Tired Old So-Called Leftists Give Same Old Excuses For Supporting Obama in 2012

By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

Abject and unwavering support of President Barack Obama on the part of blacks and what used to be called “the left” has made them pretty much irrelevant since Obama emerged as a viable presidential candidate back in mid-2007. After five years of the Age of Obama, four of them as president, one would imagine there are lots of new reasons to endorse him. But even his abject supporters can't find any.

Tired Old So-Called Leftists Give Same Old Excuses For Supporting Obama in 2012

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

For more than four years now, we at Black Agenda Report have chronicled the self-silencing and growing irrelevance of black America and what calls itself “the left” in the age of Obama. Black America has arrayed itself as a veritable wall around the First Black President. But it's not a wall that protects him from racists or Wall Street predators or Pentagon warmongers. The truth has always been that when we stifle our own tongues and circle the wagons trying to silence critics of the White House we only protect the president and his party from accountability to their supposed base: us.

Some African Americans and self-identified leftists relish their irrelevance so much they feel called to preach it. Early this week Carl Davidson and Bill Fletcher published a 5,900 word screed at Alternet.Org with the clumsy and contradictory title The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record … Which Is Why We Are Voting For Him.

5,900 words is pretty long. Out of respect for our readers' precious time we here summarize its tired, recycled and profoundly un-original arguments in the order they were made, as 12 one-sentence bullet points. Some are repeated in whole or in part, because that's what Davidson and Fletcher did, for who knows what reason. Here they are:

  1. The electoral system is pretty much broken.

    Give the authors credit for this brilliant observation. From standards of who can vote varying from state to state and county to county, with the US Senate giving disproportionate representation to states with lower population, with the Supreme Court affirming that corporations are people who get to vote with their money, and electronic voting which makes it audits impossible, it's hard to argue that US elections aren't a rigged game.

  2. Historically, progressives either tail the Democrats, become anarchists, or use elections to expose the bad guys by attacking Dems as well as Repubs, all 3 of which they say “miss the point.

    Tailing the Democrats is tailing the Democrats, period. Your votes and those you persuade and hustle count just the same, whether they are cast while holding your nose in a spirit of “critical support” or as a craven, tongue-wagging Al Sharpton style bootlicker. And if the electoral processes are profoundly broken, what's wrong with using the election to expose the difference between what people want and deserve and what's actually being offered? Why is it better to let a Democrat cut Medicare and social security and privatize public education just because the Democrat isn't a white racist?

  3. Elections are about power, and the left not only has none, but possesses not even a plan to get any.

    The power of elections is symbolic --- they symbolize the will of the people. Elections, even manifestly crooked ones, give a veneer of legitimacy to the “winners.” And Fletcher & Davidson must be leftists themselves, because they don't have power or a plan to get any either.

  4. The Republican right is racist, irrational and often militantly ignorant.

    Wow. These guys don't miss much, do they?

  5. The 2008 Obama campaign was “movement-like” and some kind of “mass revolt”, while Obama was always “a corporate liberal.” Many like Carl and Bill who supported him were “measured skeptics.”

    Back in 2008, Fletcher's term for “measured skeptic” was “critical support.” Being a “measured skeptic” is sort of like being only slightly pregnant. Unless you believe the slogan on their poster, the Obama campaign was never a “movement.” It was an marketing campaign, and won Advertising Age's 2008 award for the best brand of the year. Obama IS a “corporate liberal” but in the context of his campaign being a marketing effort masquerading as a movement, it's more precise to call him that --- a brand, deliberately manufactured as objects to which folks can attach imaginary and desirable qualities like compassion, opposition to wars, and so on.

  6. Fletcher & Davidson credit Obama with taking the troops out of Iraq.

    This is an outright lie, as more than a hundred thousand US – financed mercenaries remain in Iraq indefinitely, and the Obama White House fought till the last minute to get its Iraqi client state to set aside the Status of Forces agreement negotiated under the Bush administration which required all official US forces to leave the country.

  7. The Republican right is attacking Obama cause they're irrational, misogynist and racist and because he's black.

    Same as point number 4. Keen and savvy observers, Davidson and Fletcher are, to have noticed this.

