It was a #BlueWave … no it was a #BlueRipple … it was a #RainbowWave …. it was a #CamouflageWave … it was none of those things, and all of those things.
In the sense that it was none of those things, the 2018 Midterms represented what has traditionally happened in midterms, especially the first midterm of a new President. The party in power, the President’s party — loses seats, and sometimes loses so many seats that they lose one or both Houses of Congress. It happened to Bill Clinton, the first boomer President, in 1994 during the Gingrich revolution. It happened to Barack Obama in 2010. Only in the peak era after 9/11 was this trend bucked. George W. Bush lost both houses of Congress in 2006. 2006 was the first midterm I was eligible to vote. I was in college and it was around this time I had decided to major in political science, chosen from among 5-6 other possibilities, all of which are still interests to this day. In its most basic terms, the Democrats were supposed to do well and pick up seats, and probably were supposed to pick up the House given the incredible weakness of the 2016 Trump victory (lost the popular vote by 2 percent, won the electoral college by less than 1 percent in three states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin). Last month, all three of those states elected Democratic Governors, picked up down-ballot state legislative seats, and got to about even in their Congressional delegations.
In the sense that it was all of those things the Democratic Party finally began to achieve some of the victories and movements that this website, started in 2015, had hoped for and called for from the beginning. The party got younger in the House, building a bench and in one cycle going from the older party to the younger party in the House. Given that the Democratic Party is more dependent on youth votes, both from Millennials, the younger cohort of Gen X, and now the oldest cohort of Gen Z, we argued that this was bad optics, bad politics, and represented a failure to pass the baton on behalf of party elders. Through choice or through competition, this is beginning to change. Good. Matching that youth is the diversity of the younger cohorts of Americans. We now have more women in Congress than at any time in US history, and the big-tent, broad-based movements whether driven by opposition to President Trump or more ideologically-based movement-politics, organized, got the vote out, and won by a record-breaking 8+% in the generic ballot. Turnout was at a record pace and for those who began to doubt the health of our democracy, myself included, we gained a hard-earned reprieve and answer. Democrats turned out. Republicans also turned out. Americans turned out to vote and that’s a good thing. What also happened is “blue areas” got bluer, and “red areas” got redder. Independents, moderates, and suburban women swung heavily against the President. What does this mean for 2020 and what does this mean for the “Long Realignment”? Actually, not much.
Historically speaking (within the paradigm of the Sixth Party system and post-Southern Strategy and Dixiecrat exodus from the Democratic Party, a rather “Long Realignment” process in its own right) those same midterms of ’94, ’06, and ’10 were answered with Bill Clinton being easily re-elected, and Barack Obama being easily re-elected. The successor candidate to George W. Bush lost in what is the closest we can get to a modern day landslide (7+% win, the largest popular vote total in the last 30 years in a presidential election) to Barack Obama. I previously wrote in early 2016 how historically difficult it is for a “successor” candidate of the same party to beat a “challenger” candidate. Within the Sixth Party system it has only happened once in 1988 with the recently departed George H.W. Bush who succeeded Ronald Reagan with relative ease. It should be noted that while that was going on the Democrats still held Congress though (just as they have throughout much of the first half of the Sixth Party system, before mostly being the minority party in Congress post-1994).
I believe we’ve been in the midst of a “Long Realignment” out of the Sixth Party system and into the Seventh Party for some time now, but it’s been taking and will continue to take awhile. The reason for this is simple. Baby Boomers are a large and dominant generation, and they are slowly being replaced in the voting booths by another large and dominant generation, the Millennials (insert what they’re “killing” here ____). The result of this tit-for-tat, along with the relative movement within the recessive (relatively smaller, by timespan and demographic size) generations on each side of the dominant ones, will be but one of many demographic factors that determine the eventual nature of this “Long Realignment.” In the next two articles (two and three), I’m going to go into how this has been playing out so far via which states are “swinging” (from one election to the next) and which states are “trending” (over the long run) as well as states that are “bucking” against the general trend, for example, the country voted 2 percent more Republican in 2016 but states like Georgia, Arizona, Texas, and Utah voted less Republican and more Democratic relative to the general trend. That will be the focus of Part Two.
Part Three will focus on what history tells us about “demographics” (they matter, but only to a point), candidates (they matter, but not as much as they used to), and end with some conclusions and predictions about where things might go once we get to the Seventh Party system (spoiler alert: I think it will be either 2028 or 2032). I will also throw in some commentary about where the parties should go (in general: a place toward sanity and away from insanity).
For those reading this that are Democratic partisans: I believe it’s best for the party and the country for a large, diverse, and “big tent” field to debate it out throughout 2019 and the first two states atminimum. The reason for this is that it’s better for party building, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire, which will both be important states in 2020 for different reasons (a strong candidate in Iowa is insurance for not winning back either Wisconsin or Michigan, and a win in New Hampshire, as well as the Maine Congressional-district is necessary defense).
For those reading (congrats for jumping outside the “bubble“) this that are Republican partisans: winning re-election is Donald Trump’s best chance to avoid his mounting legal challenges, as the Presidency is the best protection money can buy. However, for him to win re-election at this point, there can be no recession between now and the 2020 election (we’ll see, although if your interested: here’s when I think it’ll hit), he can have no serious primary challenge (win or lose, a sitting President primaried by a candidate in his own party ends up losing in the fall, see Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and remember that LBJ said he would not seek the Democratic nomination after Eugene McCarthy’s strong showing in the ’68 New Hampshire primary) and the 85 to 90 percent base has to hold, plus he has to grow on it or get back to his 2016 levels in the Upper Midwest. All three are plausible, but looking more difficult than a month ago. Historically, he has a greater than 50% chance of being re-elected, but I would put it right at 50-50 given the narrow 2016 victory. The “margin of error” is tight. Just like it was for 2016.
See you for The “Long Realignment” Continues …. Part Two. Where we’ll take a look at which states are trending, swinging, and what that means for the Electoral College (which is not going away any time soon, deal with it, learn the rules, they’re published well in advance).
“The fundamentals of our economy are strong. They’re getting stronger.” — 2008 Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.
A sentence uttered that along with the events of the financial collapse, ended the competitive portion of the 2008 Presidential election campaign. Oh, how far the country has fallen since those days….
