I really enjoyed "Jessica Jones" season 1. Season 2 came out on Thursday and I continue to enjoy it. Beyond the characters and the plots, though, I am fascinated by Jessica's bourbon and whiskey choices.
If you don't know the show, Jessica is a private eye with a lot of past trauma and she drinks . . . a lot. Like, to crazy excess, usually to forget stuff or deal with stress. She often has hangovers but rarely seems drunk, even after drinking an entire bottle in an evening. They don't mention it, but I suspect that since she has super powers she has super tolerance too. Either way, getting the headache but not the buzz seems like a pretty shitty deal for her.
Her brands are what interest me most. Jessica is a brown liquor woman, but she was all over the map with her whiskey choices and I can't watch an episode without noticing what she's drinking and wondering why she, or, rather, the producers, chose it.
In season one she had a different brand every episode. Sometimes multiple brands an episode. Sometimes it was scotch, sometimes bourbon, sometimes Canadian. She occasionally drank some fictitious brands from the prop department. The real products came from multiple distillers. In light of all of that I don't suspect that any of those bottles were there by virtue of product placement.
If it was product placement it was pretty crappy product placement for the distilleries involved. For example, in one episode she asks a convenience store clerk for "the cheapest you got." He sells her Wild Turkey 101, which is not the cheapest he or anyone else has. I doubt Wild Turkey would like to have 101 portrayed as rotgut if it was paying to have its bottle featured. In the next episode she's drinking Old Grandad and earlier drank Beam, Teacher's and freakin' Cutty, so she obviously does know where to get cheaper stuff. She's a detective!
For the first two episodes of season two, she drinks only Tin Cup. Because the exclusivity and because the bottle and its label are shown so prominently, I suspected that Tin Cup had paid for exclusive rights for the much more anticipated Season 2. But . . . nah. In episode three she's back to Four Roses yellow label. Again, though, if Tin Cup did pay for that placement, they may not care for how it was used. Jessica drinks it like water -- at one point she literally fills a 10 ounce water class with the stuff, straight up and chugs -- and at another point she has a nightmare where she's hooked up to a Tin Cup IV, the bourbon flowing straight into her veins. There's no such thing as bad publicity I guess, but I feel like a distiller wouldn't want to have its brand being used explicitly to show how much of a problem drinker a character is. "Drink Tin Cup: the preferred brand for functioning alcoholics everywhere!"
If it isn't product placement, I don't understand all of the switching. Sure, a whiskey enthusiast may get a different bottle every time, but Jessica isn't someone you'd call a whiskey enthusiast. She's a drunk. Or at least a wannabe drunk. I've known some drunks in my time. If they're like Jessica and they are (a) functional; and (b) at least make a passable living, so that they don't have to take whatever they can get, they tend to have brand loyalty. Or at least price point loyalty. Even if they do change up brands, they don't bounce from bourbon to scotch to rye the way she does.
Last season some sites like Buzzfeed kept track of what she was drinking. I am only three episodes into season 2 -- it's a treadmill show for me, so it's a one a day thing, not something I, uh, binge -- but I'm gonna continue to keep track myself. I'm more fascinated in this than I am in the shady forces Jessica Jones is fighting. She'll beat them in the end. I have no idea what's gonna happen with the next bottle.
I spend a lot of time browsing real estate websites. I'm not in the market to move. I'm not coveting a big fancy house or anything. I just find it fascinating to see how much house is available for how much in whatever place I happen to be thinking about or whatever place I have just passed through. It's a time-killer more than anything.
This morning I found myself looking at San Francisco real estate. Given how stupidly expensive it is there, I limited my search to apartments and condos under 1,500 square feet in a neighborhood I'm somewhat familiar with, Alamo Square/Divisadero. I stayed there on a trip a couple of years ago and it just sprang to mind.
I found a place that caught my eye. The sort of place I often think about moving into once my kids go away to college: an old apartment building with character in a walkable neighborhood. Multiple places, actually, as the building, which has recently been renovated, had several 1-2 bedroom units for sale, all of which retained just enough historic elements to bring one joy but sufficient modern conveniences to make life pleasant. This is it:
That's about as San Francisco as you can get, right?
It's San Francisco in price too, obviously, as the cheapest place -- an 800 square foot one bedroom -- is over $800K and the larger ones range from $1 million to nearly $2 million. That's pretty silly in most of the rest of the country, but if you're familiar with the San Francisco real estate market you realize it's par for the course. Heck, within that world these places are probably something of a bargain if you can believe it. In related news, my desire to move to San Francisco, once quite strong, disappeared about 10 years ago.
Normally at this point I'd click out of Zillow and move on to more productive things. Something about that building was sticking with me, though, so I decided to do some searching to see what else I could find out about it. The first non-real estate listing I found was this story at Hoodline.com from early 2015. In relevant part:
1500 McAllister St., one of the buildings damaged in the fire which raged near Alamo Square last month, has been purchased by SF real estate mogul Russell Flynn. The fire affected approximately 17 units and displacing 25 residents, including two families with small children, and the future remains uncertain for the displaced residents . . . Flynn may be known to Hoodline readers as the owner of 493 Haight Street, located on the corner on Haight and Fillmore. That same building burned down in a fiery blaze in 2011, and took two years to rebuild.
I don't know if this Flynn character, who at the time owned thousands of rental units in San Francisco, still owns the building or if he flipped it to the people now selling the expensive condos. I have no comment whatsoever about that last paragraph, in which I detect an insinuation which some of the commenters to the article took up afterward. Safer to leave that sort of thing alone.
I do know, though, that those residents with the rent-controlled apartments from early 2015 all appear to be long gone. I also know that the owner now stands to make several million dollars on the sales of these nice units, each of which carry with them HOA fees that are probably around what the rents used to be on the apartments. Talk about a windfall, right?
I do know one other thing, and I know it for certain: You cannot have a functioning civil society in cities in which only the rich can afford to live.
If the only people who can buy or rent in your city are executives, professionals and single twenty somethings either living five to a house or working 80 hours a week down in Silicon Valley, your city is not whole. For a city to be whole it has to include construction workers and cashiers and firemen and librarians and store clerks and teachers and bartenders and cab drivers. It has to include people with families. It has to have room for both the rich and the poor, the white collar and the blue collar. It cannot rely on a refugee work force trekking into the city from an hour or two away each day and leaving it each night.
After thinking through all of this, I clicked back on the listings for 1500 McAllister Street. I looked at the lovely bay windows, high ceilings and wood floors. I admired the classic exterior. Then I took a virtual walk through the neighborhood via Google Street View, and passed by the nice bars, shops and cafes I went to when I visited there a couple of years ago. I imagined my stuff in one of those apartments and I imagined sitting in one of those cafes, maybe with my laptop, procrastinating on an article I was being paid to write by sending an email off to one of my kids, away at college. I then left the cafe and headed back toward "home," but not before ending up at Alamo Square, a block away, looking out over the Painted Ladies at the San Francisco skyline.
And I wondered how such a beautiful city got so broken.
Another mass killing. Another round of politicians offering "thoughts and prayers," but acting as if nothing else can be or should be done. It doesn't have to be this way.
When people suggest measures to address gun violence, the response is, invariably, "that wouldn't eliminate these massacres!" As if there is no middle ground between totally eliminating all bad things and doing absolutely nothing. We don't think this way about automobile or airplane crashes. We don't think about medical problems this way. That people revert to such an all-or-nothing response when it comes to guns is purely a function of their unwillingness to do anything, not the inefficacy of taking action.
Indeed, there are several things which could be done to reduce the probability of mass shootings happening again or, at the very least, making them less common and, when they do occur, less deadly.
Unlike some people on the left who talk about gun regulations, I do appreciate that the Second Amendment exists and I appreciate that it limits much of what can be done to address gun violence. The Second Amendment does not, however, foreclose action. Indeed, the landmark Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller, specifically held that "like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Justice Scalia's majority opinion, in fact, provided that all manner of reasonable restrictions -- including licensing, background checks and restrictions related to mental illness and the like -- could be imposed without offending the Second Amendment.
We can and should work to pass laws or regulations, on the state or federal level, as appropriate, that impose some common sense on a gun industry that, at present, enjoys a shocking lack of oversight due to political cowardice and the power of the gun lobby. The restrictions I favor, which would in no way unreasonably infringe upon people's legal rights under the Second Amendment as currently interpreted, fall into three categories:
None of these sorts of regulations would take guns away from law abiding citizens or infringe on the their rights under the Second Amendment. All of them would work to keep guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals and discourage those who would seek to inflict mass casualties.
No, these regulations would not totally eliminate gun violence in this country. Such an expectation is unrealistic and rejecting any reasonable measure because it does not meet that unrealistic expectation would be absurd. Such regulations would, however, go a long way toward reducing gun violence.
Every lawmaker should be asked why they don't support these measures. Any lawmaker who does not have a good answer should be voted out of office.
Over the past couple of months I've been chronicling how President Trump and Republicans in Congress have taken aim at the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society. How they passed a tax plan that benefitted the wealthy at the expense of those in need. How they have since aimed their sights on programs which benefit the poor and the sick. How they are seeking to stigmatize and alienate those who use and depend on social services.
My aim in doing this is not to simply point at a political party I do not support and say "hey, that's bad." A lot of people do that. My aim has been to show how, in these policies, Republicans have largely abandoned all pretense of conservatism as it's normally understood and have, instead, adopted a political agenda of unabashed class warfare, in which the poor and needy are cast as enemies. It's a campaign that cuts across traditional partisan lines and will likely harm just as many people who have traditionally supported Republicans as have supported Democrats. As such, I have argued, it is, I believe, either evidence of or a harbinger for of a political realignment in which the poor, regardless of their political orientation, are pitted against the wealthy, regardless of theirs.