  8. Fletcher and Davis say “this is not a referendum on the 'America of Empire'”, instead it's one that pits “'the America of Popular Democracy'... the changing demographics of the US... against the forces of... far right irrationalism...” so Obama's actual record is beside the point.

    This is almost too weak and shabby to poke fun at. If the discussion is about empire, Fletcher and Davidson can't win. The First Black President invaded and overthrew an African country, Libya, is launching daily drone strikes into the horn of Africa, possibly Mali, and certainly Pakistan and Yemen, and has carried out military adventures Bush and Cheney could only dream of doing without massive upheaval at home. The notion that Obama, the president who coordinated military-style assaults against the occupy movement nationwide last year is on the side of “popular democracy” is also laughable. Obama supporters desperately need his actual record in office excluded from any discussion, or they know they cannot win.

  9. Davidson & Fletcher say that progressive forces are too weak “to supersede or bypass the electoral arena altogether,” don't have candidates that can “outshine” the two corporate parties, so voting for the lesser evil is a practical necessity.

    Such original insights. Who knows what it means to “supersede... the electoral arena,” or what it means for a lefty candidate to “outshine” those of the two parties? If the “shine” is a function of corporate media attention, that's a done deal. Corporate media are key players in choosing the establishment candidates and building the narratives that say what the one-percenters want said and keep what they don't want said off the table.

  10. The Republican right is trying to turn back the “demographic and political clock,” which electing Obama presumably advances.

    Davidson & Fletcher makes this “demographic” argument twice, so they must think it's really important. We're supposed to picture Repubs as foes of even arithmetic and the forward flow of time, which maybe they are. Can't have that, can we?

  11. They say that this really important election is about defending ourselves from the Republican right.

    Ever notice how every darn election is the most important one yet? Or how every election is about defending us from the Republican right. None of them are about defending ourselves from the equally if not more dangerous Democratic right. More Democrats than Republicans in Congress voted for the Bush bailout of September 29. When it lost, Bush called in Barack off the campaign trail. Obama worked the phones and whipped Democratic votes into line so that the Black Caucus for instance, which voted 34 to 8 against the Wall Street bailout on September 29 endorsed it 32 to 10 on October 3. That Bush bailout was only for $3 trillion. Once in office, Barack, according to the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News, handed out $15 or 16 trillion more.

  12. Fletcher and Davidson claim progressives will have more room to operate under Obama, so again, complaining about what the Obama administration has or hasn't done is “of little help at this point.”

    Again, they cannot win discussions about Obama's actual four year record, so Obama supporters have to either lie about that record or rule such discussions off the table.

    As for the notion that progressives have more “room to maneuver and organize” under a Democrat than under Republicans, the last four years should disabuse us of that. Carl's and Bill's nonsense about supporting "the America of Popular Democracy" by organizing independently on the ground while supporting Obama and presumably Congressional Dems as well didn't pass the smell test four years ago and stinks even worse today.  To cite just one glaring example, in just about every state in the union there are pro-privatization, anti-teacher, anti-public education referendums, often binding or tied to state constitutional amendments on the November 2012 ballot that will enable the proliferation of charter schools despite the wishes of local communities.  These are not abstract questions --- they have immediate and far-reaching local and national implications for public education, for the cause of privatization, for the stabilization of communities and much else.  The Obama administration, and usually Republicans as well as corporate Democrats on the ground are aggressive supporters of this stuff.  

    Bill and Carl would have us organize to defend public education, at the same time that we get out the vote for a president and Democrats down the ticket to state legislators, county boards and city halls leading the attacks against teachers and public schools.  

    You could make similar arguments that support for Obama actively directly undermines, subverts and contradicts  local organizing against nuclear power, which Obama is a big fan of, or reining in the telecoms, or opposing wars in Asia and Africa, or standing up for the rights of prisoners or Palestinians or the immigrants who Obama has deported in record-breaking numbers, or the work to keep homeowners in their homes.  How do Bill and Carl expect people on the ground to further any of this work while they make excuses for Obama who directly opposes them on all these fronts and more?

In the end, Fletcher and Davidson are just saying the Republicans are racists and white supremacists, so we're obligated to circle the wagons around Obama, and this simply trumps everything else.

Some of us don't really buy this. Economist Michael Hudson a couple years ago opined that the duty of corporate politicians is to deliver their voting constituencies to their campaign contributors, and this was why Republicans and Democrats sounded different when campaigning but governed in substantially the same way.

