Democratic Leaders Concerned That Popular Ideas Might Take Over the Party

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 11.47.26 PM
Democratic leaders have chosen not to run on ideas and a platform more appealing to the general electorate, citing fears that they’d lose control of the party.

Washington, D.C. —

Fresh off the emboldening Democratic establishment victories in California and the likely one coming up in New York state, the two U.S. states with an outsized role in shaping the narrative of one of the two major political parties in the country, have decided not to run on ideas that would be politically popular to most of the country, Democratic, independent, and Republican alike.

Take tri-partisan popularity of policies like Medicare-for-All for instance, which enjoys broadly shared support in 42 of the 50 U.S. states. 

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 11.54.09 PM
Medicare has for years been one of the most popular programs in the country, expanding it to everyone as favored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has fallen on deaf ears for most of the Democratic establishment. Sen. Senators as you know, is largely seen as discredited for “not being a Democrat”(TM) or something… meanwhile, real Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) are openly considering supporting President Trump in 2020. #HesNotEvenADemocrat

Meanwhile, the sterling economy has made the Democrats shift gears to focusing on restoring checks and balances to the government, and a laser-focus on the public corruption of the Trump administration. Not a bad strategy in theory, but two problems with that:

1. Conceding the economic argument to the Trump administration is a huge mistake, especially considering the fact that the economy is average-at-best, poor-for-the-many, and only good in a universe of diminished expectations and acceptance of national decline.

2.  The Democratic Party has its own problem with corruption too, especially in states like New York, where corruption has enjoyed a bipartisan consensus. New York’s status as a “blue state”, whatever that means, will contribute to undermining this as an electoral strategy. It certainly won’t persuade anyone, as many polls have backed up the fact that most Trump/GOP supporters don’t care about public corruption. And the Republican Party remains more behind this president than any party has been since World War II at the 500-day mark of a presidency, with the exception of President George W. Bush just after 9/11.

Also, this happened. In New Jersey, Lisa McCormick, a first-time candidate with no money, no endorsements, and no campaign appearances, captured 38 percent of the primary vote against Bob Menendez, a two-term U.S. senator who has raised more than $8 million and had the endorsement of every major Democrat in the state. Sen. Menendez was indicted on public corruption charges (which were dropped earlier this year) and recently was “severely admonished” by US Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

**********

Make no mistake, the Democratic Party is the only current and viable vessel out of this long and potentially permanent national nightmare. That being said, all of the problems frequently cited by this website, its podcast, commentary and articles are still present, and are still on display, arrogantly so even, by the party itself.