The latest example of this can be found in President Trump's budget proposal, released yesterday. It would slash Medicaid. It would defund regional authorities and commissions whose work disproportionately impacts low-income people and minorities. It would end job-training and educational-development programs, slash or end subsidized student loans and public-service forgiveness for student loans. It would end low-income-housing energy-assistance programs. It would impose time-limited benefits and work requirements for those seeking disability assistance.
Perhaps the most notable of all of its proposals, however, involve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program, SNAP, which was once known as the food stamp program.
SNAP involves what is, basically, a debit card, preloaded with a relatively small amount of money to help poor families buy food. About 44 million Americans, mostly women and children, get their nutrition needs supplemented, in part, by SNAP. While the program has long been a boogeyman for conservatives, who pass along unsubstantiated claims of SNAP recipients using their benefits to buy steaks and things, it's a rigorously policed program, which has seen fraud rates dramatically decline over time, to all-time historical lows today.
Trump's proposed budget would radically transform SNAP. Rather than provide money in an debit card, it would slash those benefits and attempt to make up the difference with a box of canned goods, referred to as "America's Harvest Box." The Office of Management and budget director Mick Mulvaney described it as a “Blue Apron-type program," but it's more akin to war rations or a trip to a soup kitchen. The boxes would include shelf-stable milk instead of fresh dairy products and would not contain any fresh fruits or vegetables whatsoever, rendering the word "Harvest" in the title rather dubious. The boxes would be paid for, assembled and distributed by the federal government.
It's strange that such a program is being proposed by so-called conservatives, because there is absolutely nothing conservative about the scheme:
So, if this "Harvest Box" idea neither saves money nor advances traditional conservative principles, what does it do?
Mostly it's aggressively hostile to SNAP recipients. It presumes they cannot and should not make their own food choices. It deprives them of the ability to purchase fresh food, food to which they are accustomed to cooking and eating and likely limits the ability of SNAP recipients with specialized diets -- people with food allergies or celiac disease, for example -- to meet their nutritional needs. It thus directly harms them while having the added benefit of stigmatizing them. It's essentially a punitive exercise aimed at making the everyday existence of SNAP recipients worse.
While such a thing makes zero sense in the context of traditional governing, it makes perfect sense in the context of the political realignment about which I've hypothesized.
Such policies lend themselves perfectly to a political regime that, as a matter of conscious policy, favors the wealthy and disfavors the poor and vulnerable. It feeds directly into class resentment which can be seen in the erroneous complaints of those who believe in the old "welfare queen" stereotype and pass along apocryphal stories of food stamp recipients buying T-bone steaks and cigarettes at the grocery store. Such class resentment, in turn, gives greater and greater power to those who would demonize and marginalize the poor.
Proposals such as these are not tone deaf. They are not aberrant. Attacking and scapegoating the poor is a mode of conduct that is reasonably and rationally calculated to rally the support of the wealthy and privileged who, in recent political history, have had far, far greater say in who gets elected in this country than anyone else. It is class warfare, consciously undertaken by the wealthy and the powerful for political gain.
It will not be stopped until leaders those with influence in public opinion call it out for what it is and work hard to oppose it. When they do, and if and when people are mobilized, the political realignment will be complete. Instead of a fight between conservatives and liberals as we currently know it, it will be a fight between the wealthy and currently powerful on one side and ordinary Americans on the other.
Which side will you be on? For my part, I'll take the side with the greater numbers. There can't be more of them than us. There can't be more.
Jesus Berrones was one and a half years-old when his parents brought him from Mexico to the United States. Though here illegally, this country was the only one he knew. He grew up in Arizona and called it home.
When he was 19, he was caught driving with a fake license, probably obtained because he couldn't get a real one without proof-of-citizenship. He was deported, came back, was deported again and came back again. It's a pretty standard story of illegal immigration in the American Southwest.
After coming back the second time, Berrones started a family. He's 30 now and has a wife, Sonia, and five children, with another baby on the way. They live in Arizona. Sonia and all of the children are American citizens. Berrones is the family's sole breadwinner.
In 2016, his now five-year-old son was diagnosed with leukemia. As always, he was under threat of deportation due to his own immigration status, but in 2016 Immigration and Customs Enforcement granted him a stay due to his son's illness. Such a decision, in the past, was a typical one. ICE has discretion when it comes to deportation and it had traditionally declined to deport adults who were caring for sick children as a matter of basic human empathy.
Last month, with no warning, things changed: Berrones was told by ICE that he was going to be deported. He hired an attorney to attempt to renew his stay, but it was denied. Berrones is scheduled to be deported tomorrow, but he has since fled to a Phoenix area church which has taken it upon itself to shelter people facing deportation. ICE has no compunction about raiding homes and places of work to arrest and deport people, but it is reluctant to raid churches.
Denying a stay to Berrones and deporting him is certainly within the law, but like all exercises of executive and prosecutorial authority, it is also a choice. A decision driven by the political priorities of Donald Trump and ICE that inflicts needless suffering upon a five-year-old boy battling cancer and his father who cannot be by his side as he fights for his life. They could grant an exception here. They simply choose not to.
It'd be easy to make Donald Trump and ICE into over-the-top, out-of-touch mustache-twirling villains here, but they have backing in this madness. A lot of it. People like the ones who, when I tweeted about Jesus Berrones' case last night, responded like this:
No, I do not believe that the most vile, primarily anonymous Twitter users truly and faithfully represent Americans as a whole, but in this case does it make any difference? The obscenity of the above-quoted sentiment is not the crude manner in which it was stated, but the outcome which such sentiment supports: deporting Jesus Berrones and separating him from is cancer-stricken child. Supporting other perverse family-destroying outcomes because doing so is sold as "getting tough" on illegal immigration. A lot of people support such obscene outcomes. Our president was elected, in large part, because they are outcomes he promised. Millions of Americans back him in this.
The people who responded to me last night may be particularly horrible, but in effect, they are no different than those who are convinced that the greatest threat to America is illegal immigration and who believe that no action which purports to fight illegal immigration can be truly bad because, hey, the law is the law. People who are fine with discretion and compassion being removed from our immigration decisions. People who have stood by with no concern as ICE has been transformed into an often lawless paramilitary force, devoid of human empathy.
One day, I hope, the sick, xenophobic fever and mass failure of empathy gripping this country will break. If and when it does, the history of this time will be written and, I suspect, Donald Trump will be cast as the villain. He'll deserve that, but it'll be a whitewash if he and he alone is cast in that role.
Millions of self-proclaimed good Americans support this obscenity. People who should have to go to sleep tonight and every night for the rest of their lives facing the fact that they chose, through their opinions, their votes and then through their silence to support a system which would deprive a cancer-stricken child of the love and comfort of his father.
That is who we are as a nation right now. Those are our values.
Last year President Trump said that he'd like to see a grand military parade on Pennsylvania Avenue, with troops and tanks and missiles passing by as he stands there like some generalissimo or something. Yesterday it was reported that, yes, Trump has asked the Pentagon to plan such a spectacle. I suspect that, as a result, we'll have such a parade some time this year.
It's a terrible idea. Given where we are, historically speaking, it would be unprecedented. It would come off like a propaganda exercise and, worst of all, it would fuel Donald Trump's already overheated strongman fever. It's an idea that should be shot down immediately.
There are two basic reasons nations hold military parades. The first one is to celebrate or commemorate great military victories.
There was a tremendous one in Washington following the Union's victory in the Civil War. Similar parades were held following the end of World War I, World War II and the first Persian Gulf War. While military bands or specific military units or, on occasion, some actual military equipment has appeared in various national parades -- Kennedy's inaugural featured Nike missiles, for example -- celebration or commemoration of a military victory is, traditionally, the only reason the United States has held large-scale, dedicated military parades.
The other reason to hold big military parades is for propaganda purposes. The Soviet Union and, later, Russia, held the largest and grandest of all military parades each May to celebrate Victory Day in World War II. That, obviously, was something worth celebrating and commemorating given the Soviet's massive sacrifice and massive contribution to victory in the war, but there is no question that it was and is a propaganda tool as well. In the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras it was to signal to the United States and Western powers that the Soviet military was formidable. When Vladimir Putin revived the parades a few years after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was clearly done with an aim at reestablishing Russia's status as a power.
This is in keeping with the manner in which other autocrats and despots have used military parades in recent decades. As a means of flexing muscles to show how strong they are and to send such a message to their neighbors or the the rest of the world. It's not surprising that Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi used to hold them. No small number of Latin American despots have done so. North Korea dictator Kim Jong Un recently went so far as to change the date of a historical military anniversary in order to have an excuse to hold such a parade with an aim toward flexing his muscles before the upcoming Winter Olympics. A large scale military parade is the classic tool of a little man who wants to appear big.
Which brings us back to Trump.
At the moment, we have no grand military victory to celebrate. We still have over 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. It's a war that has dragged on for over 16 years and is increasingly being described as, at best, a stalemate. We have mostly pulled out of Iraq, but calling our more than decade-long involvement in that country, which led to multiple political and humanitarian disasters and continued instability, a "victory" is misleading at best. We still send troops and there. Sometimes they still die. Thousands upon thousands of them suffer from physical and mental injuries and lack adequate medical care. Our country should honor, memorialize and, above all else, take care of the men and women who fought, died or were wounded there, but it would be highly inappropriate to mount the glorious victory parade Trump no doubt envisions.
That leaves the second justification for such a parade. Propaganda. An event staged so that a little man can appear big. This is, without question, what Trump has in mind. It is likewise in keeping with the other autocrat/strongman traits Trump has displayed in his year in office.
He has attacked our free press and endeavored to stifle dissent. He has called for the investigation of his political opponents. He has fought -- and possibly obstructed -- investigation into his own acts and the acts of his subordinates. He has scapegoated immigrants and minorities. He has engaged in rank cronyism and kleptocracy. He has, at almost every turn, praised dictators and strongmen. There is a palpable sense of envy to such praise.