The only good thing about Fletcher and Davidson's piece is that they didn't call names, like esteemed elder Amiri Baraka did when he said blacks who didn't support Obama four years ago were "rascals", or like cranky old Ishmael Reed when Jared Ball waved a microphone near him a litle while back. So apart from calling them old and tired, which some of us here at Black Agenda Report confess to as well, we won't play the dozens here.  But their excuses for supporting Obama are shallow, specious and profoundly un-original, the essence of lesser-evilism and tailing behind Democrats. They ought to, and might well be, ashamed to have to make them.

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, and a state committee member of the Georgia Green Party, which has endorsed Jill Stein for president in 2012. Dixon can be reached via the contact page of this web site, or at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com.


Enjoyed the content, Mr. Dixon.

#9: Davidson and Fletcher could be said to be "apple polishing" - polishing an apple to put on the teacher's desk, a term that was already "quaint" when I was young. 

On the "circling the wagons" - this only exists in films not in history but is a good word picture to show a concept.

Flectcher is a Zionist Lackey

Bill Flectcher has long been a "left-wing" Zionist lackey and is on the payroll of IPS -- the outfit that also houses Zionist Phyllis Bennis.  Bennis was instrumental in the collapse of the 2003 anti-war movement and has long denied that Congress is under Zionist control.

Lame Excuses to Hype Progressives to Vote for O-Bomb-er Again

  Even after 4 yrs of Obama neglect, betrayals & sometimes out-right insults!

Fletcher represents many Black [& white] so-called progressives [IMO a better word is 'liberals'] who find ways to make excuses to keep supporting Dims especially now that a Black Dim is POTUS. I would put folks like Norm Solomon & AmyG @ DN! also in this category [I won't even start naming prominent Black Obama hypers- that would take up too much time & space]. These folks had establish creds w their truthful critiques of the Bush / Cheney / Neo-Con cabal- but then either went silent [which generally they didn't- more on that later], made excuses for or actually cheer-leaded the same policies carried out by Obama. IE: Contrast DN! position on Bush's attack on Iraq w their support for O-Bomb-em's  / Killory's / Sue Rice's / NATO's attack on Libya [& now Syria]- the difference is like night & day! Certainly neither Khaddafi nor even Assad had/has any-where near as much blood on their hands as Saddam did- so the lame R2P excuse for DN! hyping FUK-US NATO's & the GCC Tyrants' attacks on Libya & now Syria just don't cut it! 

'After Obama proved that his 'Audacity Was Without  Hope' &  his 'Change Could NOT be Believed In' You'd think so- called progressives' like Fletcher even if they decided personally to vote for Obama, would at least keep that to  themselves & stay issues oriented -&- if asked if they're supporting Obama in 2012- just give a diplomatic type answer like 'I know many progressives have valid reason to be disillusioned w & frustrated by Obama's policies, IMO they're are going to have to weigh their options carefully & vote consciously & without delusions, etc...'  The fact he'd write a piece like this, where his basic position hasn't changed since 4-5 yrs ago, when so many were    caught up in the Obama hype, based on why we must keep Romney /Ryan from the white-House- instead of what Obama's done to earn progressive support- IMO proves that he & those like him [Black or white] are just apologists &/or advocates for Obama & the Dims. It's hard to believe that guys as smart as Fletcher fail to see that Obama's spent the past 4 yrs stiff-arming his Black / Brown & progressive base that helped put his Black @$$ in the White-house in 2008! What else does this guy have to do before it clicks in w Blacks & progressives that he's got NO Real Respect & Appreciation for us & he only does a poly-trickal minimum [generally as rhetoric]- just so we all don't kick his ass to the curb come Nov 2012!

 And unless a so-called progessive alternative news site has an established track-record of Principled & fact based critique of Obama policies [IE: BAR, Global Research, WSWS, etc], be wary of their current blitz-krieg attacks on Romney / Ryan [it should be a no-brainer that No real progressive would ever vote for Romney / Ryan] as just Dim propaganda pieces [even if they don't mention Obama & the Dims] for whipping progressives into a fear frenzy leading back to the ole 'Evil of 2 Lessers' paradigm [You just gotta vote for Obama because we just gotta keep those hard-core reactionaries Romney & Ryan  from getting into the White- House!]. This thinking fails take into account the fact that the Corp Wall St Bankster Elites & Military Industrial Surveilance Security Complex wins NO matter if Obama or Romney wins -&- that-  Unless Obama wins in a land-slide [which he probably won't]- if the power elites want Romney in they'll just steal the damned election again like they did in 2000 & 2004- DUHH!!  