This site has often analyzed through its different formats the culture war and generational politics. While we have differed often on if the so-called “culture war” we have been relatively unanimous in agreeing (often loudly) that the country and especially the Democratic Party needs serious generational change in its leadership and downward. I won’t get into the particulars of those arguments here.
Throughout some of the Obama years it looked like we were legally settling many of our long-standing culture war issues, which is ultimately where they should end up (freedom wins out across the board, etc.) but the events of this past week have thrown that into severe doubt, if not outright professionally wrong. Make no mistake that if President Trump nominates a reactionary “conservative” that waxes philosophic about originalism, landmark decisions like Roe are likely to be overturned or at the very least, severely chipped away at. If you live in a state that doesn’t have the abortion right codified on the books, as is the case in the “blue state” of New York, I’d start lobbying your state legislature now.
With the once seemingly dying “culture war” getting exacerbated with sheer fire and brimstone by the 2016 Trump campaign, his subsequent presidency, and perhaps most accurately, the internet, where do we go from here? When does the slow pace of generational change finally overwhelm our political system? When can we move on from this 50/50 everyone hates everyone, but civility only selectively applies nightmare? For one, I think this is the new “normal” for a long time, so for your own well-being, batten down the hatches and prepare for the long storm. Finally, let me propose a thesis that will get us all thinking about the economics and foreign policy issues that dominated the 2008 presidential campaign primaries and general election — not the Great Recession, but the upcoming Great(er) Recession of 2021 to… we’ll see.
In a previous article I alluded to the grave political mistake Democrats have made in conceding to the President and GOP that this is a good economy. It is foolish to concede this because not only is the economy not good, this is unfortunately the best it’ll be for some time. We’ve had unevenly distributed secular sluggish growth for nearly two decades now, which will only fuel billionaire and millionaire appetites for more corporate tax giveaways. See below.
President Bush was the first modern day president to never preside over 4% annual growth in GDP.
President Obama was the first modern day president to never preside over 3% annual growth in GDP.
For comparison sake, below is our robust post-war period of relatively shared prosperity.
Admittedly, much of it was made possible because the rest of the developed industrialized world had been devastated and war-torn.
A regression and slowing of the post-war growth was inevitable, but the structure and soundness of the American economy going from a middle-out economy to what we have today was not. It was preventable.
President Trump, despite his boasts, will also fail to preside over 3% annual growth whether he serves one term or two. See below.
The only thing that I would amend is the guarantee that 2018 will be as strong or stronger than 2017, because this forecast did not account for the effects of the tariffs, which have especially hit the areas where his strongest supporters reside.
Make no mistake — the fundamentals of this economy are not strong and have not been strong for decades unless you’re a billionaire or a comfortable member of the new professional class aristocracy.
So what is the story behind these numbers and why will this recession be even greater?
These five things I think will happen:
The Dodd-Frankpartial repeal (of small-to-mid-sized bank lending ceilings) will continue to spur new real estate, housing, and mortgages (and by extension, mortgage-backed securities). The job market and unemployment being low will work in tandem with this. This is a good thing right?
No. It’s just more short-sighted and short-term thinking. It’s more of the same: socializing the risks and costs, privatizing the gains. Risky lending has now returned under the law. And all those riskier mortgages will be concentrated throughout even fewer big banks this time (because contrary to popular belief, some did die and were not bailed out during the 07-09 Great Recession, while others merged, and my underlying assumption here is that two of the big five banks being critics and skeptics of the Trump “boom” economy see what I’m seeing and will therefore be appropriately cautious and less over-leveraged, at least in theory).
At some point between now and 3 years from now, because they can, the powers that be will repeal Obama-era student loan reforms, which will have a far greater effect over time than the final trigger to the crash. Student loan debt, unlike mortgage loans, is not dischargeable. The student loan bail out that this country and at least two-generational cohorts need will be a decade too late. So the mortgages will be what people decide to unload, because what choice is there? It’s a no-brainer for them. They wouldn’t dare repeal these reforms you say? Yeah…. we keep saying that about a lot of things. The MO of this administration has more or less been to repeal anything Obama did. These relatively obscure reforms in comparison they’ll eventually get around to. After all, just another chance to “stick it to the libs” (liberal arts degrees in this case).
Just like in 2006, when the housing market was a bubble that few would say would burst into pain, others said would be fine, while the vast majority argued for a soft landing somewhere in the middle, economic optimism was too high (just like today), and jobs (but not wages) plentiful, unemployment superficially low. What happened then? In 2006 the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. In 2018, the Fed raised rates to 1.75 up from 1.5 and signal two more raises will be coming. This will effect flex-rate mortgages, not nearly as common as fixed-rate mortgages but common enough to trigger the underlying problem in-tandem with the fundamentalunsoundness of the U.S. economy and fiscal health of the country. With all of the repeat conditions in place and confidence surging too high, we’ll be in for a repeat. History is one damn thing after another, and it often rhymes, like poetry and the Star Wars saga.
If the GOP still has majorities and is led by people philosophically disinclined to do anything. President Trump, not a candidate, but THE president, and also an economic illiterate, surrounded by self-interest, kleptocrats, and professionally wrong economic advisors, will dispense of the ridiculous myth that those who have had business success know things about the overall economy and economics. If in office, like President Bush before him, President Trump will actually be the most likely to do something just because we’ll be reeling and perhaps finally, his perpetual lying will run up against the reality of physics and economics for even his most diehard supporters. He’ll need Democratic votes to do anything, and time will tell whether the fall of ’08 W. Bush and Democratic-led bipartisan bailout effort will commence. If the GOP holds both houses of Congress, which is very well possible if ’18 is a disappointing midterm for Dems, and Trump is re-elected, may be their response will be pure-Hooverville. Who did respond, but too little, too late. Combined with the longer term automation problems that neither party has a plan for, wages not rising fast enough, if at all, and a still ineffective opposition party (but a slowly improving and learning grassroots movement outside the party desperate for reform) — we’ll enter a deep and painful Great Recession. The Great(er) Recession of 2021–?? With all of these predictions, it goes without saying that I hope I’ll be wrong. Why am I so certain?