Is it any shock, then, that Trump wants to hold a military parade? Is there any doubt what is motivating him? The only thing in doubt about the whole affair is whether he'll show up to it wearing some gaudy quasi-military uniform of his own making, demanding to be addressed as Commander-In-Chief until the last missile rolls down Pennsylvania Avenue.
While there is much to criticize in our history and while we have often failed to live up to our own ideals as a nation, historically speaking, we have preferred to think of ourselves as a nation that speaks softly and carries a big stick. That Trump would rather we wag our stick around like this is not at all surprising, but it's not in keeping with the American tradition and American ideals.
I doubt there is anyone in a position to offer this man actual constructive advice these days, but on the off chance there is someone he listens to, I hope they tell him how idiotic this all is.
This morning the Trump administration said that it would allow states to compel people to find work in order to receive Medicaid benefits. This is the first time in the over half-century history of the program that such requirements will be in place.
These requirements are bound to be disastrous for the poor, will likely increase poverty rates and negatively impact the health of our nation's poorest citizens. As such it is the latest front in Republicans' ongoing campaign of class warfare against the poor, the sick and the powerless.
Proponents will point to the work requirements enacted in Bill Clinton's welfare reform efforts in the 1990s as support for the move, ignoring the fact that those requirements were largely disastrous. While they may have boosted employment numbers among the poor at first, they did so by pushing people into unsteady, low-benefit, low-future jobs that did not last. Jobs that, to begin with, existed less due to anything in the reform measure than to the mid-late-90s economic boom which happened to occur at the same time. When that boom went bust people were forced out of those jobs and, with no welfare to fall back on anymore, found themselves on a lower rung of the economic ladder, in a worse off position than before. The only places where welfare work requirements experienced much if any success were in California and Oregon, where the requirements were married to robust and effective job training and placement programs, which were the exception, not the rule.
Today the sorts of readily available jobs for people forced to find work for Medicaid are even MORE benefit-free and transitory, reflecting the overall gig economy ethos in play. At the same time, states administering Medicaid programs are highly unlikely to offer meaningful job training and meaningful opportunities for advancement to these people, because that itself is expensive and would undercut the overarching efforts to slash Medicaid costs. As it is, extra costs are going to be incurred by states trying to monitor and police employment compliance, so there's no chance of real money being used to help people find good work. All of which is to say that, even if Republicans' wildest fantasies are realized and there is an initial spike in Medicaid recipients working, it is unlikely to be meaningful, it is unlikely to last, and we'll soon find ourselves with a lot of unemployed people who, unlike before, have no Medicaid coverage.
This may make people like Paul Ryan happy -- he is on record as having dreamed about slashing Medicaid since he was in college -- but it's immoral and cruel. What's more, the impact of it all will go beyond harming the poor. It will harm society as a whole.
When fewer people who need Medicaid have it, they will put off seeking primary medical care altogether and will only see physicians in serious or emergency situations. Most likely in hospitals' emergency departments, where they will, quite understandably, not be turned away. The twin effects of this are that (a) poor people's health will decline, exacerbating alarming trends we're currently experiencing like U.S. life expectancy decreasing for all but the wealthiest people; and (b) the costs of health care for everyone else will rise because someone has to cover the emergency care they receive.
There have been studies upon studies regarding the failures and flaws of work requirement for federal anti-poverty benefits such as welfare and Medicaid. The proposal announced by the Trump Administration this morning ignores them completely. This is not surprising, because the proposals are not about policy. They are about ideology and politics. An ideology which attributes moral weakness and failure to the poor and blames them for their plight. Politics in which bashing the poor and proposing to "get tough" with them, as if they are criminals, plays well with a certain set of often Republican-leaning voters, regardless of how morally bankrupt such messages are.
A simpler way of putting it: this is class warfare, with the rich and powerful attacking the poor and weak. Which side of that war are you on?
This morning I saw this:
I figured I'd make a joke. In response I tweeted "A secure job with benefits, a living wage and a pension?"
Not the greatest joke in the world, but they can't all be winners.
Quickly, I got this response:
And yes, that "socialism" was meant as a criticism.
It's one thing to demonize individual components of what was once America's labor landscape, such as unions, employer-provided benefits and the minimum wage. The right has been doing that for years. It's quite another thing to be so brainwashed by conservative dogma that you see an essential component of the social contract and that which created the American middle class -- people having good, secure, jobs -- as a bad thing, full stop. Yet here we are. My correspondent here is not alone, by the way. I've seen many, many people push back against the proposition that good jobs with benefits and stuff is good for America.
This is all part and parcel of Republicans turning terms like "liberal" and "socialism" and "union" into rank epithets. It's an effort that seemingly cannot and will not cease. Now it must extend to things like a living wage and pensions and job security. Never mind that your father and grandfather were able to make a good life for themselves and their family as a result of those things. Some people on the left like 'em, though, and people on the left are evil commies, so they must be bad things too!
Democrats are complicit in this, of course. As I discussed at length in my last post, in the 1980s they had no idea how to respond to the sophistry of using words like "liberal" as an epithet and they got creamed at the polls as a result. Since 1992 Democrats have moved heaven and Earth to avoid being called those sort of names. "Ha, ha!" Bill Clinton and his acolytes exclaimed. "You will never again win elections simply by calling us liberals! We've outflanked you!"
Except it wasn't just a matter of ducking the labels. Democrats, since Clinton was first elected, have disclaimed their identities as "liberals," yes, but they have likewise abandoned a huge part of their values and platform to better inoculate themselves against the name-calling. They stopped zealously advocating for workers and for the poor. They've supported right to work laws and private equity and executives and Wall Street interests whose goals are antithetical to working people. With few exceptions, they've had no answer or response to the crisis of employment in this country, characterized by people being transformed from employees to contractors with a precipitous decline in wages, benefits and job security.
I don't know how to solve all of those problems, but I do know that they are huge problems that must be solved lest America turn into an oligarchy in which the rich and powerful own and control everything and everyone else just begs for scraps. Problems of which ordinary Americans are all too aware and from which they are increasingly suffering but there are scant few political leaders willing to listen and willing to fight for their interests.
You ask why someone like Bernie Sanders could mount a credible challenge to Hillary Clinton? It's because there is a hunger for leaders willing to address this growing crisis. You ask why so many working people support a person like Donald Trump? It's because, however little he actually believed what he was saying and how bankrupt his ideas to solve them were, he did say things that acknowledged the crisis. While politicians contort themselves and their values in order not to be accused of being too liberal or too conservative or whatever, most people don't care about the labels like liberalism, progressivism, socialism, populism, you name it. They just want someone who will listen to them and help them make their lives better.
As I've been writing in this space over the past few months, we're in the process of a political realignment in this country. One in which working people, the poor and those who understand that there is more to life than the accumulation of wealth and more to government than the protection of the wealthy are, increasingly, finding their interests aligned. That's the case even if they have, historically, fallen on the opposite sides of the Republican/Democratic divide. Absurd things like someone calling out people advocating for good jobs as a bad thing is evidence that decades-old political programming is on auto-pilot now, divorced from what people actually desire and what is actually good for America.
Thinking America is better when people have a secure job with benefits, a living wage and a pension should not be a controversial idea. Those who believe it is are soon going to find themselves on the wrong side of the ongoing political realignment. Those who don't are going to find a lot of people to support them.
Today Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he was rescinding Obama-era directives to U.S. Attorneys General ordering them not to target marijuana businesses in states which had legalized recreational marijuana such as Colorado, Oregon, Nevada and California. The move plunges marijuana-related businesses into legal uncertainty and will, no doubt, lead to a major backlash from state governments, small businesses and American citizens.
Why is Sessions and, by extension, the Trump Administration, doing this? Two reasons. One moral, one political. The moral component of it will get all of the attention, but it sort of bores me. The political one is far, far more significant. Indeed, I think it's a harbinger of a new political realignment I've been discussing in this space in recent months. A realignment which will do untold political damage to Sessions, Trump and those who follow their lead, be they Republicans or Democrats.
Let's quickly dispense with the morality of it: Sessions is obsessed with keeping marijuana illegal. He's long been on record about this. He believes it's a dangerous scourge that leads to crime and depravity and has vowed to stamp out its use. His move today will cause everyone to man their marijuana battle stations again. Sessions and his fellow moralists will offer their Joe Friday-meets-Nancy Reagan talking points, complete with citations to debunked studies of the dangers of marijuana. Everyone else will talk up the benefits of legalized weed and the desirability of normalized drug laws and decriminalization. We've heard all of this before. The former group is simply wrong, the latter is correct and it's ridiculous we even have this debate anymore. I'll leave it for others to take up again.
Not everyone is a zealot like Sessions. Most politicians who oppose marijuana legalization do so out of political calculation. There's one problem with this, though: polling shows that far more people support legalization than oppose it. Indeed, as Five Thirty Eight noted today, a record high 64 percent of Americans favor legalizing marijuana. And it's not just lefties. Fifty-one percent of Republicans favor legalization. Given that politicians who make political calculations tend to make them in a way that favors going in with what the majority of people or, at the very least, a majority of what their constituents want, why would these guys continue to oppose legalization?
I believe they do so because of inertia. Inertia born of the political alignment of the past 40-50 years in which politicians have constantly fought and refought the culture wars that broke out in the 1960s. A war that, given all of the advances in women's rights, civil rights, gay rights and the overall liberalization of American culture since the 1950s, most believe was won by the liberals, but by purely political measures, was really won by conservatives and reactionaries. At the very least it is the conservatives and reactionaries who have controlled the discourse in these areas since at least 1980 and, in turn, have caused Democrats to opportunistically tack to the right.
It's this dynamic what has put us in the rather absurd place we're in today, with marijuana legalization and a whole host of other issues. Those who recognize this absurdity and break its cycle will find that those 1960s-era culture wars are not worth fighting anymore and that a new political alignment awaits them.