PS: Check out this article @ GlobalResearch.ca - 'How Obama Created Paul Ryan' @ http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32385 : } Paul Ryan is suddenly a household name after becoming Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate. Before that, Ryan had only become right-wing leadership material in the last year, based on his proposed national budget that hacks away at the core of many national social programs, including Medicare.

No one deserves more credit for Ryan's rapid rise into stardom than President Obama, who opened heavy political doors for the aspiring Republican vice president, none more weighty than that Pandora's box of "entitlement reform" — cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs.

Destroying these programs has been on the Republicans agenda forever; however, for decades there has not existed an environment to implement them — political suicide would've been the result. Now it seems that anything is possible under Obama.

It was the Obama Administration that started the "yes we can" motto to cutting Social Security and Medicare. Although it's rarely discussed in the so-called liberal press, Obama has worked to undermine Social Security and Medicare since he became President... {

Zionist candidates; Zionist elections

Obama, Romney, Ryan, and Jill Stein all serve the Zionist interests. They've got the entire field covered so no matter who you vote for Jewry wins.

BAR is doing a disservice to the Black community for not informing them about Jewish Power and the need for Blacks to ALLY with Christian White Nationalists.

I Repeat_You Propose an 'Out of Skillet into the Fire' Solution!

I've effectively said this to you before- The Idea that Blacks should get into bed w white Christian Nationalists [aka: Skin-Heads, Neo-Nazis & the KKK, etc] against {white} Zionists / Jews- is difficult to take seriously. Do you really expect to be taken seriously by insisting that Blacks should get w hard-core Tea-Bagger whites who carried racist signs depicting Barak & Michelle Obama as APES, & who SPAT on CBC members Emanuel Cleaver & civil rights icon John Lewis while calling them NIGGERS??!!

FYI: There are likely as many, & probably more, white Christian Zionists in the US as there are white Jewish Zionists! FYI: AIPAC's ranks are filled w white Christian Zionists.

You talk about Blacks joining ranks w white Skin-heads / Neo-Nazis / KKKers- What about Blacks unifying within our own ranks?.. How about Black Street gangs unifying as protectors of Black communities & instead of being a detriment- while playing out their BS rivalries in our commuities?... How about Blacks in the US alligning ranks w Blacks in the Caribbean, w Blacks in Central & S. America, w Africans, w Afro-Asiatic Muslims & JEWS!?!


Blacks need to unify among ourselves just as the Chinese and the Indians of south Asia and others have. These different peoples gained respect and independence NOT by abandoning their ways or their culture, or by trying to join the most extreme elements of their oppressors, on their oppressors terms, at any cost (Obama style), but by sticking together and giving White Westerners no choice but to accept them as they are. Like the Chinese, a unified global Black community won't need White allies to protect itself or its interests against anyone. A unified global Black community will be able to protect its own and to stand on the world stage as an equal among equals.

#8 in focus, now- Is Obama/US behind Brit threat

Right now, the Ecuadorian Ambassador to England, having a press conference on the illegal under internationa law- their threat by the Brits to snatch Julian Assange from the Embassy if Ecuador grants Julian Assange  political asylum.  How likely is it that Obama (Administration) is behind the English threat to the Ecuador sovereignity? Very.  I don't give Dem.Now credit for much (I've been critical of the non-inclusion of disabled people or "wrong" when discussing issues, and not very often, of people with disabilities, e.g. "death panels" without including Stephen Drake, a guest long ago, but excluded from this topic, his  "specialty"from www.notdeadyet.org) - but this morning there was coverage of the press conference, live, at the Ecuador Embassy and Michael Ratner, one of Assange's lawyers.  I had had same reaction "Old empire dies hard - can't give up heavy hand ignoring of international law" and here we go again, US foreign policy behind-the-scenes.

