was about so much more than her. She didn’t have answers, but she was always willing to talk, and she taught much more often than she may have known. We’d never seen anyone like her, and it’s her greatest testament that, in more and more ways, we will.



The election-cycle of 2016 may go down as The Year Without Context…but just because candidates like Trump and Johnson have an intolerably narrow focus doesn’t mean voters and pundits have to part company with reason to counter them.

When Trump said Obama was the “founder” of ISIS, the sentences which immediately followed made clear that he was speaking more metaphorically about America’s imperial stance creating enemies down the line — an important policy point that Hillary herself has not heeded in her Senate votes or her State Department performance, though, since Trump is an imbecile, and fixates onto whatever line gets audience acclaim like a five-year-old who doesn’t know when to let a joke go, he doubled down on the very word the media were gleeful to isolate.

When Johnson didn’t remember where or what Aleppo is or why he should care, he regrouped almost immediately, showing a firm grasp of the Syria debacle, not to mention an utterly irresponsible vision of the U.S. somehow ceasing the bloodshed by trusting in Putin and Assad’s collusive good intentions.

Aspiring leaders-of-everything like this provide more than enough lack of substance to be called out on; those of us who live by the soundbite can die by the negation.

I remember calling up the local Libertarian congressional candidate the first year I was eligible to vote, and asking him about animal-rights issues, and him fumbling for a minute before saying his party had no position on such issues, but might be for animal welfare measures since pets are “property” — those looking for an alternative to Trump like to see the Libertarians as being trustworthy technicians who are above politics; Johnson’s logistically thorough and emotionally perfunctory view of Syria is just another demonstration that his party is above citizenship and basic human community.

The Greens in this country are more a party of symbol than a matter of fact, focusing on national stature more than building foundations for a meaningful presence up the social chain from school boards to town councils to statehouses (though the symbolism Jill Stein purveys, and the spotlight it can attract to issues that are under-reported by the media and under-acknowledged by politicians, like the Dakota Access pipeline, could be a crucial supplement to supposed liberal standard-bearer Clinton’s conscience).

Ironically, since she’s the only nominee left standing who has significant government experience, Hillary Clinton is the candidate judged most on her deeds rather than her words. Every week it seems that an extra shoe drops that makes it necessary for me to strenuously block out facts in order to take the self-preserving step of voting for her in a field of contenders who are even more remote, rightward, or questionably viable than she is.

Context is, in this case, not everything but nothing. Giving Hillary our vote may be the best way of buying a bit of time. But how did we get to the point where, to avert the unthinkable, we have to agree not to think?

The one you’re with


Lotta hostility in the webmosphere, from both “sides” in the Bernie/Hillary contest — if, strangely, a bit more from the “winning” one — and I think it’s because both of us still feel helpless. When that happens, blame is what balms us, because that’s always something to “do,” after the fact, when we feel we can’t do anything beforehand. For weeks, I’ve seen some Bernie supporters talking about who they’ll “blame” once Trump gets elected, since Hillary seems less likely to beat him in polls; ever since Hillary claimed victory, the posts warning Bernie-ites to vote for Hillary or be responsible for everything from mass deportations to nuclear war have increased exponentially. We all fear this country is in an irreversible decline, and are focusing on the recriminations.

Whether Bernie or Hillary became president (and Hillary still might), it would be the beginning of 4-8 years of hard work for every one of us, either to hold them to their promises or make sure they can get anything done (we all went to sleep after Obama won in ’08, thus ceding the the country, and maybe the future, to the extreme right in 2010).

Blame is a passive sport. Bernie supporters, it’s A VOTE; voters’ choices in a democracy are sacred, and I don’t consider any of my friends who chose Hillary to be agents of military intervention or mass surveillance; only the leaders themselves do those things, and we citizens have to stay on (free-)speaking terms. And Hillary backers, it’s A CAMPAIGN; candidates fight it out and raise controversies and stay in for the sake of the many people who supported them, and if they don’t win, they sometimes continue to lead their constituency, because all voices are supposed to be at the table in a democracy.