It took a hell of a lot of work, protest and, often, bloodshed to get there, but it's fair to say that liberalizing forces were ascendant in our national politics as the 1960s turned into the 1970s. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed. Medicare and Medicaid came online. Welfare and anti-poverty programs, however flawed they were or eventually became, had public support. Public arts, sciences and humanities initiatives, came into being. Environmental and consumer protection programs and agencies had real power and asserted real authority. Prison and legal reform efforts took root. Even Nixon and his gang didn't put much of a stop to it. They had other things on their mind.
None of which is to say that these initiatives were uniformly successful. There were lots of flaws, inefficiencies and wrong turns when it came to this stuff, some of it bureaucratic, some of it structural. While those flaws would be challenging enough to overcome in and of themselves, America also saw its crime rate rise and a couple of disastrous oil embargoes and recessions hit, one of which -- from 1973-75 -- that hit pretty damn hard. These crisis, poorly addressed by Presidents Ford and Carter, created an opportunity for conservative forces led by Ronald Reagan. Forces which began to roll back the progress achieved since the 1960s and which began to recast the nature of political discourse in this country.
If you win an election or two, you get the right to set the agenda, and that's what Reagan did after 1980. He cut taxes, social programs and regulations while massively increasing military spending and enacting laws and regulations that put the interest of business and the wealthy first. He likewise encouraged and enabled the ascension of religious and cultural conservatives who launched a war, in policy and rhetoric, against that which they considered undesirable and immoral. The word "liberal" soon became an epithet and liberal and progressive values were cast as un-American or, in some cases, anti-American.
One can argue about the prudence or success of Reagan's policies, and one can take issue with the manner in which opposition to his agenda was cast as un-American, but one cannot argue with the success of his undertaking.
Reagan cruised to an easy reelection in 1984 and his successor, George H.W. Bush, cruised to victory in 1988. These victories were almost always occasioned by the victor taking up the mantle of so-called Real Americans who were shocked and offended by everything that had happened in this country between 1960 and 1980. He and those who followed him made the promise, sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit, that they would return America to the way it was before that time. To that end, Reagan and his acolytes would bash working women and single mothers. They'd demonize minorities as criminals or as insufficiently subordinate. They'd scapegoat gays for a public health crisis that they themselves refused to acknowledge or address. They'd blame drugs -- at least certain drugs -- for societies' ills.
Democrats who tried to fight back against all of this were routinely trounced at the polls. It was pretty understandable, actually. The vast majority of active voters in the 1980s either came of age before the 1960s and didn't much like what they saw before Reagan came on the scene or made a lot of money in the 1980s and thus felt adequately compensated for leaving their youthful ideals in the past. People vote with their hearts just as much as their heads and the story of America that Reagan was telling them either made them feel better or made them rich. That's the heart and the head.
By the time the 1990s rolled around the Democrats had a serious goddamn problem on their hands. How do you fight political opponents who control both the hearts and the minds of the majority of the electorate? How do you take on forces of seemingly overwhelming superiority?
The answer: guerrilla warfare.
Bill Clinton and the New Democrats knew better than to launch a full frontal assault on Reagan's shining city on the hill or to relitigate the cultural battles of the 1960s and 70s. Those fights would be too hard. Rather than fight on those extraordinarily wide fronts, they would focus on tactics. They'd adopt a strategy of triangulation in which they'd pick some narrow battles in which they had a clear advantage while avoiding being dragged into fights they didn't feel comfortable having. They did so, in large part, by doing what guerrilla armies often do: going underground and trying to blend in.
Reagan and Bush could find success by casting their opponents as hopeless hippies or mindless moonbats, but what could they do when their opponents looked . . . a lot like they did? When they went out of their way to demonize criminals and the poor and to talk even tougher on drugs than they did? When the manner in which they favored banks and corporate interests were, more or less, indistinguishable from the way in which they themselves did? It was an impossible challenge, especially in a tough economic year like 1992. Clinton hammered Bush on his inability to feel the economic pain of ordinary Americans, Bush's efforts to portray Clinton as Mondale or Dukakis or McGovern or Carter were unconvincing and Clinton rode to victory.
Since 1992, Democratic politicians have almost uniformly aped the Clinton model. They have heavily emphasized their superficial economic differences with Republicans, mostly outflanked them in attracting the support of Wall Street and the entertainment and technology sectors and have done whatever they could to avoid taking bold or controversial stances on cultural matters unless or until public opinion led them to do so first (in which case they're, by definition, no longer bold or controversial stances).
The Democrats have found a lot more success with this tactical focus than they had back when they ran on progressive principles in the 1980s, but it has come at a huge price. For one thing, once you start playing the triangulation game, you have to keep finding new, seemingly fresh ways in which to contrast yourself with your opponents in the service of triangulation. Some of them -- like positioning the party as the best and only advocate for women, minorities and people of color -- are laudable. Others, like positioning the party as something akin to a consumer product -- the choice of celebrities and cool kids! -- are embarrassing and counterproductive. At the end of the day politics is about advancing a policy agenda and you gotta stand for something. Preferably something bold and visionary, not just something that can win you an election if everything breaks just right.
For their part, Republicans, generally speaking, have tracked further and further to the right economically and culturally, increasingly dependent on religious conservatives and, beginning in 2016, a quite small but newly bold and unapologetic contingent of white supremacists. People playing Ronald Reagan's game of castigating progressivism and trying to turn the word "liberal" into an epithet while still trying to fight those 1960s culture wars.
That has left us, politically, in more or less the same place we've been for decades: Republicans trying to paint Democrats as irresponsible hippies and moonbats and Democrats desperately trying to change the subject because they fear that such charges might stick. It's a matter of inertia. It's also madness.
It's certainly something which extends into our leaders' absurd views about marijuana legalization, with people like Jeff Sessions thinking that they can smoke out some hippies on the issue and use their support of pot legalization against them politically, playing up to the Silent Majority back home. Meanwhile, people like Hillary Clinton have taken a cautious, even calculated approach to the issue, seemingly more worried about protecting themselves from attack by cultural conservatives than in having a coherent set of principles on the matter.
It shouldn't be this way. Pretty soon it won't be.
As I wrote recently in reference to the tax bill, we're in the midst of a major political realignment in this country. Whereas, for decades, we had conservatives vs. liberals, right vs. left, Republicans vs. Democrats, those political fault lines are shifting. The policies of the current Republican government overwhelmingly benefit the rich, leaving the poor -- including poor people who call themselves Republicans -- in the dust. Likewise, many who call themselves Democrats -- including those in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street -- are doing just fine under Trump and a Republican Congress and are not likely to support Democratic candidates who would upset their lucrative apple carts, even if it would help most Americans.
Soon, if it has not happened already, these labels and these party affiliations are going to change to reflect the true political fault lines in this country, which primarily fall along lines of class, race, age and opportunity. On one side will be those who are interested in making the lives of most Americans, the poor and the middle class, people of color as well as white people, women as well as men, better. On the other side are those whose primary interest is in supporting business or the wealthy or those already in power or place of privilege.
Legalized marijuana may not, historically, be a needle-moving issue, but politicians who either dismiss it or auto-pilot the debate about it into that old culture war territory do so at their peril, for the electorate is quickly realigning itself with respect to marijuana as well.
All of which is to say that, when it comes to the matter of marijuana legalization, our politicians are hopelessly out of step with what the people want. Just as they are increasingly out of step with what they want with respect to all manner of cultural and economic issues. Out of step due to their devotion to a political arrangement that, however well it served them for several decades, is approaching obsolescence.
Those politicians who understand this will be our future leaders. Those who prefer to fight old wars will be left in the dust of history.
I share a lot of political views with Al Franken and think that he was an effective Senator. He's also a serial sexual harasser who has no business holding a position of authority in our government and his resignation is welcome.
Governance and politics is about policy, not personalities. No figure in a democracy is irreplaceable. Do not make heroes out of politicians. If tossing one to the curb imperils your movement, your movement is flawed.
Today Paul Ryan made clear what many of us long knew was coming: he and Republicans in Congress plan to use the massive deficits created by the pending tax cut as a pretext for slashing Medicare, Medicaid and various anti-poverty measures:
"We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit," Ryan said during an appearance on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio show. "... Frankly, it's the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements -- because that's really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.
This as he and his Republican colleagues begin to finalize a tax cut that will increase the deficit by at least $1 trillion over the next decade, primarily by giving massive breaks to corporations and the wealthy. People who, you know, are not dependent upon Medicare, Medicaid and various anti-poverty measures.
As is the case with the examples I cited in my previous two posts, such a scheme is not conservative. Rather than principled, it's a sketchy two-step in which Congress plans to foment a massive fiscal problem by giving handouts to people who do not need them and attempts to solve it by torpedoing programs which are time-tested, massively popular and upon which millions rely as a matter of basic survival. It's likewise not traditionally partisan, as we've come to understand partisan politics, in that it harms just as many Republicans as it does Democrats. Possibly more.
It thus makes no sense to think of it as a conservative or a Republican position. It can only be understood as an act of class war. An attack by rich and powerful interests against the poor and middle class.
Not all attacks launched by powerful forces are successful however.
Ask yourself how many current members of Congress ran on a platform of gutting Medicare. Ask yourself how many voters support the gutting of Medicare. The answer: few if any and a tiny minority at best. Almost anyone who thought to run on this sort of platform would be slaughtered at the polls. People don't like it when you attack popular programs and threaten the things upon which they depend for survival.
A candidate who is willing to point this out in clear terms -- a candidate willing to defend the poor and middle class against this attack on their vital interests -- will do well, even in a district that leans Republican. A candidate who pulls their punches on this shouldn't even bother.
The battle lines could not be more clear. Start fighting.
In my last post I wrote about how current policy debates do not make a ton of sense if you try to understand them through a lens of traditional conservative-liberal policy preferences as we have come to know them over the past 50 years or so. They do make sense, however, if you look at any given policy in terms of whether it helps or harms Americans, and which Americans it helps or harms.