   It takes a lot of ignoring to "take off the table" by Davidson and Fletcher any criticism of Obama on policies, actions re war(s), empire, civil liberties, human rights (prisons, drones, extrajudicial murder - "target-ed killing",grabbing people off the street and disappearing them, militarization of police in U.S. escalated, police brutality, police surveilance, islamophobia, etc) and the escalation of prosecution of "whistleblowers" instead of prosecution of criminal behavior by gov't authority, military, etc.  But then, I saw the ignoring of Israel policies toward Palestinians by Jews in the U.S. and predicted there would be ignoring of Obama's policies by African-Americans when Obama got elected.   I wrote my prediction in a letter to a radio person who had asked me, on the air, when I was a caller, critical of Israel and U.S. policy, during the Israeli attack on Gaza between the election of Obama as President and the inauguration, what I say "to my group"...and I asked, "What do you say to your group?"-I assumed he meant other Jews(he's African-American).  It has been the way of "minority groups" in the U.S. to  "defend" or as Mr. Dixon calls it, "circle the wagons".  
Oh, the excuses: my favorite is "no president is in charge" meaning, so why pick on Obama? they ask.  I ask, then why does it matter who is president and why should Obama be re-elected if he's not in charge, just a figurehead?


In this country, in spite of the loud noises they make about the sanctity of free speech, our elites despise hip hop, spoken word, punk, metal, and all other forms of music or art which are perceived as containing anti-social or protest elements, and they actively seek to suppress and to marginalize them and the artists who produce them. Here, the arts must either be reduced to just another bland, consumer commodity or neutered, so that they can be portrayed as childish, frivolous and irrelevant in a serious capitalist society. Suddenly, when the very same music or art are seen to be useful as a means of irritating some foreign government with which our government has some disagreement, our elites and their lockstep media become the champions of the oppressed artists, and true believers in the power of music, art and the spoken word. What a joke!

Imagine if our so-called leaders could summon the same degree of fervor and outrage when it comes to fighting indigenous injustices such as "stop and frisk", police brutality, the foreclosure outrage, etc. as they have when it comes to defending the rights of  the members of "Pussy Riot" in a foreign legal system which, in many ways, isn't any worse than ours.

Another link to the Fletcher/Davidson article


Interesting that the article disappeared on Alternet, but is still available at ZNET.  The commenters over at ZNET are properly rough on these "tired old" liberals with their attempt to herd the strays back into the corral where they will be pushed down the chute to vote for Obama.  After the vote, they will find themselves right back in the pen where they will be packed off to the slaughterhouse.

Run away, my fellow ferals.  Don't let them fence you in!

Davidson and Fletcher got one thing right.

The left has absolutely no plan for how to achieve power.  And folks like Davidson and Fletcher are the reason.  Almost all lefties with any kind of soap box preach powerlessness in various forms.

Fletcher and Davidson also make a good point,

when they argue that it might be a good strategy to vote for Obama and Dems, while organizing a progressive/left movement on the ground.  The problem is that we have been fooled by this argument many times, and we are hip to it now.  It is part of  a notorious bait and switch maneuver.  As soon as the election is over, they will tell us not to organize, except in support of Obama and Dems, because we have to 'give them a chance'.  By the time Obama and the Dems have 'had a chance' it's time for a new election and the bait and switch starts again.


But there is also a larger strategic picture that we have to see.  The only way to real power for the left is via populism.  The key obstacle to populist power is the Left/Right divide.  Why do we refuse to see that the 1 percenters never let the Left/Right divide, which is primarily a cultural divide, stand in their way?  Why do we continue to INSIST on letting the cultural divide between Left and Right get in our way?  If Obama and Bush can make common cause together, why must we insist that hipsters and rednecks, for example, can NEVER make common cause?  


I'm not saying that there are no real differences between Left and Right.  In particular, the Right Wing is virulently racist, though mostly today it denies this. Right wing bigotry is coded as opposition to crime, illegal aliens, pedophilia, etc..  Of course, what they really mean is that they hate brown people and gays, etc..


But what we have to see is that these are prejudices that we must overcome so that a populist movement can arise.  Most people agree on most political and economic fundamentals. The attitudes that stand in our way amount to feuds, ancestral feuds, which have been hampering populism for over a century.  Cultural prejudices, such as racial hatred, can be rooted deeply, but they can also melt away when people start building bridges, and overcoming otherness.