Human nature mostly. Think of what housing entails, think of the chain of established relationships from buyer to broker to seller. From lender to developer to manufacturing to construction. Everyone is an optimist in that chain, wanting to make something happen for both themselves and their clients
Real estate agents. Lenders. Salespeople. The dream of home ownership. The collision of self-interest. The pursuit of happiness if you will. And if it is not self -interest, it is forcedconsumerism.
Think of the history of the post-industrial age. Titanic. WWI. Great Depression. WWII. Every time there was a chorus of wild-eyed optimists excited for the future, and every time they were professionally and horrifically wrong.
Think to our own time, after the Cold War had ended and the Soviet Union was breaking up, one of the finest and most famous political scientists and political economists of our time had announced our great triumph. Liberal democracy has triumphed as the final stage of human organization. We’ve reached the “end of history.”
Think of 2016. Clinton will definitely win.
All of them very serious people, all of them very disastrously and professionallywrong.
A good economy they will say, don’t be so negative, etc.
I point to a quote from Gandhi about seven things that will destroy us to back up my assertion that this is a fictional economy.
The top one — Wealthwithoutwork.
GOP politicians love to wax philosophic about work but they cannot see fit to agree to a tax code that treats wealth-based and passive income the same as labor income. If you work you are taxed more than if you don’t work in this country. The GOP doesn’t value work, they value wealth. Citizens United has created few incentives for elected officials to put the interests of workers ahead of the interests of organized wealth and money. Only a government in D.C. that challenges concentrated wealth and money can stem this tide at this moment in our history.
The truth is that we’ve been doing wealth without work for some time, and it’s that truth that has continued to erode at our democracy, and as we’re seeing this week — our rights.
And this is why housing and real estate is the key, and a middle-out economy essential. It’s entirely possible, as some believe, that all U.S. growth the past few decades can be accounted for through real estate, which itself has contributed to and driven increasing economic inequality, as the rapid rise in real estate values have created obscene levels of wealth in some major cities, sending homelessness levels to a crisis point, as well as creating an affordable housing crisis along with it, especially in the tech-hubs, while creating “sacrifice zones” elsewhere. Real estate is a great investment throughout human history, the most reliable one. But there is an ocean of difference between that 1985 home purchased in NYC, LA, Seattle, or San Francisco and Detroit, St. Louis, etc.
Rural America has not faired much better than the sacrifice zones, with some small towns disappearing off the map entirely. Family farms being sacrificed to corporate farming. Wall Street winning out over the concerns of Main Street time and again.
This unsoundness to the American economy isn’t a weather pattern. It’s been in our choices, in our policies and budgets, in our media and culture, and was warned about on the horizon by President Jimmy Carter, a crisis of confidence that lingers with us today and has been exacerbated, a speech that many still deride as the “malaise” speech. But President Carter was right. I’m not here to tell you what you want to hear. You have President Reagan or President Clinton for that, and while they were smiling and making you feel better, their policies were setting the stage for the current era in which we live.
President Trump may similarly make some people feel better that America is back and can be great again. But once again, his policies have doubled-down on exactly what got us here, have set the stage for making things worse in the long run, and his lack of adherence to democratic norms and traditions, combined with a consistent need to drum up increased fear and hatred within his base, make the next economic downturn a potential catalyst for even worse and unthinkable events. But we can do better, and we can go another way. If we can only summon the courage to stop lying to ourselves.
Ultimately, like the election of Trump itself — the fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves.
An exchange I had on January 19th, 2017 in front of the Trump building where tens of thousands of New Yorkers gathered on the last night of the Obama Presidency and before the Trump Presidency began.
Me: No, no I’m not interested in the third party option, for a variety of reasons there are too many obstacles to that. We’ve gotta reform the Democratic Party from within and/or take it over.
Activist: Yeah, good luck with that…
When history is written, I’ll probably end up being on the wrong side of the argument, at least the had on January 19th. That is, I will be if things don’t change in a hurry.
While no analysis of how we got here is perfect (although the impeccable “Listen, Liberal!” by Thomas Frank gets close), here is my quick rundown of the top ten “Shatter-points” in the history of the Democratic Party that got them to this point. This is meant to be observational. I morally agree with a few of these developments (Civil Rights and Voting Rights, the need to protest and end the Vietnam War).
Taft-Hartley (1948) | Right-to-work legislation is now on the table and begins in earnest.
The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act (LBJ’s quote: “we’ve just lost the south for a generation.” That proved to be mostly true, as no Democrat was able to win a national election without hailing from the south until Barack Obama won with parts of the “new south” like Virginia and North Carolina).
Assassinations of 1960s political and moral leaders (JFK, Bobby, MLK Jr., Malcolm X, Fred Hampton).
The Vietnam War (Considerable domestic unrest, a significant generational divide reared its head during 1968, not unlike what happened last year. The ’68 campaign cycle is still above and beyond ’16, which was more so depressing because of most of the candidates, and the way the media covered the campaigns, etc.)
Rejecting figures like Ralph Nader (who at one time was one of the most admired figures in America in the late 60’s/early 70’s) and small-d democracy in general. Not putting Nader on the ’72 ticket was but an illustration, the more precise problem was pushing his mindset out of the party in general. There is no doubt the ’72 defeat was crushing, but the Democratic Party overreacted to it. McGovern did not lose because he was too far left (political scientists keep telling the spectrum is real, but ask the average voter and they’ll look puzzled), he lost because he was not a good national candidate, ran a bad campaign, and was facing the best and most shrewd politician of his generation in Nixon. Did you see the GOP overreact and moderate themselves in the long run after Barry Goldwater was crushed in ’64? No. They stuck to their principles and in the long run were rewarded for it).
Carter bailing on labor, Clinton bailing on labor. (Both post-New Deal-era Democratic Presidents hailed from the south, which was never a strong base for organized labor, but that doesn’t excuse the party becoming less and less friendly to one of its most reliable constituencies historically. Free trade policies like NAFTA ensured organized labor had no place to go in American politics and that their long decline would continue. Labor today stands at just over 11 percent (from a point where 1/3 of all workers belonged to a union, as high as 40% in the manufacturing belt of the Midwest and Great Lakes states at on time) and just like the post-NAFTA era, stands at a crossroads themselves.