The fault line of most political debate these days divides those policies which are aimed at helping the rich and privileged and those aimed at helping the poor and disadvantaged. There is some degree of crossover here -- on some issues the rich have successfully co-opted the middle class, on others they have not -- and across all issues, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and ethnicity are deployed, strategically, to divide people. The common denominator, though, is a politics in which those with power and privilege seek to dominate those without it.
In short, we are in an era of class warfare that has rendered our familiar concepts of what a conservative or a liberal is and what a Republican or a Democrat is obsolete. It's a political realignment in progress, which I believe will lead to a dramatic shift in voting and political identification in the near future.*
In the last post I outlined how that is playing out in the tax policy debate, but the fact is that it's playing out in virtually all areas of policy and society. Indeed, once you begin to look at various policy proposals and preferences through the lens of the new class warfare, things start to make a lot more sense.
Here's a good example from just this morning. It comes from Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who plans to introduce legislation that would impose drug testing on food stamp recipients.
Various states have flirted with such programs in the past. The thing is, though . . . they're useless. They likewise further no traditionally conservative goal:
So, why would Walker propose such a thing? Because doing so serves the political end of consolidating the support of the wealthy and the middle class while demonizing the poor and people of color.
Rich and middle class white people love it when politicians go after welfare and food stamp recipients. It confirms biases and prejudices they hold against the poor. That they're lazy and shiftless and drug-addled and that they are responsible for their plight. It provides the holder of the view a sense of superiority. It likewise provides them a sense of comfort in that it allows them to believe that they cannot, themselves, ever fall into poverty. It's been an amazingly potent political message for decades, going back to the mythical "welfare queens" and beyond. Such a view is outrageously common among comfortable white people. I grew up surrounded by people who talked about the poor in these terms and still encounter such people often. That it has a clear racial element to it makes the message even more effective.
Walker knows this. He likewise knows that drug testing food stamp recipients is useless as a matter of public policy and that it is not a conservative measure by any definition. It remains amazingly useful, however, in allowing him to consolidate support of the wealthy and the middle class by demonizing the poor. It will likewise make the middle class far more ripe for the picking when, as he did a few years back, he pursues policies that hurt working people. It's textbook class warfare. It's dividing and conquering, with the ultimate goal of doing the bidding of the wealthy people who support him and who, ultimately, will provide his living both while he remains in office and afterward.
Once you start looking at politics in these new terms, it's not hard to see how it all lines up. It's likewise not hard to see how it can be combatted. In order to combat it, of course, we must fully recognize it for what it is and convince voters that they are being played in the way in which they are being played.
To that end, as time goes on, I'll continue to point out examples of this, under the heading "Class Warfare Update." If you see examples of it yourself, by all means, drop me a line and I'll highlight them here.
*While I've been casting this as a new political alignment, it's only new to us. Looking back it's fair to say that, if anything, it's a reversion to a political alignment that has far more often been the norm in our history than the exception. From colonial times through 1929 Wall Street crash and the early days of the Great Depression, there were clear haves and clear have-nots and the former asserted regular dominance over the latter. We all just happened to come of age, however, in a time when those class distinctions and its attendant class warfare were at an all-time ebb by virtue of the New Deal and America's post-World War II dominance and prosperity, each of which allowed our country to ignore class distinctions in ways most countries don't. Now, however, we're returning to that ages-old divide.
The tax bill passed by the Senate last night -- which will ultimately be reconciled with the House bill and signed into law by President Trump -- is the most egregious act of class warfare in recent American history. One that strongly suggests we are well into a political realignment that should change the way people think about partisanship and ideology.
At the outset, let us agree that there is nothing "conservative" about the tax bill, at least as far as that term is typically and objectively employed. Indeed, it is directly hostile to all of the values for which conservatives usually claim to stand:
That something else is class. The tax bill is, unquestionably, an attack by those who are rich on those who are poor, aimed at the former acquiring benefits at the expense of the latter. Indeed, this view of it is the only way in which it makes any shred of coherent sense.
It is not a conservative bill, as demonstrated above. It is not even a Republican bill, really, given that it does not serve the interest of even a majority of Republicans who aren't in Congress. We'll see this even more vividly when, as already threatened, those who supported the tax plan seek to pay for its budget-busting measures via drastic cuts to domestic programs like Social Security and Medicare on which the middle class and the poor depend, both Democrat and Republican alike. The bill can only be seen, logically, as the rich taking from the poor.
People want to pretend that political fights in this country don't line up along class lines. They want to believe that, unlike most other countries, ours is a classless society. We've prided ourselves on it and have long acted as if the United States is exceptional in this regard. I certainly grew up believing it.
It may even have actually been true for a few decades, as America did, in fact, experience a time where social and economic mobility was far more possible here than it was in most other countries and the standards of living for working people and wealthy people roughly corresponded with one another. We were, from the end of World War II until some time in the 1980s, I think, a society in which we were generally speaking, in it together.
That no longer holds. We've seen it empirically in the exploding level of wealth and income inequality over the past 25 or 30 years. We've experienced it anecdotally as, however high the Dow Jones climbs and however low the unemployment rate sinks, the standard of living and the future prospects of so many in this country have stagnated or declined. There is a disconnect between the well-being of the wealthy and the well-being of the rest of America that puts lie to the notion that our society is a classless one in which everyone is in the same boat, heading in the same direction.
At the moment, it just so happens that most of the support for this new America comes from Republican politicians, but there is nothing inherently partisan about being in the bag for the rich. Lots of poor and middle class Republicans, in fact, are going to be hit hard by this law and many wealthy Democrats, while superficially opposing it, will not consider it to be as serious a matter as bills that do effect them directly. Silicon Valley and Wall Street, after all, are filled with Democrats who will benefit from it and who are actively behind its passage.
In this, Republicans in Congress have finally brought to the surface that which has been bubbling just beneath for some time. The interests of the wealthy are the priority, the interests of the poor and middle class are meaningless. The philosophical and ideological tenets which, at one time, formed the political fault lines in this country -- conservatism and liberalism, Republican values and Democratic values -- are now mostly empty labels which have lost substantive meaning. Politicians will still give lip service to those familiar concepts, but we are what we do, not what we say we are. Based on the actions of this Congress, the fault lines are now newly and clearly marked.
On one side are those who are interested in making the lives of most Americans, the poor and the middle class included, better. On the other side are those whose primary interest is doing the bidding of the wealthy. It's that simple and that clear.
Every politician must choose their side, just as the members of Congress just chose their sides this week. Every voter must take note of which side their representatives stand. Once that happens, I strongly suspect our political system is going to realign itself in historic ways, as it has every 40-50 years or so throughout our history.
This is the fifth and final installment of a series. In Part One I discussed how a candidate must run for something, not merely against Donald Trump. In Part Two I talked about how voters don't fall neatly onto a left-right spectrum, meaning that trying to "claim the center" is a mistake. In Part Three I talked about how, contrary to popular belief, a clear majority of the electorate identifies as economically liberal. In Part Four I discussed how even voters in a Republican-leaning district hunger for a candidate who will advocate for a populist economic agenda. Today I talk about what that agenda might look like.
For nearly 40 years, Democratic politicians have been on the defensive. They have been ashamed and they have been afraid.
Because of their fear -- because they are afraid that they will be attacked by Republicans as weak or soft for giving voice to these principles -- Democratic politicians have continually offered the most compromised campaign messages.
These should not be controversial positions. There is nothing inherently partisan about a single one of them. They all address the basics of a functioning society that no one can argue in good faith are not desirable ends. If you need to put numbers to it, yes, I assure you that all of those assertions are favored by an overwhelming majority of American voters. Yet, at present, we have one political party whose entire agenda seems to be at odds with these principles and another which seems too cowardly to give a full-throated endorsement to them.
This is madness. It is long past time that Democrats advocate, in the plainest and most straightforward way possible, for these principles. It is long past time for them to call out Republicans for standing against them. It is by doing this -- by offering a basic, clear-eyed and clearly-stated appeal to the interests of working people and to those in need -- that a Democrat can beat any Republican in any district, no matter how gerrymandered it is.
I believe that a candidate doing so should focus on four broad issues and their underlying values, from which all substantive policy positions should flow:
Putting America to Work
The Dow Jones may climb and the unemployment numbers may be low, but working people know that the system is rigged, with productivity going up but people earning less and retirement becoming a fading dream for far too many. As real wages for real work are stagnant or declining, the benefits of our economy are being gobbled up by a smaller and smaller number of people who grow richer and richer by the day. It's unsustainable. It's unfair. It's bad for America.
We must make our economy work for everyone, not just for the rich. We should raise the minimum wage. We must ensure that workers are given sick leave, family leave and medical leave. We must prevent companies from misclassifying employees to rob them of benefits and protections they deserve. We must provide protections for workers whose livelihoods are threatened by outsourcing, deindustrialization and automation and, if such protections prove inefficient, we must help retrain workers for in-demand occupations, especially occupations in emerging industries in the advanced energy sector. We must create disincentives for businesses to eliminate jobs and incentivize them to put workers first.
America has always been at its best when the lives of its workers have been at their best. Making workers' lives better should be our top priority.
Years of tax cuts, service cuts and neglect have led to a degradation of our highways, railways, airports, bridges, tunnels, waterworks, sewers, the energy grid, our schools and our hospitals. The very bones of America are cracking and calcifying and they require a heavy investment in order to bring them back to strength.
An infrastructure plan -- a real infrastructure plan that puts Americans to work, not some scam designed to put money in the pockets of developers, banks and middlemen -- is badly needed. Infrastructure projects should be dictated by need, not by their ability to turn a profit. They should support good jobs that provide fair wages and benefits while discouraging anti-labor practices. They should likewise be sustainable, acknowledging that once you build something you must likewise maintain it and that you must train and retain workers to do so.
Infrastructure should be understood as an investment, not a one-time expense. It is, quite literally, the foundation upon which America is built.
Keeping America Healthy
America is the only major country on Earth that allows health insurance executives, pharmaceutical companies and their stockholders to get rich while tens of millions of people suffer because they can't get basic health care. This is obscene and immoral. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need when they need it, regardless of their income.