  1. An aversion to actual competitive primaries, especially against average or poor incumbents in safe Democratic states and districts. Why does this matter? Because it is through safer seats, that long term bench-building and party-building becomes easiest and controllable. The Democratic Party has long had an addiction to political dynasties, incumbency and careerism where none is warranted, and from being unwilling to have an actual conversation with its base about the direction of the party.
  2. A party that is increasingly dependent on the young to be viable, is led by the old. Indeed, the gerontocracy of the leaders in the Democratic Party has long been a problem, and its a problem that the Republican Party has taken advantage of, first through active recruitment of younger candidates. The few times the Democratic Party establishment has gotten behind younger candidates, those candidates have been poor avatars of the growing consensus of their generation (see: Jon Ossoff).
  3. The party is still awful at harnessing grassroots energy. The party was mostly adversarial and awkwardly silent during Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and other movements, and while I’ve seen some improvement here, I’ve also seen a foolish tendency to come and take credit for grassroots victories. It’s highly embarrassing that state parties with next to zero social media following act like they’re the grassroots, while there is very real work going on. Simply put, the GOP let the Tea Party energy go through them, whether they wanted it or not, the Democrats often go out of their way to put up roadblocks to put out grassroots energy that ideally, could flow through them as a vessel. Make no mistake, if you’re waiting for change to come from the Democratic Party, we’ll be waiting forever. But that doesn’t mean change cannot be brought to it. And that change will happen faster if they get out of their own way.
  4. No new ideas nor desire to adopt popular ideas from progressives. While movement progressivism and the democracy movement have provided much in the way of pushing new ideas the past few years, the Democratic establishment has been slow to adapt any of them. I’ll give individual Democratic leaders like Senators Kamala Harris, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and others credit for adopting popular positions in the past 18 months on health care for all and other issues, but overall — this adoption of new ideas is happening to slow. Notice that Harris, Gillibrand, and Booker are all relatively younger for a Democratic officeholder. It’ll probably be faster to continue to run viable primary challenges like the GOP did when they were in opposition. Until the party fears their base, they have no reason to adopt the change that we need and seek.
  5. They frustrate the small-d democratic process itself. In recent cycles, and in this cycle, despite strong grassroots developments around the country through groups like Our Revolution, Indivisible, etc., the Democratic establishment has continually frustrated the process by intervening before the voters have decided. Recently in New York state, DNC Chair Tom Perez intervened and endorsed Governor Andrew Cuomo for a third term. This story has been quite common this cycle. Cuomo has deep campaign coffers, support from the state establishment, has even helped pass a few progressive reforms, but he also has deliberately held up reform through the creation and allowance of the Independent Democratic Conference, which for years caucused with state Republicans and continued to do so the last few years. He also is backed considerably by big real estate interests who give unlimited sums to his campaign and continue to benefit through the LLC tax loophole. He also has shut down the investigatory board meant to crack down on public corruption in the politics of New York itself. Similar to New Jersey this cycle, back in 2014 he had a little-known and barely-funded challenger receive a surprising amount of support just by standing up — Zephyr Teachout. Teachout is a Fordham Law professor who literally wrote the book on public corruption (see: Corruption in America). Teachout ran for Congress last cycle and is running for NYS Attorney General in 2018 in the wake of Eric Schneiderman resigning in shame last month. At this point, the “very serious” and “very smart” people at the top leadership positions of the Democratic Party should strive to remain “actively and passionately neutral”, allowing the process to play out and the voters to decide. After all, if the establishment leadership was so good at what they do, they’d win more often.
  6. The question must be asked–does the Democratic Party even want to win? I say this because this is a time where left-leaning parties should be gaining steam considering there are Gilded Age-levels of economic inequality, and most Americans are one bad week away from being in poverty. Historically, and especially in modern times, the Republican Party has been the party of elites. The problem is, with but a few exceptions today, the Democratic Party has also become a party of elites. In a political system and political culture that is growing more and more distant from the common people, voting your pocket book may very well be the measly couple hundred bucks you receive from the Trump tax cuts, even though math and future attacks on Medicare and Social Security because of record budget deficits will say otherwise and say that decision was short-sighted. It’s an unsettling reality of our time, but voting with anger, fear, and frustration is going to give a slight advantage to those who hate stronger in an era where voter mobilization and active participation is fueled by hatred of the other side.
  7. In an era where the Republican Party has waged a war on facts, the tastes and sentiments of the Democratic Party seem ill-prepared to be an effective opposition party. It is a problem to be led in the Senate by a leader like Sen. Chuck Schumer, who voted against the Iran Deal. This undermines any effective opposition to that ill-considered move by Trump and co. This is similarly true on the issues related to the boomer bipartisan consensus. Whether it’s missile strikes against Syria, complete silence with few exceptions on Israeli snipers killing unarmed protesters who were at worst, throwing rocks, or repealing key provisions of Dodd-Frank (which will most likely lead to another Great Recession, the Greater Recession of 2021 we’ll say, that article and argument is to come at a later time).
  8. This is a terribly ineffective opposition party. They’re so bad that I almost wonder if they genuinely agree with the Republican Party on most of this agenda. Perhaps it is just the continuation of the boomer bipartisan consensus of forever war, tax giveaways to the rich, and unconcern about Gilded Age-levels of economic inequality. In the end, like Barzini before him, it was AL.com contributor Carson Starkey and his “should-be famous” refrain all along. Look at the Trump tax cut bill for instance. At the time of its passage, the bill had the support of 20 percent or fewer Americans, depending on the poll. At nearly this same time, DACA had the support of over 3/4th’s of the country. Yet the tax bill that continued the near-four decade long trend of wealth redistribution to the very top was pushed through, and DACA recipients owe their legal status in this country to judges, not to Democrats standing up for them. The brief time the Democrats stood tall and tough, shutting down the government over DACA, they caved in mere days. Throughout their time in opposition, the voters have clearly not punished the Republican Party for their numerous partisan government shutdowns, nor their consistent shunning of the democratic legitimacy of the only boomer President that was any good, President Barack Obama. Democrats in Congress could have done the same thing, if only to show the country and their base that they care. Maybe I’m being too tough on the Democrats here, maybe the timing of this message will not be well-received, but I cannot help but feel that any momentum toward a blue wave, despite the encouraging signs in special elections, despite the encouraging signs at the grassroots level, I have the creeping notion that it will be wasted. There is still a lot of time left, so consider it a warning. But if the election were held today — I do not believe the Democratic Party would pick up either the House or the Senate. The graphs below show a closing of the gap on the issues, on enthusiasm, and in the generic balloting (which Democrats have historically underperformed the general ballot polling anyway).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