Clinton triangulating on a plethora of bad policies that directly punishes reliable democratic constituencies (NAFTA, Crime Bill, Ending Welfare as we know it, Financial De-Regulation, and Telecommunications De-Regulation all but ensuring the AM talk radio and cable news dominance for the next generation). At the end of the day, Bill Clinton (both his direct influence and mindset) deserves a lot of blame for some incredibly short-term thinking that may have benefited his popularity personally and politically at the time, but in the long run ruined the Democratic Party. There may be a lot of ink spent on how many seats were lost during the Obama years, but the damage was already done, and former President Barack Obama mostly inherited a Clintonian Democratic Party that was built around Bill and built around Hillary taking over the White House in a Clinton restoration in 2008…or 2016…or 2020?
Doubling-down on the Corporate Alliance (Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Auto, Big Tech, Big Everything, against the Little People) In the late 70s the Democratic Party began openly courting corporate sources for campaign funding. One of the key issues that gave Obama momentum during the ’08 primary was refusing Super-PAC money early on. The party itself ended its ban on corporate lobbyist and Super-PAC money late in the Obama years, in anticipation of President HRC.
Failing to Cultivate the Young Talent and Build the Farm from the Obama years. Ultimately, it was the ground effort and labor of the millennial generation that put Obama over the top in Iowa in 2008 and then in the general election. The Democratic Party has failed to cultivate its young leaders, paying only lip service to this. “Lip service” is a continuing theme with the Democratic Party of the 21st century. Whether it is about the problems facing an indebted (both student and public) generation, ending forever war, the corporate takeover of the country, or racial equity. What strong talk there is on these issues is often not backed up by strong actions. The proof is in the outcomes.
And finally, yes, I’m sorry, but going with Clinton over Sanders was a mistake. (It is my belief that Bernie Sanders, if nominated, would have won, and his coattails could have been substantial, perhaps saving the party from the rock bottom that this website has consistently predicted was around the corner. The Democratic Party should have listening to its younger members which overwhelming went with Sanders across-the-board, the members they have failed to cultivate, and in-fact are more likely to attack these days.)
And as a bonus: lets be honest — there simply is no “membership” in the Democratic Party.
Populism is associated with President Trump right now, and that is a shame. Because populism isn’t so much a political ideology, it is a mode and theory of who is going to be empowered and where influence will come from and be most respected.
The simplest explanation of how we got to where we are is the GOP embracing its populist movements, no matter how uncomfortable it may have made the GOP elites, and the Democratic Party refusing to embrace its own populist movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. Depressing turnout among the progressive base and youth, and running campaigns that are characterized more so by what you are not, rather than what you are and what you stand for, and will do, is what has created the current situation. The voices and so-called membership of the Democratic Party refuse to listen and simply do not get it. Anyone who has attended fundraisers or meetings knows what I’m talking about. It’s a very top-down led party that does not deal with criticism well and as is incredibly evident in 2017–refuses to do the soul searching that is necessary after historical defeats.
In addition to this top-down, failed strategy, the Democratic Party has become a “fundraising machine” of coastal elites.
If it wants to survive — it has to become a movement. It must embrace movement progressivism in the same way the GOP embraced movement conservatism.
If you think I’m being too harsh, come back next week as I take down the GOP from top to bottom. I’m writing these words out of love for my country and its people. Any political system that produces these results must be thoroughly analyzed and criticized across the board.
This is not about Hillary Clinton (who full disclosure, I fully expect will run again in 2020 because my wife has a bizarre track record of being right about these things). In a lot of ways and in some parts of the country, HRC is more popular than the party brand itself. Take a look at the 30 million dollar special election in Georgia. Jon Ossoff, a millennial, who ran on meaningless platitudes of everything being “connected”, the need cut wasteful spending, all while refusing to endorse popular policies progressives and other Americans support like single payer, tax hikes on the wealthy, and ending big money in politics. Ossoff, despite all of the money and the attention, lost by a larger margin than Hillary did in the district. The Democrats have tried to message these closer losses than before as “moral victories” rather than an indictment of establishment politics, corporate neoliberalism, or the generational and ruling class consensus. I’m sure Jon is a nice guy, but there will be no big millennial turnout to reverse the direction of the country if millennials are not allowed to run on what most millennials actually prefer. If young candidates run to please the establishment and status quo it won’t work.
But lets end with something productive — where do we go from here? There are two paths the progressive movement can go, and the answer can be BOTH.
Plan A: Take the grassroots movement, and eventually go through the Democratic Party as the vessel (50 states, 3000 counties, primary corporate Democrats, and don’t listen to the Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi’s of the world, etc.)
Plan B: The viable third party movement path (a combination of Draft Bernie for a People’s Party, adding and creating a coalition with WFP, who exist in 13 states, the Green Party, Progressive Democrats of America, and non-party affiliated issue-based movements, in addition to realizing the two fundamental loopholes the two party system has never covered up: 1. There is nothing that binds a state or local party org to its national organization. In other words, if progressives takeover the Wyoming Democratic Party, they can later attach themselves to the People’s Party AND 2. Just because a progressive candidate goes through the Democratic or Republican primaries to win, does not mean they have to continue to stay there. If turncoats like the IDC in New York state can block needed electoral and voting reforms, single-payer healthcare in NY State, why not just pull off the opposite?)
I’ll end with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich’s 8 point plan for a new Democratic Party (pay close attention to number 8)
1. Overhaul the DNC
2. Embrace populism
3. Mobilize, energize and educate the base
4. Expose Trump as a fraud
5. Focus on 2018 now
6. Look to the state and local level
7. Protect groups threatened by Trump
8. Failing all else, look outside the party
We will disagree in many measures, but one thing we all must agree on is this — “change will not come from the Democratic Party, change can only be brought to it.”
If we continue on the same path, if we listen to what Mark Penn wants to do (NY Times July 6th op-ed “Back to the Center, Democrats“), not only will Donald Trump be re-elected, but the incredibly deep bench of younger GOP national candidates could very well win in 2024.
This should go without saying but nobody should listen to Mark Penn, who is more interested in protecting his consultancy than improving outcomes for all Americans.
We should listen to the youth, and let them build a movement that has a realistic plan to deal with the dangers and realities of the 21st century.