This is not just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. Every moment an American is worrying about the health of their family is a moment not spent making their lives and the lives of their families better. Every dollar spent on medical costs is a dollar not being spent on something else. Even those with health insurance already are paying costs beyond their premiums in terms of limited opportunities and the inability to change careers, start businesses or stay home to take care of their families because they fear losing employer-based coverage. Guaranteed health care for all Americans would eliminate a tremendous obstacle to their productivity, their innovation and their happiness.
By making health care a for-profit product available only to those with the ability to pay, we are in a self-inflicted health care crisis in this country. The only solution to it is the establishment of a single-payer national health care program. America should have done this decades ago. We can and should do it now.
Putting People Before Wall Street
Banks and corporations think that they run this country. They think it because our leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, have let them think it by taking their campaign funds and working hard to protect their interests at the expense of the American people. That they'd ever do this is unacceptable. That they doubled and tripled down on it after Wall Street and big business wrecked the world economy and caused the Great Recession from which many people are still trying to recover, is unconscionable.
In everything we do as a country, we must remember that we are a nation of people, not a nation of banks and corporations. Any policy we pursue, be it related to jobs, infrastructure, health care, taxes, the environment, trade, defense and everything else, should serve the interests of the people, not Wall Street. Ordinary Americans, not the wealthy. People who work, not people who get rich off the work of others.
There is no limit to the number of issues on which a politician or a candidate must take a position. And, of course, any candidate will have issues he or she will prefer to emphasize based on their personal convictions and their comfort with the substance of it all. In no way would I suggest that a candidate shy away from weighing in on any matter they think is important or addressing any matter with which they are presented during the course of a campaign. Never run from a fight, ever.
As I said at the outset of this series, however, a candidate must run for something. To do so, he or she must stand for something. This is true in any election, but it is especially true in an election in a district like OH-12, where a Democratic candidate must truly make voters stand up and take notice. A district in which he or she must not only motivate the Democratic base, but also (a) persuade voters who have voted Republican of late but who do not blindly and unthinkingly identify themselves as Republican; and (b) must awaken the masses of people in OH-12 who do not vote often and inspire them to go to the polls.
If that candidate wants to win OH-12, he or she will not merely run against Donald Trump. He or she will not follow the old, misguided conventional wisdom about "claiming the center. He or she will not shy away from policies that are economically liberal. He or she will, in fact, advance a populist economic agenda for which voters hunger. Finally, he or she will hammer home the themes and positions I mentioned above, over and over again.
As I argued in October, yes a Democratic candidate can win Ohio's Twelfth district. This is how to do it.
This is the fourth installment of a series. In Part One I discussed how a candidate must run for something, not merely against Donald Trump. In Part Two I talked about how voters don't fall neatly onto a left-right spectrum, meaning that trying to "claim the center" is a mistake. In Part Three I talked about how, contrary to popular belief, a clear majority of the electorate identifies as economically liberal. Today I talk about how even voters in a Republican-leaning district hunger for a candidate who will advocate for a populist economic agenda.
If OH-12 is so damned conservative, why is Pat Tiberi quitting?
Tiberi was a junior congressman in a somewhat different 12th District before it was gerrymandered to its current configuration. Both Tiberi's seniority and the Republicans' safety in OH-12 was better-established by 2009, but that's when Obama took office, providing a sure-thing veto over the boldest aspects of the Republican agenda. Finally, in early 2017, Tiberi (a) was firmly established as an important lieutenant to House Speaker Paul Ryan; (b) had a district which was seemingly tailor made for his electoral safety; and (c) had a Republican president in the White House, ensuring that his legislative agenda would be carried out.
Nine months later, he announced he was quitting, reportedly disillusioned with the job, having passed no substantive laws despite his party controlling the government completely.
Tiberi hasn't talked about his decision to quit in any detail, but it's not hard to guess that he was feeling the heat. The ACA repeal he was supposed to quarterback was a disaster. The currently pending tax plan may pass -- I suspect it will -- but it's wildly unpopular with almost every constituency outside of the super rich and the donor class. Thanks to the bills he has championed and his unwillingness to defend his positions to his constituents, Tiberi has been beaten up from every direction in his own, once-loyal district. I suspect he knows that it would've been tough to run on that record in 2018, even in his safe district. He is exhausted, he has never had a tough election, I suspect he's a little scared, and he got out while the getting was good.
In theory, none of this should be happening. I strongly suspect that the reason it is happening is because, in practice, there is no real constituency for Tiberi's agenda or the agenda of congressional Republicans and once voters finally get a chance to see it up close, they'll beat the hell out of the people who advocate for it.
People like Pat Tiberi personally. He seems like a nice guy. They may identify with the Republican party for various reasons, personal and historical. They may, in the abstract, like to hear talk about about fiscal responsibility and ending government waste. There is no majority, however, that supports cutting taxes for the wealthy, slashing government programs and services which benefit the poor and middle class and claiming, contrary to nearly 40 years of objective evidence, that doing so will make life better for everyone. Once that finally became a possibility in January 2017, the nation -- and OH-12 -- got angry.
It's not just lefties like me who find a soak-the-poor-to-help-the-rich agenda repugnant. Most people who vote Republican do too. Indeed, just last year they nominated and elected a man president who they believed would fight that agenda. His name was Donald Trump.
Given how strongly Trump has gotten behind the agenda of Congressional Republicans in 2017, it's easy to forget it, but in 2015 and 2016 Trump ran against the current Republican economic orthodoxy. He ran against a bunch of Pat Tiberi types in the Republican primary and cleaned their clocks. Guys like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio who share Tiberi's Congressional agenda. Guys like Bobby Jindal, who actually implemented the conservative economic agenda as governor of Louisiana, which led to fiscal and civic ruin. Candidate Trump, at one time or another, opposed nearly every plank in the current Republican economic agenda. He gained a strong and fervent following in doing so.
This didn't happen because he's charming -- Trump is repugnant in every conceivable way -- but because America has no interest in the agenda of congressional Republicans. Because he delivered a populist economic message about rebuilding and investing in America and in aiding the middle and lower classes who have taken it on the chin for a good thirty or forty years. One could argue that no one has spoken so directly and so effectively to the poor, the middle class and those who have been left behind by the modern economy in 50 or maybe even 80 years.
Now, to be sure, I don't think Trump believed that message himself. He cares nothing about anyone but Donald Trump. I don't believe he either wants to or that he is able to deliver on that message. His first year in office has shown that to him those were just words and that all he really cares about is looking good and getting "wins" in whatever way he can. But that populist message is what he ran and and it is what voters responded to. It's understandable that they did.
Outside of conservative think tanks, Wall Street investment banks, corporate C-suites, and a narrow class of ultra-wealthy people and political donors, there is no popular support in this country for slashing the taxes of millionaires and taking services away from the poor and middle class. None. People don't want it. When they saw it in the from of the AHCA, they recoiled. When they saw it in the form of the Republican tax plan they recoiled almost as strongly, to the point where some congressmen have been forced to explain that they're pushing this agenda for the sake of the donor class, not their constituents.
Americans do not want to giveaways to the wealthy, they want investments in the country and in its people. They know that government is often inefficient and wasteful, but they do not consider it their mortal enemy and do not want representatives who have no ideas apart from starving it and the people it serves. They heard Donald Trump say that he'd protect Medicare and Social Security and that he'd make sure they got good health care. They heard him say that he'd rebuild America's infrastructure and put people back to work. They believed him and supported him as a result.
Donald Trump gave lip service to helping ordinary Americans, but has no idea how to make that happen. Pat Tiberi, the rest of the Republicans in Congress and, almost certainly, the Republicans who run to fill Pat Tiberi's seat next year, don't give a lick about these things. They don't have a single policy proposal or talking point that even hints at helping ordinary Americans and there is nothing in their agenda that suggests that they'll try.
But people hunger for it. Not just liberals in Democratic neighborhoods, but people in Mansfield, Johnstown and Zanesville. Working people and farmers in Morrow County, Licking County and Muskingum County who once had stable employment or government support but don't any longer because Pat Tiberi and his buddies decided that millionaires needed more help than they did. People who believed Trump when he said that he'd help them. People who, for various reasons, voted Republican before but who have learned in the past year that Republicans are hostile to their interests.
This is not mere rhetoric. Data is being gathered that reflects this hunger for someone -- anyone -- to deliver on the promises Donald Trump falsely made.
Earlier this month pollsters Stan Greenberg and Nancy Zdunkewicz wrote a memo, based on polling data, concluding that successful candidates in 2018 and beyond "must learn how to speak a populist tongue that is in sync with real advocacy for a clear agenda, putting public needs above corporate profits." They said that voters are in search of a "clear, populist platform" in which candidates position themselves as credible opponents to the far-right agendas of congressional Republicans and President Trump. They found that voters want someone to show that they are not doing the bidding of lobbyists and corporate insiders. That they want representatives who "know what it's like to live a day in [their] shoes" and that they are willing to fight "for the right kind of change."
Donald Trump waved at this sort of message disingenuously and actually received a great deal of support as a result. Other Republicans have never offered this message and Pat Tiberi's would-be Republican replacements in OH-12 will almost certainly not offer it next year. It's a message that, once upon a time, Democrats offered but which they have neglected for over 25 years because they have been afraid of being painted as fiscally irresponsible or because they have come to enjoy the attention they have received from Wall Street, the tech sector and other moneyed constituencies.
It's a message that may alienate some CEOs and bank presidents in New Albany and Dublin, but which will resonate strongly with the masses of people in OH-12 who do not support Republicans' full frontal assault on Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs aimed at helping the poor and the middle class in order to give those CEOs and bank presidents tax cuts. It's also a message that, per Greenberg and Zdunkewicz, will likely motivate those who do not typically turn out for midterm elections to make a point to do so, which will undoubtedly favor the candidate giving voice to that message.