On the Left-Right Divide

Your sentiments and observations are correct that "hipsters and rednecks" need to find common ground.  You are correct to state that the reasons are "cultural".  Blacks long struggle against and legacy of White Supremacy is the main reason for Blacks to maintain a degree of caution. However the real reason for the divide is more pernicious.

Jewry has a great deal of influence, power, and control of the Left and it is in their interest to maintain the Black-White divide.  The "rednecks" know and understand and have challenged Jewish power for decades.  Thus it is in Jewry's interest to keep Blacks and Whites apart.  The "Black Left" is heavily influenced by Jewish money, power, and phony intellectualism becoming nothing more than a mouthpieces. 

When Blacks do challenge Jewish power or seek to form alliances with the Right they are ridiculed.  How come BAR never featured Jill McAlister for speaking the truth about Jewish Zionist power and its effects on American and the Black community.  She's been ridiculed and was fired for asserting her 1st Amendment rights.  She was interviews on White talk radio (even featured by David Duke of all people). 

Because BAR is more sentivitve to Zionist (Jewish) sentivitivies she's been "blacked out" but Glen Ford was quick to label the Tea Party as "racists" and "white nationalists" which gave the green light to the Jewish Left to smear the Tea Party rather than encourage coalition building with a populist group that was resisting the trillions of taxpayer money bailing out the banks.

This kind of ridicule also occured by the "black left" when Lenora Fulani atttempted to ally with the white former Perot supporters back in the 1990's and when Ralph Nader sought her support in 2004.  The Jewish Left was instrumental in sabatoging Nader 2004 campaign and the Green Party.  BAR supported the Greens in 2008 are they suggesting that in 2012 that Blacks support the Zionist Jill Stein as the Jews has now completely taken over the Greens.

The underlyig problem with the USA today is Jewish Power and the "black left" is doing and sayig absolutely nothing to address this problem and its effects on the Black community.


Most Western Jews see themselves as White and are accepted as such many if not most White people. In the West, most Jews are not racially or culturally distinct from most Whites. Unlike Blacks, they can blend in with the White majority when they choose to. In spite of Hollywood fiction to the contrary, in general, Jews have not resisted White supremacy because, in the Americas, and in European colonies in all parts of the world where Whites seized control,  they benefited from White privilege every bit as much as have the other groups of people who fled Europe and embraced "Whiteness" such as Anglo-Saxons, the Irish, the Italians, the Germans, etc.etc.. Whether in South Africa, or in South America or in the southern states of this country, Jews have lived cheek by jowl with the worst elements of White supremacy and usually done quite well. The only time significant numbers of people in the Jewish community have bucked the system in the U.S., or in South Africa, or elsewhere was when they felt that they themselves were being targeted, or when the rising outrage of oppressed groups such as Blacks threatened the status quo and thus, their place in it.

Over the centuries on every continent where they could reach them, Whites, especially, but not limited to "right wingers" have murdered countless numbers or Blacks people, stolen countless hectares of land, extracted slave and peonage labor from Blacks, and have designed and imposed systems of control designed to justify and to maintain this oppression and dehumanization until the end of time. Most of those on the right continue to behave in the same manner AND to justify both current and past atrocities against Black people. The idea that Blacks can form alliances with people whose basic ideology is that non-Whites, especially Blacks are sub-human and exist only to serve them is unrealistic and dangerously unsound. Denying or sugar coating the long, ugly history of Black and right wing White "relationships" on this planet in order to forge an alliance against a group with which most Whites, share a much greater affinity than they do for Blacks is a non-starter. History matters and history has consequences. Whites, wherever they stand along the political spectrum, cannot write themselves a pass, for what they and their societies have done (and continue to do) to Blacks by yelling "It's not our fault, we're just dumb hapless puppets, the Zionist made us do it!".


If Mr. Obama is re-elected in November, then the Obama bandwagon will continue as before. Term limits dictate that, barring a coup, there won't be a third term in office for the President. It's going to be interesting to see what all of those who sat down, or stood down and did nothing but cheer and make excuses for Mr. Obama for nearly a decade do when they realize that their reality TV show is at an end, and that America is still America.