Not just change we can believe in, but a future we can believe in.
Not just the Resistance, but Beyond Resistance.
Not just “mere politics”, but Beyond Politics, backed by a moral worldview and value-set that can then work its way toward the policies we’re fighting for and the change we need.
Earlier this spring while speaking with educators and mentors of mine who were visiting New York City from my hometown in the midwest, a voice called out to me “you live here?”
“Yes, ma’am, I do”, I replied. A politeness that does not leave me just because I’m in Urbania now, which is filled with politeness by the way, it’s just a different sort of politeness. And it’s politeness that demands awareness of impoliteness.
“I’m sorry” she quipped, meaning it as a joke and an insult. I did not take offense, other than to say that I liked living here and that I chose to live here. I was not aware that I am a person to be pitied for living where my family chose to settle.
In the same month, the long and destructive journalistic, or as he would prefer it to be called, “political analyst” career (i.e. his opinion) of Bill O’Reilly has gone up in flames, ending with a 25 million dollar pay check, because of course it did. Trevor Noah cleverly covered this occasion with a takedown of O’Reilly that has been done time and time again by Jon Stewart before him, but he brought something to the forefront that I think is revealing of my entire efforts to “pierce bubbles.”
Bill O’Reilly is and always was a caricature of what the American mind and spirit has become. Spewing rhetoric that divides us, spending more time on fighting against something than fighting for something. His world of make-believe American history, faux virtue-signaling, attempts to monopolize patriotism, and assassination porn became our own for many Americans as Fox News and other corporate media outlets became consumed by the “sensationalism and conflict bias.” And that’s what the real bias in the media has always been. O’Reilly pushed his fears of the “other” onto the American people on a nightly basis. His comically absurd story of visiting the famous Harlem restaurant Sylvia’s in my view, is the most striking example of his worldview, and what has increasingly become–a defining reason why we’ve become a nation of strangers.
I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patron-ship. … There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea. — Bill O’Reilly
O’Reilly had built his entire view of black culture and the capital of black America–Harlem, from stereotypes, hearsay, and never sought out sources that would disagree with his viewpoint because most of our mainstream political discourse has just been reduced to a Google search (i.e. google something to confirm what I already think and want confirmed). The rare times he sought out opposing viewpoints — O’Reilly would yell at them at the top of his lungs on his cable news or talk radio program.
Folks, we’re a nation of strangers in 2017 and we have been for some time. The United States of America is not just many different states but many different states of mind. And this is actually part of the reason why we’ve been so dynamic and vibrant historically. But this has always come with a steep price.
What this election has revealed to me and what subsequent events have revealed since is that our American political factions hold no respect for one another, and that this disrespect has reached the personal level.
If we make it through the next four years, I can only hope that both parties do something to remedy this, because until we have removed all of this type of rhetoric and basic lack of civility, decency, and respect from our systems, this nation will continue to be hopelessly divided.
If our two major parties are incapable of doing this, which is especially saddening and maddening when you factor in just how similar they are about the big ticket economic and foreign policy issues, then a viable new third party movement will be needed, not only to address the growing divide between the political and economic leaders and the people, but to also serve as mediator and bubble piercer between irrational appeal to D vs. R, American against American.
The Agreeing Loudly podcast is back from coast-to-coast with a brand new season. Join Jered, Troy, Bill and Pat as they welcome special guest Carson Starkey all the way from the critically acclaimed Margin of Error podcast to discuss whether or not it’s time for a serious third party movement in the United States.
You cannot build a movement for the common people if you hold the common people in contempt. — ThomasFrank at the 2017 People’s Summit
Chicago, IL — This past weekend Jered Weber and I attended the 2nd annual People’s Summit. The first one in 2016, was held shortly after Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), went from a little known and self-described democratic socialist to the brink of the Democratic Party nomination. Taking on Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State in the first Obama administration, who had nearly every endorsement from Democratic elected officials and party leaders, as well as the support of corporate America, Sanders received 46% of the primary vote.
Assembling a coalition of millennials who had previously helped put then-Senator Obama over the top in the 2008 presidential primary and general election, progressives, independents, and populists, Sanders shocked the country, especially the donor and billionaire class by proving that in the Age of CitizensUnited, there was another way forward. There was another way to run a viable national campaign without having to offer fealty to the Super PACS, corporate lobbyists, and special interests holding the country back in the 20th century.
And what was remarkable to so many who flocked to the campaign, new and old, of all different generations and backgrounds, was that it was the ideas and message that mattered. It was the positivity of the campaign and its focus on the issues, and it was the remarkable consistency and authenticity of the candidate throughout the years.
Sanders repeatedly explained that when the people come together in common effort, they win. It was never about him, it was about a “future to believe in.” And we now know it was never about him because the campaign never ended, because ultimately, it was more of a movement than a campaign to begin with.
And that is where the People’s Summit comes in.
The People’s Summit is first and foremost, an Ideas Summit.
Not just ideas for the future of the country, but also ideas on how to fundamentally improve and outright save our democracy. Those critical of the People’s Summit only needed to give these ideas attention at the Center for American Progress and perhaps they would not have to get mad that not everyone is falling in line and “uniting.” Before moving on to an analogy for what to think about the People’s Summit, let me just say that no matter which route one prefers to moving this country forward, there is no need to come together on the issues, on party unity, or anything other than basic civility and decency because we still have three years to go. In other words–see you in 2020.
Bubbles need to be pierced, and introspection and national conversations must continue en masse.
Now onto how to think about the People’s Summit in terms of what it means for the future.
Each year movement conservatism (or what passes as that these days) has its annual ideas conference called the Conservative Political Action Conference, put on by the American Conservative Union. Think of it as a “State of the Movement” address to conservatives from all across the country. Upcoming elected officials and advocates often get heavily promoted and featured at the conference. In addition to think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and others, CPAC gathers all of the various grassroots conservative groups and organizations from around the country. Not being included almost serves as a statement that one is not “conservative” enough or not a “true conservative.”
CPAC operates very much like an ideas and state of the movement arm of the major American political party on the right–the Republican Party.