It ain’t over ’til it’s over folks, but as of today I see little evidence that a #BlueWave will come. While I hope I’m wrong about these warnings, and I look forward to having very #actuallysmart people I respect say otherwise this weekend on the AL.com podcast (back from the dead), I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t think it was going to happen.

**********

To summarize and play the devil’s advocate, switching gears to an Against Trump campaign could end up being the right strategy because it a.) worked for the Republican Party these past eight years, and b.) President Trump is still very unpopular overall even after accounting for the uptick in his ratings. His personal approval lags behind his job approval, the opposite of President Obama (whose personal approval ratings typically were higher than his policies and job approval ratings). My worry is like the electoral college itself, where he is liked is strategically spread out throughout the country in a narrowly sufficient manner, the very manner which scored him and the GOP a surprise upset in the ’16 election.

And the greatest frustration of all won’t be a midterm disappointment, which I’m currently expecting, it’ll be the continued and predictable insistence from party leadership that it should keep driving the bus. Because at the end of the day, I do not think it is the willingness or unwillingness to compromise with their base or not that drives progressives crazy about the Democratic Party — it is their electoral track record.

Progressives of all stripes are not stubborn, at least not as stubborn as movement conservatives were from the days of Barry Goldwater to Mitt Romney (the last conservative Republican nominee, as it does a disservice to the word to consider Trump conservative, he’s personally and fundamentally an authoritarian nationalist to the extent you can pinpoint an ideology), but progressives do want to win and help bring this country back from decades of national decline in actual hard numbers, and decline in image. And to do that they need to have a legal vessel, a political party that can win elections and at least perform the basic tasks an opposition party is supposed to perform in a democracy falling into tyranny… and if it cannot, progressives need to stop compromising with a party leadership that doesn’t know how to win elections, and continue the long march toward taking over the Democratic Party the same way the Goldwater grassroots movement took over the Republican Party in the 1960’s. It is the best shot.

Final Note: In the many states where the national party, and most importantly (since most of the actual party organizing goes through state parties), the state parties, have “given up”, which are predominately red states — progressives have succeeded in more or less taking over the state party. And while there have been disappointments for progressives in most statewide races, that is to be expected. If you look down-ballot at the Congressional and state legislative seats, there is reason for optimism.

I said after the 2016 Election that this reform project would take six to eight years. I stand by that and there will be some growing pains along the way, but we’ll get there. 

The Democratic Party – An Identity Crisis

WTF
Sadly, this is not from the Onion. This was a genuine attempt at messaging from the DCCC. Folks, we’ve got some work to do….

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).

  1. Taft-Hartley (1948) | Right-to-work legislation is now on the table and begins in earnest.
  2. 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).
  3. Assassinations of 1960s political and moral leaders (JFK, Bobby, MLK Jr., Malcolm X, Fred Hampton).
  4. 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.)
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.)
Sigh...
What could have been.

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.

This Week on the Interwebs

The Controlled Burn
A lot happened this week, but I keep coming back to the Joker line in The Dark Knight, sometimes people just want to “watch the world burn.” Not much unites the country these days, but one thing nearly everyone under the age of 45 can agree on, the status quo has not been working for some time.

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.

Approval 2 (Boomer Division)
We just crossed the 100 days marker not too long ago, here is where Trump stands, and keep in mind this was before the Comey firing. Most importantly, look at the general trend of the erosion of trust and support for Presidents (in line with eroding support for other American institutions) over the years. Post-Watergate I, partisanship was high but then confidence was briefly restored before returning with a vengeance as soon as the boomer generation assumed complete control of all elected branches of government (Fmr. President Clinton and onward).
Approval 1
Yes, President Trump is different than previous times of polarization and partisanship. He is the most polarizing President in the history of polling. This graph is from right after the inauguration. 
Russia GDP Growth Rate
I don’t pay much attention to the particulars of the Russia investigations. I have no doubt in my mind Putin and Russia wanted Trump elected. Why? 7 straight quarters of negative GDP growth. Russia under Putin has not thrived at all, just the opposite. And if our nation emulates their system we will suffer the same fate (minus differences in natural resources, etc.) and even more stagnant growth (more on this later).