Let’s all keep talking — to each other — and working, rather than just talking. As to November, Bernie-ites, if the system is rigged, then I guess those who pull the lever for Hillary aren’t “culpable” anyway (spoiler: they aren’t in any way either); and Hillary-ites, since Hillary “got more popular votes than anyone,” then if the relative minority who didn’t vote for her in primaries don’t vote for her in the general, it won’t affect her chances, let alone be an endorsement of sexism and genocide. To both “sides”: do the math.

Guess We Can’t?


I think the main reason to paint Bernie Sanders as the candidate of the too-young is that he and they have two generations of libelous stereotypes in common. His lack of “realism” is code for the 1960s counterculture that produced him, a hippie stereotype that’s been rebooted for the well-informed, clear-eyed millennials who respond to his message. Bill Clinton ran against his own involvement in the dissent of the ’60s, and Hillary invokes an antagonism to it in how she characterizes Bernie.

At the same time, she tries to portray herself as a more legitimate veteran of it. It’s been well-memed that Bernie’s credentials as a principled and dignified dissident in those days are much stronger and more clearly documented than Hillary’s (she was supporting ultra-right candidate Barry Goldwater in the same era). The interpretation of the years since presents a similar paradox.

Sanders, a bit absurdly for a 74-year-old man, is depicted as some naive outsider, and Clinton, as the resourceful professional who has made the system work from within. But Bernie has been in the system for 35 years, holding office and getting elected to ever higher positions and accomplishing many progressive goals.

He is a living example of how humanist values can survive in the context of American politics; he is only a rare one because it is so seldom tried, and the machinery of political parties’ leadership tends to discourage it and desert its adherents.

And yet, while the “New Democrat” movement spearheaded by Bill Clinton has capitulated time and again to the right wing of the GOP, often before the legislative battle begins (on lopsided, corporation-favoring trade deals; on wars of choice), Bernie has gotten significant legislation passed, to make alternative energy affordable, to protect pensions, to help ensure healthcare for veterans, to reign in excesses of the financial class, in many cases with Republican co-sponsors.

Hillary, on the other hand, is not known for adjusting the ideals of the ’60s, but abandoning them. Her legislative record is almost 100-percent Republican (voting for the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, etc.). She runs on a background of accomplishments —- like her signature service with the Children’s Defense Fund — that all occurred when she was not holding elective office; and when she was a policy-maker in the first Clinton White House, the CDF’s founder broke with her bitterly over the social services gutted by the 1996 “welfare reform” she championed; not the most encouraging indicator for when she might govern. Most troubling of all, she runs not only on what Bernie “can’t” accomplish (i.e., single-payer national healthcare), but on what she herself couldn’t (i.e., her failed “Hillarycare” of the early 1990s, which in fact was defeated due to another clumsy ceding of the narrative to the plan’s opponents) — this rallying cry of expectations curtailed before you start should not be an agenda for anyone to feel they are voting “for.”

Bernie’s generation of youth saw the world for what it wasn’t but should be; many of his peers self-destructed in antagonizing radicalism, or self-defeated in joining the status quo and becoming indistinguishable from it. Some, like Bernie, adapted their convictions to the daily realities of those they seek to serve, and keyed their message to the interests that reasonable, struggling people can share. The current young generation sees very sharply “how the world works,” and recognizes, in paralyzing student debt and narrow employment prospects and perpetual war and environmental peril, that it is not working for them. They are ready to do the work of citizenship themselves, seasoned by the uphill battle against moneyed interests and conformist politics and ingrained demoralization and suppressed democratic processes they have already taken on in supporting Sanders. They are hearing his call to participate in their own country and destiny, based on the example he has set for decades; not to trust in a unitary figure to do as president the exact opposite of everything she is on record as having worked for (war, big business, secrecy) in previous positions.

There’s a big difference between being tempered by the realities of politics and being compromised by its preconceptions. If Bernie is not the standard-bearer for a genuinely-named Democratic Party in November, it won’t be because of what he “couldn’t” do, but because of what the elites of our divided society, and we its weary and discouraged citizens, won’t do.