In 2003, recognizing the power think tanks, ideas conferences and so forth had in propelling the conservative movement to electoral victories through its political arm–the Republican Party, John Podesta founded the Center for American Progress, which is both a think tank and has an annual conference. There is no mystery that the annual CAP conference and its ideas are heavily attached to the Democratic Party. But while the Democratic Party was slow to jump on the think tank bandwagon and invest heavily in the think tank model in comparison to the GOP, its adoption of that model and investment in it represent the final shunning of its historical roots as the FDR “party of the people.” Consider this, CAP founder Podesta was national Chair of the Clinton campaign, Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, and later counselor to President Barack Obama, made several versions of this sentiment throughout the 2016 election cycle:
For every working class voter we lose, we’ll pick up 2 or 3 professional class voters.
That’s the thing with the establishment or corporate Dems. I’m not much of an ideologue, I have a governing and leadership philosophy yes, but at the end of the day I have a healthy respect for facts. A respect that is lacking in so many political leaders and those who cover and follow our nation’s politics today. I’m fine with compromising. All democracies and constitutional systems require it. However, what incentive do people who do not like to compromise their belief systems have to follow a strategy that not only is not their views in key areas, but also does not and has not won? I submit these simple truths about where the party stands in terms of electoral strategy:
And I direct these six points of logic to the failed Podesta mentality from above and a similar mentality echoed by (permanent) Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), which stated that “for every working class vote we lose, we’ll pick up 2-3 moderate Republican voters.”
There are not enough professional class voters to form the consensus.
The ones who realigned from the GOP to the Democratic Party did so years ago.
The ones still in the GOP are rich and unpersuadable.
Working class voters are more numerous and more diverse than ever.
Some of them are even organized already, through this thing called collective bargaining.
You can’t build a party of the people if you have contempt for the people. You have to talk directly to the people about the issues, all the people.
Please note that when I say the working class I always mean that anyone who has to work for a living to keep existing. Many choose to work for a living and that is great, but their livelihood does not necessarily depend on it, and they likely have multiple streams of passive income.
Speaking of passive income, George Soros, a major funder of CAP and constant boogeyman that the right wing media likes to use to discredit policy agenda and goals, is not too different from the Koch brothers or any other member of the billionaire class engaged in electoral politics in the CitizensUnited age if one does not personally agree with George Soros. And that is the problem.
Neither party is seriously committed to taking on big, unaccountable, but organized money in politics.
If you are super-rich in America, or anyone really who can sit on their hands making millions in passive income revenue streams, and if your preferred party (whether Dems or GOP) does not win, you always have the other major party to protect your interests for the most part, with only a few exceptions.
It’s the same model. Controlled by the donor class, and dependent on the labor of others to keep itself in power both politically and economically.
I would argue the People’s Summit is an ideas conference, that allows for networking, learning, and updating on the “state of the movement”, similar to CPAC. As of now, it is without a political party attached to it, but I have no doubt, shall a viable third party arise in the next few years, it will be called the People’s Party and it will have started and spear-headed by the 5,000 or so people that have attended the Summit, and those that followed along online, etc.
The central organizing goal of the movement, like the Republican Party, the last third party to replace a major party before in the 1850’s with slavery, is the biggest moral issue of our time — economic inequality and the forces that continue to make it worse, organized big money in politics and legalized bribery and corruption.
A Future Beyond Party Labels and Endless Partisan and Media Sensationalism. A Future that is not just Resistance, but Beyond Resistance.
In the weeks to come, this website will be recommitting itself to trying to churn out regular content the best we can. Apologies if we miss the mark on that front, as we all have busy lives in addition to written commentary, podcasting, etc.
This weekend the third season of the Agreeing Loudly podcast will be on just one topic and prompt: the Third Party option.
In addition, I’m hoping to finish up three articles in a “state of” series on the nation, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party.
If this coalition translated to the electoral college, which I understand is a big leap of logic this far out, but bear with me here, if that DID happen, you would not just see a Sanders victory over the most unpopular presidential candidate of all time (candidate Trump) but you could possibly see the first genuine popular vote AND electoral college landslide since 1988 (and to a lesser extent 2008).
My Constructive Criticism of the Summit.
First of all, folks at the summit of all stripes were amazingly self-reflective of what could have gone better not just for the movement, but also for the 2016 Sanders campaign for President.
My two points for potential improvements to next years Summit.
Get a vets or foreign policy-focused speaker to talk about and call for a national “Peace and Security” movement. There are massive levels of economic implications to our #ForeverWar policy that tie into the larger issues presented by the movement. The social and economic costs in caring for our veterans and veterans issues have been some of the best policy work that Senator Sanders has done, so it only makes sense to feature this going forward.
Reach out to Republicans concerned with the direction of their party, big money in politics, and the growing, unsustainable levels of economic inequality. Perhaps this one will be more controversial, but if we’re truly to talk to everyone, we have to mean it. And we see evidence every day, not so much amongst Republican political leaders but we do see it amongst the rank and file and they are growing uncomfortable with the Trump-led GOP. The GOP is dominated by the interests of the donor and billionaire class even more so than the Democrats most years, and disillusioned Republicans becoming former Republicans would be a key feature of any future coalition, especially in current red to light-red states.
The participants were divided on the question of a Third Party movement, but were engaged, passionate, and committed to the future no matter what — it’s an “All Hands on Deck” strategy for saving democracy for all and creating a 21st century economy that works for the many and not just the few.
Division is nothing new in this political age. Like the rest of the country, there was a split in views at the Summit. Progressives and populists committed to taking on the corporate state are divided on how best to achieve the desired results of taking on big money in politics and tackling the moral issue of our time–the highest levels of economic inequality in a century.
My unscientific observations of the sentiments is that the People’s Summit activists, organizers, leaders, and followers prefer starting a vital third party movement in this country. This is a sentiment I agree with more and more each day. However, for the time being, reforming the Democratic Party by taking it over seems to be the immediate goal and interest. A goal that has seen mixed results, winning some small battles early on, but losing the more high-profile battles like the DNC Chair election, California Democratic Party Chair election, etc. What is clear though is the ideas and message is winning over public opinion in America at-large. Significant portions of the speech last Saturday highlighted that.
And what is vitally true, is that we have now reached a 1955 William F. Buckley moment for progressives that this website had called for in 2015 and 2016 throughout the Presidential campaign as all of us ranted and raved about how badly the Democratic Party was going to bottom out in the coming years.