….while we’re on the subject of the future of U.S. public policy…

And America
From the Willy Wonka Honest Trailer on YouTube–check it out if you have time. Hilarious and also this…
What Obesity Used to Look Like
More than 1/3 of U.S. adults are obese and 17.5% of children, couple this with the damning statistic of 20% of U.S. children being in poverty (obviously, through no fault of their own), compared to 4.8% for the Netherlands, there is a lot of room for improvement beyond meaningless and mostly symbolic statements like: “the children are our future.” The obesity crisis has gone under-reported in the U.S. media and has been but one of many reasons that there is no easy fix to the U.S. health care system.

Speaking of….

Fate of 18 Midterms on Older Boomers
If you think the impact of the AHCA passing will surely deliver both houses of Congress to the Democratic Party, think again. You’re counting on a demographic who has voted reliably Republican or Democrat for some time. 
Truth
Ain’t this the truth….
The Pre-existing condition
Please tell me again how the “children are our future?” And why did Hillary Clinton not run on ending child poverty? “It’s Time” to do X, Y, and Z would have been a far better appeal than “I’m With Her” or “Stronger Together”, but I digress. All of this assumes the elites of the Democratic Party knew what they were doing.
Math Is Hard For Fox News
Fox News has had cosmic justice enforced on them in abundance lately. Scandal after scandal, but they can still trot out their old reliable trademark of using accurate statistics to incredibly mislead people. Jeez… if only former President Obama had pressed the job creation button on January 21st…

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.

Distribution of Income During Expansion
The story since the late 70’s has been unequal growth, wages not rising with productivity and inflation, and its starting to catch up with us no matter who is in charge. Why? Because Tom Frank is right–there is no “party of the people” right now and hasn’t been for some time (circa late 70’s, notice a trend here?)

This has led to a distribution that looks like this….

wealth in america
Clearly, something will have to give here.

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.”

The Moral Hazard Burn
That’s all for now, folks.

Take care of each out there. And stay tuned for Agreeing Loudly and the Margin of Error.

Mark Zuckerberg Practicing Folksiness for Inevitable 2020 and/or 2024 Presidential Election Loss

Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, seen here with Mayor Pete Buttigeg, is the subject of many speculative media articles, and is looking forward to making the Democratic Party look foolish in 2020, perhaps botching a second completely winnable election in a row.

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.

#CodingAndAlgorithmsWeCanBelieveIn

Episode 46: And the Award Goes to…

 

deadpool-considurbation-poster

On this month’s episode of Agreeing Loudly Coast to Coast, Bill Nentl makes his triumphant return from his multi-month suspension. In celebration of this momentous occasion, the Agreeing Loudly brain trust (minus one Pat Meacham) discuss their thoughts on who will win Best Picture at the upcoming Academy Awards, the latest Trumptastrophes, and some more public policy they think would make the world a better place.

Will Bill be able to make it through one episode without being suspended again? Tune in now to find out! Hate using your data for podcasts, then download it instead.

AL.com endorses Kurt Meyer for Iowa Democratic Party Chair

557a1c904bb17-imageOver the past month Kurt Meyer has been able to share his vision of the Iowa Democratic Party under his future leadership with his fellow Iowa Democrats. By and large, Agreeing Loudly is millennial, and we are progressive Democrats.

AL.com co-founder Pat Meacham is a former Iowa House Caucus staffer and said he “couldn’t be happier to give my wholehearted support to my friend and mentor.” Kurt understands and embraces Meacham’s 3-M’s of political campaigning – Message, Money and Machine and how each one will move the IDP and Iowa forward.

He understands that without a simple, forward-thinking message that reaches all 99 counties – you have no message at all. Since we met him nearly a decade ago, Kurt has preached a message of collaboration, inclusion and introspection. He has been an honest voice promoting Iowa politics and the First-in-the-Nation Caucus with some of the biggest media outlets in the country – New York Times, NPR and on MSNBC.

Furthermore, Meyer believes in the political machine. No, not the Tammany Hall version of yesteryear – but the vision of recruiting and training activists and potential candidates year-round, not just every two years. The idea of IDP field staffers living, working and engaging citizens in areas across the state every year not just when their local candidate is “targeted” by the party bosses – is innovative and refreshing. The Iowa Democratic Party needs to start building relationships again from Ottumwa to St. Ansgar and everywhere between – just like Kurt has by helping found the Tri-County Democrats in northern Iowa.

Kurt has a history of successfully raising money both in the political realm and in the private sector with multi-million dollar fund development. After the 2014 cycle, he headed an ad-hoc group that suggested ways the IDP fundraising could be expanded. Without successful fundraising he understands the other 2-M’s will not be successful.

Kurt Meyer is not running for IDP Chair to boost future personal political endeavors, he is not running as an insider, he is not running as a legacy candidate – he is running to be IDP Chair because as he says “I am proud, passionate, progressive Democrat from the marrow of my soul to the core of my being,” and progressive Democrats know that he’d be pretty good at the job too.

Agreeing Loudly Presents “The Lost Nixon Tapes”

nixon-richard-presidential-portrait
Portrait of President Richard M. Nixon

While we are awaiting the regular launch of the 2nd season of the Agreeing Loudly flagship “Coast to Coast” podcast with Pat, Bill, Jered, and various special guests — we thought we’d clue everyone in on some fantastic developments that our “Spotlight” team has been working on — the “Lost” Nixon Tapes. Like Presidents before him and some since, 37th President Richard M. Nixon taped nearly his entire Presidency. After the watergate scandal and being the first and only U.S. President to resign the office before his term was up, Nixon fought hard to protect the release of his tapes. Even today, not all of them have been released. Which brings us to now… our “Spotlight” team has discovered a cache of “Lost” Nixon White House tapes. Here is the first video below. For best results, since the audio is difficult to understand given that it was recorded decades ago, put your subtitles on.

 

The Gentrified Revolution

For all of Bernie Sanders’s rhetoric about the ills of income inequality and class warfare, in Los Angeles his message was most popular in gentrifying precincts. Dissecting the spacial aspects of why his presidential campaign failed offers important lessons as the movement he inspired looks to the future.

by Allan Branstiter

LA County

The Los Angeles Times published a fascinating and telling interactive map displaying how each of LA’s precincts voted during the Democratic Primary on June 7th. My first impression of the map was that of shock—Hillary Clinton absolutely dominated Bernie Sanders throughout the Los Angeles County. The map basically depicts a sea of blue swamping little boroughs of pinko insurgency.

Aside from the degree of Clinton’s victory in Los Angeles, a close look of the precinct results offers progressives a few important lessons as they plan for the future.

Progressives Still Need to Engage Racial Injustice

If you want to make a Sanders supporter bristle, just talk about the fact that the core of his support tends to be comfortable, highly educated, and white. While Sanders made several important (albeit uncomfortable) overtures towards racial injustice and won the support of high-profile African-American intellectuals and activists like Killer Mike and Ta-Nehisi Coates, black and brown folks still voted largely for Clinton. This holds true in LA, where Clinton did very well South Central cities like Compton, Carson, Inglewood, and West Adams.

Southcentral

White Sanders supporters have been struggling for months to understand why their message of economic and social justice is not resonating in non-white communities. While I have a few theories, I certainly don’t claim to have the answers to this problem; however, I am certain that Bernie and the vast majority of his supporters failed to engage racial problems in a way that convince minorities that they saw their issues (poverty, discrimination, segregation, crime, mass incarceration) as more than abstract political issues. White liberals are adept at talking about racial justice, but they’re not very good at engaging racial injustice.

This map can help us explore this issue from the perspective of racial spaces, and how the old adage “Pay attention to what white folks do, not what they say” might help nurture a truly biracial progressive movement in the future.

 

Sanders Won the Gentrification Vote

The second thing about this map was the fact that Sander’s core of support roughly mapped out the gentrified/gentrifying areas of Los Angeles. This is important to understand because—despite what well-meaning realtors, developers, independent book shop owners, and young urban professional sincerely believes—gentrification is economic and racial violence.

Sadly, where we see concentrations of Sanders supporters on this map, we also see areas of intensifying economic and geographic displacement on the ground. For example, check out the South Beach area:

SouthBeach

Lakewood and Long Beach (located southern of Signal Hill on the map) serve as somewhat affordable bedroom communities for white middle class entertainment, tech, and corporate professionals working north in Downtown and West LA. With this population comes good public services and commercial development. On June 7th, these communities were either evenly contested, with the trendier parts of town going for Sanders.