Do It Yourself


When did we become a country that always insists on “facing reality” rather than challenging the odds? It’s probably a mark of our detachment from the processes of true democracy that the concept of persuasion rather than conquest has become so unknown to us — the majoritarianism of the Reagan era put an end to discussion, and Bush the First’s militarism put an end to diplomacy, and subsequent Democratic presidents left those gaps in place, since it makes their own base and hopefully the broad electorate easier to manage.

The media, fixated not so much on the status quo as on predictable outcomes, since they too have been influenced by this national allegiance to the undemanding, is already fitting the Sanders campaign into a pre-set narrative of his inability to “win.” When Sanders says the race is not about electing a candidate but spurring a revolution, it is editorialized that he’s softening the blow of defeat for his supporters; when he vows to keep campaigning after losing more Super Tuesday states than he won, he’s described as “defiant.”

The first assumption makes no room for the idea that campaigns can be for principles rather than personalities; the premise of the second is that hierarchy supersedes all legitimate issues that might be raised, and the “frontrunner” must be deferred to. In a nation of followers, demoralization sets in when the single individual that citizens have focused their hopes on is defeated or departs from his or her principles; Sanders’ emphasis on a movement rather than one man is disruptive to the permanent bureaucracy’s status quo and to the media’s predictable narrative.

A dynamic electorate necessitates an alert leadership and media; that alertness requires adaptability and dialogue. The presumptively foregone nature of Hillary Clinton’s nomination is the only criterion by which Sanders or any other challenger could be considered “defiant” (and I suspect that the stability of Clinton’s dynastic ascent is a comforting concept to a media that refused to see the viability of Trump).

Inexorable succession of established interests and familiar political brands has set in as a generational commonplace — for the first 25 years of my life, only one president (Reagan) ever completed two terms (LBJ got in because someone was shot, then only ran again once; Nixon left less than halfway through his second term to avoid imprisonment; Ford served out Nixon’s time and was never elected at all; and Carter was cashiered after four years), so political ferment felt natural. In the subsequent 25, excepting Bush Sr.’s single term, *every* president got reelected and stayed in, be it Bill Clinton (originally sent to Washington with less than a majority in a three-way race, and later surviving an impeachment), Bush 2 (originally installed by a court order), or Obama (elected handily each time yet opposed by at least half the country, and not just the yahoos but his disillusioned base too). America can scarcely remember a time when elected office was not a prize of the dominant rather than a dispensation of the masses.

Ironically, as the Contract With America/Tea Party/Trump revolution the post-Reagan GOP stoked now spins completely out of the old-guard’s control and the post-Clinton New Democrat takeover has long since supplanted that party’s traditionally liberal rank-and-file, we’ve seen the DNC do everything it can to cement a one-candidate primary season (not yet successfully) while Republican figureheads like Romney are calling their voters to ensure a contested convention (in the likely case that truly nothing Trump does can cause a self-destruct) — on the surface a strange switch of the parties’ historically-assigned egalitarian and top-down roles, but with each endeavor in fact designed to keep the lid on the independence of each party’s own voters.

In representative politics anywhere else in the world, and in our own country before 1984, a crowded field and a contest of ideas was a given. That kind of debate emulates an involved discussion among the populace, while current American leadership merely models submission to authority. But in 2016, the feeling of either “side” having an heir-apparent and of business-as-inevitable is lower than it’s been in 30 years, and voters’ sense of investment in and influence over the outcome (both Democrats and Republicans) is higher than at any point in that time. The real reason that political and media establishments alike fear Trump and Sanders is that they represent popular choice. Trump is additionally feared, of course, because he’s asking people to “choose” a dictator; in the oligarchy that America has become, Sanders is even scarier to entrenched interests, because he’s asking people to shoulder their own, participatory leadership.

That’s why both candidates should keep pushing their causes, to the conventions or even into independent runs. But what is of most importance is that, on November 9th and well beyond, the 320 million who aren’t running stay in the fight.