Progressives and populists have finally come to terms with the failure of the current model of the Democratic Party, and from this day forward–everyone knows that change will not come from the Democratic Party, change can only be brought to the Democratic Party. And the more and more party leadership grasps onto and protects their hold on power, even in the name of electoral viability (which is a ridiculous reason when you’ve lost nearly every election), the more and more power the movement, independent of any party control–will be. One way or another, the neoliberal and professional class consensus is over. And thank God for that.
I do not say these things lightly. After all, I am a member of the professional class in this country, but I also think that the younger cohorts of the professional class (Gen X and millennials, those under 45 or so) have far more in common (because of issues with student debt, broader acceptance of diversity, etc.) with the concerns of the working class (now more diverse than at any time in American history) than the concerns of the professional class consensus, whose obsession with incrementalism, education and innovation as a key to mitigating inequality (when in reality, it’s rationalizing it), and insistence that all problems can be solved from Harvard or Yale yard, Wall Street or Silicon Valley, New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles, or by lawyers or financial service professionals, etc.
If the leadership of the party would rather go down on the Titanic, so long as they have a first class seat, then so be it. The overriding focus of the People’s Summit was not to re-litigate the 2016 election, but to movebeyond just merely resisting what the Trump administration is doing, because guess what? That only goes so far, both in practical day-to-day terms and in electoral terms.
Folks, the only way out of this is to win elections, and to win elections you need a party willing to adopt a better message. A message capable of capturing a large majority of the nation and turning out and inspiring more voters than at any other point in modern U.S. history, because there are significant obstacles in gerrymandering and voter suppression to overcome.
The ideas and message of the folks who attended the People’s Summit were not welcome at the CAP conference this year, so we took them to our own conference, in the same state where the last successful third party movement in America took off from, Illinois.
The Republican Party was founded as an abolitionist party to end the immoral practice of slavery in this country. Similarly, if neither major party takes seriously the issue of big money in politics and the fact that we are in a 2nd Gilded Age, then it is highly likely that the movement makes a clean break. But as of now, in practical terms, the prevailing consensus was that there is not enough time for 2018, and undecided about 2020.
One of the conference speakers Thomas Frank (writer, historian, and co-founder of theBaffler), put it best at the end of his most recent book “Listen, Liberal!” which was written almost as if he already knew the 2016 electoral result, even though it was published in the summer.
Direct solutions are off the table for the moment… Democrats have no interest in reforming themselves in a more egalitarian way. There is little the rest of us can do, given the current legal arrangements of this country, to a build a vital third-party movement or to revive organized labor, the one social movement that is committed by its nature to pushing back against the inequality trend.
What we can do is strip away the Democrats’ precious sense of their own moral probity–to make liberals live without the comforting knowledge that righteousness is always on their side. It is that sensibility, after all, that prevents so many good-hearted rank-and-file Democrats from understanding how starkly and how deliberately their political leaders contradict their values. Once that contradiction has been made manifest–once that smooth, seamless sense of liberal virtue has been cracked, anything becomes possible. The course of the party and the course of the country can both be changed, but only after we understand that the problem is us.
Beginning a new regular-to-semi-regular series on this website, an internet and news of the week round-up that will be graph-laden and told in a very ad-hoc manner. For the article and commentary news round-up, Pat Meacham has you covered.
Depending on your perspective, this week was either the beginning of Watergate Part II (dir. by Oliver Stone, I’m assuming….), or just another week of the “liberal conspiracy media” trying to ruin the Trump agenda. We’re not doing a very good job as a society of “piercing bubbles” so far, although I will continue nonetheless.
….while we’re on the subject of the future of U.S. public policy…
While we’re on the subject of President Obama, the following undermine GOP arguments that he spent too much during his administration.
So it looks like it wasn’t wild spending, but rather something else that has caused the new normal of sluggish growth. It certainly isn’t sluggish for the wealthy and big corporations….ah, the “job creator” class, what an utter myth.
Consumers create jobs for the most part and workers create value. And until even the so-called “capitalists” of this country understand that, we’re going to suffer from stagnant growth because…. the masses are nearly out of money because…. see below.
This has led to a distribution that looks like this….
There are some that will keep banging the drums for the “magic”, but most working people pounding pavement and trying to take care of their families know the truth–the link between effort and reward is gone and has been for some time.
Want to know what’s behind the actual American carnage and why none of 45’s and the far-right to Alt-Right cabal’s policies will work? Because there is a fundamental disconnect between the world that elites inhabit, and organized money protects, and the actual reality of what is going on and has been the trend in American life for some time.
And this is why the most relevant historical force in the 2016 Presidential election was not Donald Trump–but rather it was Bernie Sanders.
He has proven that small dollar donations can break the donor class monopoly of our political system, or at the very least has proven you can put up one hell of a fight and maybe next (demographically speaking) things will break your way. If it is not broken up, it’ll be hard for much of anything to be made “great”again, although I’d very much settle for “good” outcomes at this point.
Indeed, Mr. Norris was right. We are cursed to live (or fortunate to live?) in interesting times. Anyone who has been following developments between the Alt-Right and far-left clashing on college campuses lately, or developments like this can conclude that we are cursed to live in interesting times.
So I keep coming back to the Joker and “watching the world burn.”
There are those who have settled into the world as it is and those (overwhelmingly under 45) who are dreaming of the world as it should be. I think the common thread that binds a lot of millennials, most Gen-X’ers, and younger folks together will be our desire to “burn it down.”
The key difference will be what type of burn. At the outset I showed a “controlled burn” that farmers utilize to help the soil and rotate crops. I believe the controlled burn is far preferable to what the Alt-Right is and wants, which I will call the “moral hazard burn.”
Take care of each out there. And stay tuned for AgreeingLoudly and the Margin of Error.
Palo Alto, CA — Facebook CEO and future Democratic Party presidential loser Mark Zuckerberg has been busy lately, restructuring Facebook stock to ensure his control even after he plans to sell his stock, and also paving the way for a “leave of absence” in the event of government service. But the most telling sign Mark Zuckerberg plans to lose the 2020 or 2024 Presidential election is the above photo and this article which features videos of Mark, a Harvard drop-out who has become a billionaire getting people to willingly end all last vestiges of privacy in the 21st century, milking cows, riding tractors, talking to factory workers and veterans, and other faux-folksy things that such Presidential losers like Mitt Romney, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis have done before him (who are all from Massachusetts as well by the way).