To the north and east are the communities of Carson and Compton, where precincts went solidly for Clinton. The fact that they are also largely African-American, poor, and neglected is a result of decades of urban redlining, economic predation, and systematic racism. In the past Long Beach and Lakewood worked endlessly to keep surrounding blacks out of their suburbs, but today the area is losing African-American residents due to poor economic opportunities, rising costs, crime, and persistent neglect. In their place are thousands of house flippers, land developers, and white middle class “settlers.”

The browns and blacks who remain face an increasingly precarious housing market, low paying service jobs, and heavy policing. Sure, they have a Trader Joe’s now, but their overall quality of life is stagnating. Considering these facts, it should come as no surprise that poor non-whites did not embrace the enthusiasm for Sanders displayed by their well-meaning but ultimately aloof white neighbors.

The South Beach phenomenon can be seen elsewhere in Los Angeles. For example, Sanders had a lot of support along the I-10 corridor in West LA, where a growing tech sector in “Silcon Beach” (Venice Beach) and the extension of the Metro Expo Line from Downtown to Santa Monica have fueled the displacement of poor Hispanics and blacks in the area:

WestLA

Then there’s ground-zero of LA gentrification—Silver Lake, Echo Park, Highland Park, and Eagle Rock are all hotly developing boroughs with large white populations that voted for Sanders. In fact, one of the most notorious instances of racial displacement occurred in Elysian Park when Chavez Ravine (a Hispanic community) was forcefully emptied and bulldozed to make way for Dodger Stadium:

SilverLake

Long story short, if we’re going to talk about why Sanders did poorly among racial minorities, we need to discuss the failings of white liberalism. We should first begin by dispelling the ideal that all forms of racism—be it segregation, discrimination, neglect, or gentrification—are implicitly motivated by racial malevolence. We need to acknowledge the fact that good “woke” people who espouse even the most inclusive notions of racial justice can also unthinkingly sustain a system of racial inequality. Doing so might alleviate the burden of whiteness felt by white Sanders supporters, and hasten the arrival of a more inclusive and productive progressive movement.

Parting Shot—Clinton Won the Rich and Older People Vote

As a true blue leftist with significant disdain for the outsized influence of wealthy people in the Democratic politics, I should also point out that Clinton won overwhelmingly in the enclaves of ca$h money in LA. Brentwood. Beverly Hills. Pacific Palisades. Westwood. Pasadena. All went for Clinton. Clinton also did well among older Democrats in the ‘burbs: Covina, Beverlywood, Studio City, Encino and the Valley more generally. On the other hand, Sanders did well in Hollywood, where he gummed up traffic and wooed the starry-eyed youths living along Sunset Strip.

“The Boomers Strike Back”, Clinton vs. Trump it is.

 

by Troy M. Olson

old-economy-steve2_0-1
Remember Old Economy Steve? Meme courtesy of those lazy millennials and their sarcasm-as-a-defense-mechanism mindset.

It’s settled folks. The 2016 Presidential Election is between Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R). Yes, I’m aware that the Democratic Party still has two candidates vying for the nomination, while both Ted Cruz and John Kasich dropped out a few weeks ago. However, no matter how hard #BernieOrBust folks or other groups try to show you otherwise, the Democratic Primary has been over for some time. For me personally, it was over when Bernie Sanders did not win Iowa. He was over a little bit more when he could not delve into the Nevada unions enough to gain a victory there, although like Iowa, it was close. While admittedly, my Super Tuesday predictions were a little too pessimistic for Bernie, it was still under where he needed to be.

He and his supporters have ran a solid and mostly clean campaign that has focused on the issues, pulled Hillary to the left on many important issues facing the country, and in the process made her a better candidate. Unfortunately, all of the old rules of left-right-center are out this cycle. The Republican Party has decided to nominate real estate mogul, reality TV star, and professional bomb thrower, Donald Trump.

And when I say the Republican Party I mean the lower and medium income white working class voters of the Republican Party has chosen him. As Carson and others have stated all cycle, the establishment of the Republican Party laughs at most of their supporters behind closed doors and has since about 1981. What we did not know as a country is that the Democratic Party now does that too and has for the past twenty years or so. Citizens United, money corrupting our political process, redistribution of wealth and the concentration of it in the hands of the very, very few have not happened in a vacuum. I hate to break it to some party hacks, but the Democratic Party is responsible for these things too. They are responsible because they have endorsed it. You see, back in 1992 when Bill Clinton became the first Democratic President in twelve years, the party tacked to the center and rebranded themselves the “New Democrats.”

Continue reading

Conversations with the Ghost of America’s Future Past

by Carson Starkey and Troy M. Olson

America's Future Past

On a quiet park bench on Central Park West, merely hours after a 2018 GOP strategy conference on how to win back the White House got over, which Carson Starkey and Troy Olson, had just got done attending under the guise of being correspondents. The mood is somber. Not unlike this scene:

Carson

That was profoundly awkward, watching the Republican Party elites trying to win back white working class conservative and populist voters, after thoroughly sabotaging and trashing them during the 2016 “respectable conservative” plot to cheat.

Troy

We really missed the boat when we failed to cash-in on that verbiage via a book deal. “Exposed! The Respectable Conservative Plot to Cheat” by Carson Starkey, J.D.

Carson

Senate Majority Leader Tom Cotton (Gin) is going to relish his future role as Vice Presidential candidate. Julian Castro and Cory Booker are going to have tough sells on the Atlantic coast. Virginia and North Carolina might not remember that they voted for an unlikely candidate only a decade ago. Different times…

Troy

You speak of course of the upcoming ’24 and ’28 elections, they will not be pretty. It’s of course a foregone conclusion that 2020 will be both a blood path that was avoidable and a missed opportunity during a redistricting election. As the person who penned the “Case for Losing” back in early 2016, to the incredible enragement of many on the left, I take no pleasure in having been right. This was avoidable. It always has been. Nice things could be possible and would create nicer people.

Carson

I’ll be sad to see Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, SNPA, and the EPA disappear. But such are the misfortunate that follow a $12 trillion tax cut. Sure, the Iran War will be awful, but privatizing the VA will only add insults to actual injuries. I hope that Treasury Secretary Willard Romney has a plan to deal with the resulting 15 percent unemployment. The human misery will be severe.

Troy

Right. This would all be easier to swallow on our end if so-called “enlightened establishment” did not consistently tell Millennials we are all still too young to be Congressional candidates.

Carson

Now, now…the leadership will pick the right people. They know how to build majorities that last two to four years. So we’ll just accomplish everything that we want during any window where we have the majority.

Troy

Then blame losses on the only relatively popular member of the party (former President Obama).

Carson

Because pragmatism…or something. I’m not really sure about the specific strategy, you’ll have to ask Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.

Troy

A strategy of protecting economic gains made fifty to sixty years ago is not exactly inspiring.

Carson

That’s just your unrealistic opinion in their eyes, they won’t return your phone calls because they’re fundraising with Jamie Dimon. So I suppose we can talk about what…. a minimum wage hike? Or is that already on the agenda? At the very least… let’s talk privatizing public schools. That has to be a popular idea with our voting base, at least that’s what they will presume.

Troy

This is too depressing. Let’s end by talking C-PAC and how profoundly awkward the atmosphere was in there. Did every working class Joe and Jane just conveniently forget about the fact that the GOP establishment called them a bunch of “slack jawed yokels” two years ago during the Trump fiasco?

Carson

Now to be fair… Jane and Joe have bigger problems than crushing poverty, stagnant wages, and drug (presumably meth) addiction. You’re not giving fair consideration to gay people getting married or the existence of the “hippity hop” music. Ask Ben Carson, he’ll tell you why both are causes for concern.

Troy

Sigh… By the way, we switched the metaphor to Joe because John died working the job because social security retirement is now 68 years old.

Carson

Well obviously. And thank God that his company replaced him with a teenager from Vietnam who’s working for 70 cents a day. The power of the free market.

Troy

But pay day loan company executives who enthusiastically supported Hillary in ’16 said people are living longer now… or something. Yeah, tell that to John’s kids.

Carson

At least you can get a slice of pizza for a dollar.

***Carson and Troy walk in to one of New York City’s fine pizza establishments***  

Troy

God bless New York City.

Carson

Amen.

What you just read may scare you, I know it scares me.

However, there is still something we can collectively do about it.

We can change the future…. if we try.