It's a message a Democrat who believes in such things can and should run with in OH-12 next year. It's one that can, in a wave election, put that candidate over the top, even in a district Pat Tiberi won with 66% of the vote a year ago.
In our next installment I'll walk through various policy positions to demonstrate just how easy it can be for a candidate to run on populist, economically liberal positions in a way that appeals to voters in even conservative districts like OH-12.
This is the third installment of a series. In Part One I discussed how a candidate must run for something, not merely against Donald Trump. In Part Two I talked about how voters don't fall neatly onto a left-right spectrum, meaning that trying to "claim the center" is a mistake. In this installment I talk about where, if not the center, a Democratic candidate wishing to win Ohio's 12th Congressional district should go.
In the last installment I talked about how voters' position on the political spectrum varies by issue. Rather than be uniformly conservative or uniformly liberal, people tend to have preferences which defy a clean left-right categorization and which render the idea of a candidate trying to split the difference between the left and the right ineffectual.
This is not to say, however, that there are not clear, predictable patterns of where people fall on the issues. It merely means that you have to look at more than just the standard old left-right ideological dimension and look past how people, broadly speaking define themselves politically.
In the wake of the 2016 election, a lot of people have taken a look at voters, trying to break down their preferences across multiple dimensions. One study that has gotten a lot of play is by political scientist Lee Drutman. His study looked at 12 issue dimensions, ranging from the economy to faith in government to moral issues to racial issues to foreign policy and a host of others. Drutman's findings on all of those things are interesting, but we need not concern ourselves with a dozen varying issues at the moment. There was, however, a broad takeaway that Democratic candidates -- especially ones in Republican-leaning districts -- should take to heart:
Nearly three-quarters of the electorate is economically liberal.
Yes, in the year that Donald Trump won the presidency and Republicans retained their hold on Congress, 73.5% of all voters espoused broadly liberal views on economic policy, which include protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, seeing to it that Americans have access to quality health care and addressing things like the repair and replacement of our nation's infrastructure. They're likewise, quite surprisingly, happy to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to accomplish these goals. Meanwhile, only 26.5% of voters identified as economic conservatives.
If three-quarters of voters identify as economically liberal, how did Trump win? In two ways, really. He (a) delivered a shockingly popular anti-immigration, socially conservative message while; (b) espousing some markedly liberal economic views.
Item (a) tapped into the other large political divide Drutman identified apart from the economic divide: social conservatives -- including those who responded favorably to Trump's anti-immigration messaging -- totaled 51.6% of the electorate while those identifying as social liberals totaled 48.4%. Trump galvanized the former group with a nakedly nativist and at times xenophobic platform that either appealed to their prejudices or exploited their fears. He married this message -- though cynically and disingenuously -- to economic messages, saying, explicitly or implicitly, that by keeping immigrants out he'd save jobs and ensure that government benefits went to Americans, not foreigners. Included in this appeal were promises of restoring jobs and reviving industries thought lost and committing America to big public works projects, the sorts of which unreconstructed New Deal liberals once promised.
Those socially conservative attitudes exploited by Trump aren't going away. There has always been and will remains a subset of voter who will, above all else, vote their values or their prejudices first and foremost. An appeal to these voters alone, however, has rarely if ever been sufficient for a candidate to carry the day. It was made possible last year, though, by the sheer shamelessness of Trump's appeals to prejudice and bigotry AND his willingness to evoke economically liberal talking points and hint at economically liberal programs which resonated particularly loudly in blue collar areas in the Midwest.
The circumstances which allowed Trump to thread that needle -- mobilizing social conservatives while bringing along just enough economic liberals to carry the day -- will not exist in OH-12 in 2018. This is partially because Trump's anti-immigrant, socially conservative appeals did not, on balance, motivate OH-12 voters nearly as much it motivated voters elsewhere (remember, Trump performed worse in OH-12 than Republicans usually do). This is mostly due, however, to Trump's own doing and the doing of Congressional Republicans, who are in the process of alienating huge swaths of the electorate with policies that are utterly hostile to their interests.
Republicans are now committed to a massively unpopular fiscal and economic agenda which no one, apart from the wealthy donor class, much cares for. They attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and failed miserably due to a public uproar that took them completely off guard. They are now in the process of trying to pass a tax bill that benefits only the very wealthy and promises to, at best, do nothing for the middle class and the poor but which will likely lead to future cuts in benefits and services upon which they rely. These policies, if enacted, will result in a radical reduction in their own voters’ standard of living to the benefit of a tiny, elite class of wealthy donors and corporations.
This is not just me editorializing, however. It's the sentiment currently held by the voters themselves, including large numbers of Republican voters. And it's a sentiment that is intensifying by the day.
One poll released in the past week shows that only 16 percent of Americans believe the tax plan will lower their taxes, while 59 percent say the plan will favor the wealthy over the middle class. Another found that 78 percent of Americans — including roughly 70 percent of Republicans — don’t believe that a corporate tax cuts will result in any benefit to them. These results do not yet capture sentiment in response to yesterday's CBO analysis which shows that the tax bill, as currently constructed, will require $25 billion in cuts to Medicare next year alone. When that sentiment is captured rest assured that displeasure with the Republican agenda will be even greater. As a result of all of this, Republicans are faring horrendously in the polls. So bad, in fact, that it appears as though an unprecedented anti-Republican wave is forming.
To win OH-12 in 2018, a Democrat must be positioned to ride that wave. To be positioned to ride that wave, he or she must understand the manner in which that wave is breaking. Economically speaking it's breaking left, not right. The wave favors someone willing to take a strong stance in opposition to the current Republican agenda and a strong stance in favor of liberal economic policies which remain massively popular. It takes someone willing to buck the old conventional wisdom about left-center-right politics and to eschew decades of punditry which suggests that a Democrat must track toward the center or espouse economically conservative sentiments in order to appeal to the broader electorate.
To win in OH-12, a Democrat must seek to polarize the electorate around issues of economics in the same way Trump polarized the electorate on social issues in 2016. Rather than employ bigotry to frighten them with the specter of immigrants taking their jobs, a Democrat must merely note, in plain terms, that Republicans are hellbent on taking their prosperity and handing it over to wealthy donors and corporate interests. Such a message, by the way, has the benefit of being true and is something voters already overwhelmingly understand.
Then, a Democrat who wishes to win OH-12 must argue, forcefully, that he or she will not allow that to happen and must articulate a better way to approach things.
In the coming installments, I'll talk about how best to articulate this message.
In my first installment in this series, I explained how a candidate must run for something, not against something and, as such, a candidate wishing to win OH-12 must not turn his or her campaign into a referendum on Donald Trump.
This does not mean, however, that one should worry about upsetting Trump supporters or that one should strive to carve out some sort of middle ground in the name of a centrist campaign that seeks not to offend Republicans in a Republican-leaning district. It certainly does not mean taking for granted those voters who comprise a Democrat's motivated liberal and progressive base while pivoting to the center in an effort to woo moderates and conservatives. Indeed, to the extent anyone thinks that's a good idea, they think so because they're trapped in a political mindset addled by old, mistaken assumptions about the ideological nature of most voters.
There's a conventional political wisdom that holds that the electorate is divided evenly, between staunch liberals and staunch conservatives, with a mass of moderate swing voters in the middle. Based on that, there's a belief that the more a candidate can move his or her platform in the direction of his opposition without alienating his or her core base of support, the better his or her chances of capturing the center, and with it, the election.
This framing has informed Democratic campaigns for over 25 years. It is the reason why, since the early 1990s, Democrats have worked hard to portray themselves as pro-business, pro-war, tough-on-crime, pragmatists while downplaying their populist and humanitarian tendencies. Democrats have come to believe, based on the example of Bill Clinton and his acolytes, that pivoting to the center will allow them to grab the bulk of those centrist voters -- which they believe to be the bulk of all voters -- and take their left wing base along with them because the base has nowhere else to go.
The only problem with this is that it's almost completely bunk. I suspect it never was true, and even if it was at one time, it certainly isn't now.
While the left-center-right model of politics provides a somewhat useful theoretical explanatory framework, people don't fall into such neat categories. Yes, there are people who, almost tribally, identify themselves with one party and would never consider voting for the other under any circumstances, but I'm not terribly concerned with them. No politician will ever turn the hardcore base of the opposition party in their favor, nor should he or she waste a lot of effort trying. Likewise, one should not fear attack from them, given that they are going to oppose you no matter what you do. Franklin Roosevelt is a good example to follow here. In 1936, as America was still litigating the New Deal, he knew who his opponents were and he knew they wanted him defeated. Rather than try to placate them or sidestep their attacks, he openly recognized them, saying “they are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”
Most voters, even in a districts which lean heavily toward one party, like OH-12, are not such committed ideologues. Yes, the district skews Republican, but the number of staunch partisans in any district is often overstated.
This district, like others, contains economic conservatives who espouse markedly liberal social views. It contains reactionary social conservatives who nonetheless support increased social security and medicare benefits and who, when asked, say they'd support a national jobs program. There are economic liberals here who are devoutly religious and who resist pro-LGBT policies. There are social progressive entrepreneurs who, when their friends aren't listening, will tell you just how much they'd like that corporate tax cut. While committed and engaged political types might march in lockstep with one party's platform, most voters are not committed and engaged political types. Most voters have strong, predictable policy positions on one or two policies but upend those old political spectrum models when it comes to others.
At the same time, there is no evidence to suggest that the consensus on any one issue lies in the middle of a left-right spectrum. A 2014 study suggested, in fact, that the "moderate" position on any number of issues presented to participants in the study was typically the least popular and that people tended to gravitate in large groups to some surprisingly extreme positions. This shouldn't be terribly surprising as we've seen this born out in public opinion polls and heard it in conversations with our friends.
A large majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana which is typically portrayed as an extremely liberal position. Smaller majorities, but still a great many people, favor tougher immigration restrictions than we've had in the past, which is a conservative and, often, a reactionary viewpoint. Though their specifics -- and their sincerity -- varied wildly, both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump delivered remarkably economically populist messages at times in 2016 -- messages often characterized as extreme -- gaining each of them surprising amounts of enthusiastic support. At the moment, the entire government is controlled by elected Republicans who have vowed to slash taxes and social programs, but slashing taxes and social programs is massively unpopular, suggesting no one was punished for refusing to take a "moderate" position on those issues.
On average, a lot of voters may wind up in the "center" overall but they may not inhabit a centrist position on any single issue. That's the problem with averages, right? The average age of the humans in my house is 26, but there is no one close to age 26 living in my house. A candidate should spend no more time trying to win the vote of the largely mythical centrist voter than I should spend looking for a 26-year-old in my kitchen. To the extent they set up their campaign to do so, they set themselves up to fail.
So, if you can't predict where the voters will be based on the old left-center-right spectrum, and if you can't play the old "establish your base in the primary and then pivot to the center in the general" game, how does a candidate connect to voters and gain their support?
The answer is to stop trying to identify abstract, ideological policy positions in the hopes of finding people who support them and to start looking at and listening to people and their concerns and to craft or support policies which address them, no matter how such policies are traditionally characterized, ideologically speaking.
The name of the game is to help make people's lives better which, in turn helps make our country better. It's a pretty simple game once you stop adhering to the old political conventional wisdom and start applying values, empathy, brains, compassion and creativity to the problems facing our country and its people.
In subsequent installments, I'll flesh out how this works in practice, addressing a number of problems and political issues through that lens.
Recently I wrote about why I think a Democrat can win Ohio's 12th Congressional district, despite it being gerrymandered to favor Republicans. In the coming days I'm going to talk about how a Democrat can actually win it.
This series of posts is not about the nuts and bolts of a campaign. This is about positioning, communication, tone and, above all else, policies, which will allow a Democrat to win a district that, generally speaking, leans Republican by a seven to nine point margin and which, a year ago, voted 54% in favor of Donald Trump and 66% in favor of a Republican congressional incumbent.
In the first installment, I want to talk about the elephant in the room: President Donald Trump. He will no doubt be a major factor in every election in 2018. It would be a mistake, however, to run solely or even primarily against Donald Trump, his character and his scandals. Indeed, I am confident that doing so will not win this seat, for one simple reason:
Winning politicians do not run against something. They run for something.
Donald Trump will no doubt continue to dominate the political scene for the foreseeable future. This district, in fact, would not be even remotely competitive if not for his alienating presence and for the damage he has already done. His election has motivated and mobilized people to an unprecedented degree. He is largely responsible for Pat Tiberi throwing in the towel in frustration, opening up the race.
Donald Trump will not be on the ballot, however. What's more, the Republican candidate who will be on the ballot will be a newcomer who will not have to defend a pro-Trump voting record. Indeed, I suspect he or she will move heaven and Earth to distance his or herself from Trump and will be able to do so relatively easily. As such, to the extent a Democrat makes the election, above all else, about Donald Trump, he or she will not be running against his or her opponent. What's more, he or she will allow the Republican to be he first to localize the race, the first to highlight issues voters care about and the first to claim, rightly or wrongly, that they have better answers about how to address those issues.
We'll talk about those issues more in coming installments. The key thing to understand for now, though, is that voters want to vote for something. They want to think that they are casting their vote to make their lives and the lives of their loved ones better. A successful candidate will be the one who convinces voters that they will help them do just that. Running against Donald Trump, first and foremost, will not accomplish this.
This is not a merely theoretical idea. There is a relatively recent precedent bearing it out.
In 1994, Republicans won back Congress in an historic wave election, with Republicans taking the House for the first time in over 40 years. While hysterical anger at the recently-elected Bill Clinton and his ill-fated healthcare reform effort did much to motivate the GOP base, a motivated base did not, by itself, create the wave that won that election.
Republicans won by historic margins in 1994 because they offered affirmative policy positions in the form of the Contract With America. To be sure, The Contract With America did not contain positive policy positions -- much of what was proposed was terrible policy -- but they were affirmative positions in the form of ten specific acts and multiple measures that corresponded with their political ideology. It told voters what they would do and how, in their view, it would help them and make their lives better. Voters may or may not have believed that Republicans could deliver, but they gave it a chance because people wanted then, as now, to believe that today will be better than yesterday and that tomorrow will be better than today.
In subsequent elections the primary thrust of GOP rhetoric was opposing Bill Clinton and defeating him for the sake of defeating him. It was echoed in the 2000s, when Democrats tried to make elections about George W. Bush and in 2010, 2012 and 2014 when Republicans tried to make elections about Barack Obama. Those messages made the hardcore elements of the opposition base extraordinarily happy and, at times, led to some short term gains, but they alienated less-engaged voters and did not give them anything positive to grasp on to. Such messages did not create the sort of waves that help a minority party gain real power and cannot now be counted upon to form the basis of an affirmative political movement.
There has never been a less popular president heading into his first midterm election than Donald Trump. As time goes on his unpopularity will likely increase as details of the various scandals surrounding him continue to come out and as a compliant, spineless Republican-controlled Congress continues to abide him in the name of advancing their harmful agenda. Activist groups such as the Indivisible groups have and will continue to channel the energy, excitement and, yes, anger that has exploded onto the political scene from the left in the past year as a result of Trump's toxic presidency. Any candidate who wishes to win OH-12 must, without question, work with these groups and their members, listening to their concerns and pledging to help them accomplish their goals. No candidate running for office should shy away from saying they will fight Donald Trump and restore Congress' seemingly abandoned oversight responsibilities.
Fighting Trump, however, will not by itself convince a critical number of the 66% of the district which voted Republican in 2016, let alone the 54% of it that voted for Trump to cast a ballot for a Democrat. A campaign centered on fighting Trump will not give people who are not as engaged as political activists are (i.e. most voters) a reason to engage. It will not draw in voters who want, above all else, to create a better tomorrow and who will help create the wave necessary to flip OH-12 from red to blue.
This does not mean running a centrist campaign. This does not mean equivocating on one's deeply-held convictions. Above all else it does not mean taking that motivated base for granted and reaching out in vain to attract staunch Republican voters to a compromised liberal or progressive agenda. In Part 2 of this series, I'll explain why that is.
Earlier this afternoon, Paul Ryan was on Brian Kilmeade's show on Fox Radio. He was asked if the GOP had to make a choice between supporting Trump or going its own way. Ryan said this:
"We already made that choice. We’re with Trump . . We all agreed on that agenda."
This is a critical admission from Ryan which is going to come back to haunt him.
Trump is, needless to say, not popular. Yesterday Ed Gillespie, who had attempted to ape Trump's messaging and style, was soundly defeated in the Virginia gubernatorial race. It's a sure thing that, as Trump's approval ratings continue to languish, Republican candidates will not even try to do what he did and, rather, will attempt to distance themselves from Trump as much as they can. This is especially true in districts, such as mine, which did not support Trump nearly as strongly as they supported other Republicans in the past.
Ryan has foreclosed the possibility. Or, at the very least, he has made is such that any Republican who does not wish to be tied to Trump must likewise distance themselves from Ryan and the Republicans in Congress, whom Ryan leads. After all, now that Ryan has admitted that Trump's agenda is their agenda, it will become the agenda of candidates who seek the support of the Republican establishment. I don't know how a candidate can convincingly do that without closing off critical avenues of support, financial and otherwise. I don't know how you even get the nomination of your party while repudiating its leaders.
I do know, however, that anyone running against a Republican in 2018 should obtain audio of Ryan's comments today and pound the message home, over and over again, that there is no daylight between Republicans and Trump. That a vote for a Republican is a vote for Trump. There should not be a single Democratic campaign that does not paint its opponent with Ryan's "we're with Trump" declaration and who does not, when his or her opponent claims not to be, ask them to prove it.
This was a pretty stunning miscalculation by Ryan. I suspect he and many other Republican candidates will end up paying for it.
A few weeks ago my congressman, Pat Tiberi, announced his resignation. When he leaves the House at the end of January, he will take a job leading the Ohio Business Roundtable, a lobbying group for the state's biggest businesses and the CEOs who run them.
Yesterday Tiberi, a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, began presiding over hearings for the Republicans' new tax bill. The bill, sold to the public with lie after lie after lie, provides massive benefits for corporations and massive benefits for CEOs and the people who make the sort of money they make. CEOs like Leslie Wexner, Ohio's richest man, pictured here on the Ohio Business Roundtable's "About Us" page:
Wexner, a board member of the Roundtable, happens to live in Tiberi's district and has donated thousands upon thousands of dollars to Tiberi's campaigns over the years. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
There are millions of people who will be worse off if and when the tax bill passes. Millions more who will be further harmed once its consequences fully play out. Meanwhile, there will be a few hundred CEOs -- and their layabout heirs -- who make out like bandits. Pat Tiberi, one of the men most responsible for passing this bill, will literally be working for those CEOs when the law takes effect.
Tiberi will face no consequences for his blatant conflict of interest. He has filed all the proper disclosures and abided by all the relevant ethics laws in taking his new job. He likewise never has to face the voters of our district again, so delivering his new corporate bosses exactly what they want while harming the people he still, technically, represents, will create no problems for him whatsoever. He's going to get away it.
We in Ohio's 12th District, however, can prevent this from happening again. We can make it a point to elect a successor to Tiberi who is not beholden to corporate interests. We can demand that whoever takes Tiberi's seat demonstrate that they will carry out the will of the people who vote for him or her, not the will of the people they'll look to for their next job after they leave Congress.
When the candidates to replace Pat Tiberi come forward, ask yourself: who do they work for? Answer that question by looking at who gives them money, who vouches for them and what it is, exactly, that they promise to do for those people. Then ask yourself if we do not already have enough people in Congress working for the rich and for corporate interests.
Sometimes, like Pat Tiberi, quite literally so.