After an election cycle where an incredibly out-of-touch with the common people candidate was able to grab defeat from the jaws of victory against a reality T.V. star and professional grifter, the Democratic Party, currently desperately clawing to credibility, integrity, and backbone by hitching its expensive wagon to the citizen energy of the Resistance, Indivisible, and other grassroots organizing movements, is looking forward to nominating Mark Zuckerberg in either 2020 or 2024. It’s donor class is particularly fired up and ready to go! As long as they do not have to door knock and talk to a person.
Professional political liberal Alan Dershowitz, lawyer and current record-holder for the most number of times of publicly threatening to leave the party, is looking forward to fiercely advocating for Mr. Zuckerberg, before secretly voting for a Republican in the fall. Other establishment stalwarts like the 2008 architect and campaign manager for former President Obama, the eternally disappointing since 2014 David Plouffe, is looking forward to guiding the Facebook CEO, who was described in a Vanity Fair puff piece as wanting to be Emperor, to a landslide electoral defeat in either 2020 or 2024, ensuring continued one-party governance with Donald Trump or Mike Pence as head of state.
There are two truths that I’d like to bring up at the outset that provide context for not just the events of the past week, but also the entire Trump era.
1.) It can be argued that the people of the United States of America lean conservative philosophically, but they most certainly lean progressive, if not outright prefer progressivism, in policy-making and public policy.
2.) Every GOP policy proposal and new law will be an attempt to transfer yet more and more wealth to the richest Americans and corporations, under the auspices of “freedom”, “choice”, “responsibility”, and “effort.”
Earlier in the week on the Mark Zuckerberg machine I made the claim that I could come up with a better health care law in ten minutes. Later on I followed up on it and came up with this (slightly edited and italicized below):
Now that I’ve had ten minutes what I would do is merge federal health care bureaucracy under a Medicare-for-all plan with the option for states to pass and implement their own plan that goes further if they’d like. There would then be a multi-year phasing into period to allow for providers to adjust. The insurance markets would then compete on top of that. They’d have the same adjustment period that providers would have. Single payer would be better for employers, workers, certainly the uninsured, would be a big win for children and young families, and insurance companies would come out the biggest loser. Which I am fine with. States retain their autonomy by being allowed to make their own plan that could supplant but must cover all the parts of the federal (freedom to go further, not less) single payer. The same constitutional arguments made to defend Medicare for over-65 can then be applied to 0 to 65. Healthcare bureaucracy becomes leaner, more efficient, less complex. This along with programs like universal basic income through the social security administration would be the “social vaccine” that the 21st century requires. We can either go in this direction and come together or we’ll continue to be divided, disenfranchised and fail alone.
That’s basically the gist of it. That is the direction that I think the country should go, and the people of the United States of America agree.
Since then, the AHCA or “secret bill” that Speaker Paul Ryan had locked in the capitol basement, and the entire reason for the GOP being so irrationally opposed the ACA (“Obamacare”) for seven years (i.e. ACA is “government” and our plan is “not government”) in the first place, proved to be so historically unpopular with nearly every segment of the U.S. population and members of Congress, that they had to pull it from the house floor this last week. Allan, Carson, and I discussed in greater detail just how revealingly bad the AHCA proposed replacement to the ACA was in the most recent “Margin of Error” episode.
Revealing in the sense that any stated purpose for the bill, whether it be controlling government or private costs, health care coverage, improving health outcomes, or any other conceivable reason the federal government would have to take up passing any sort of health care law, by all objective measures, the proposed bill was a failure. Proving the majority party in Congress and the Trump administration to either be objectively bad at crafting sensible public policy, or just objectively declaring war on more and more sections of the American public. Taken with every other major proposal so far, it is quite clear what the true goal of the Republican Party is and has always been. Systematic deconstruction of government by any means necessary, and transferring that power to select large and already powerful corporations.
It’s not just health care, lets move to the proposed infrastructure bill. It puts the interests of private companies over the public interest in the form of allowing companies to recoup the return on their investment through fees and tolls. This is the sort of “forced consumerism” that has become more and more popular in GOP policy-making.
This week, the Senate and House repealed necessary FCC rules that protected internet privacy. A massive victory for the telecom industry and just another version of “forced consumerism.” Now more and more content will be directly delivered to your “digital doorstep” asking you to spend more and more money to enrich corporations, the massively rich and powerful, who will then turn around and ensure the political system continues to work for them rather than you. This country, even before the results of the 2016 Election, is at a cross-roads.
We can go the route of the above, more tax giveaways to the rich, more forever war, Gilded Age levels of economic inequality, and “forced consumerism”, or we can endorse “we all do better when we all do better”, recognize “the ties that bind” us all together, and build sustainable communities and locally-based economies that integrate when necessary, all while building a badly needed and necessary social safety net of the 21st century.
“The Ties That Bind” us together as a community would have us move toward a universal health care centered around some version of a Medicare-for-all single payer plan. The Ties That Bind would further endorse universal basic income that would learn from the experiments of the Northern European social democracies with that very policy idea right now. One dollar spent on a child in poverty today saves society three to nine dollars when they are an adult.
Furthermore, rather than penalize the largest and most educated cohort in American history through mandated “forced consumerism” while they are already saddled with crushing student debt, stagnant wages and opportunities in comparison to their parents at a similar age, we should stimulate the economy, especially in the area of housing (the fourth largest sector and one of the only sectors of the “real and tangible” economy left) and have some version of a student loan bailout. We have bailed out banks that are “too big to fail” time, and time again, it is time to bail out people too. People are the reason for the government to exist in the first place, not big business.
Earlier today on the internet a “very serious person”, self-identified as a member of the alt-right, a species of super human beings who worship a God Emperor got into a conclusive argument with a mere regular human being.
Local “very serious person” objectively has the right answers, and can prove this empirically. #IAmVerySmart
Agreeing Loudly “deep state” sources can confirm the identity of this very serious person as potentially this man: