SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
john edwards
Elizabeth Warren's Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics--And a Bad Sign for Billionaires
The press is choosing to view it in another light. That will only work for so long.
Jun 14, 2019
Back in 2009, I called for Elizabeth Warren to run for president. I may have been the first media figure to do so. This was early in the Obama presidency, when he was beginning to renege on some of his progressive campaign promises (closing Gitmo, drug re-importation, etc.), but more importantly already showing an unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the crash.
Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:
"We need someone ... to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it ... [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley."
believed that then and now. I'd happily vote for Warren. When she was about to launch her campaign and a string of editorialists came out with pre-emptive broadsides warning she would "not enjoy an easy path" to the nomination because of a "darkening cloud" of controversy around her, I called it out as the cheap Beltway-press manipulation it was.
Now Warren is the beneficiary of positive headlines, all cheering a recent rise in the polls--on average, she's jumped about 6 points overall since hitting a low of just over 4 percent in February. The substance of these stories is preposterous, and I'll get to why in a moment. But first, it's worth talking about the real reasons Warren is doing well.
The strength of Warren's campaign is a series of detailed policy proposals aimed at correcting a series of corrupting inequities in American life. The first major proposal she released, on January 24th, was aimed at perhaps the biggest problem in American society: the wealth gap.
While working people almost all live off highly-taxed "income," high net worth individuals mostly live off other revenue streams: carried interest, capital gains, inheritance, etc. Warren's plan would create a net worth calculation that would hit households worth between $50 million and $1 billion with a 2% annual "ultra-millionaires tax."
She has a similar plan for corporate tax, one that would wipe away the maze of loopholes big companies currently use, and force any firm that makes over $100 million in profits to pay a new 7 percent tax. "Amazon would pay $698 million instead of zero," she says. "Occidental Petroleum would pay $280 million ... instead of zero."
Other proposals include a Too Big To Fail breakup program for Silicon Valley that would designate internet firms that "offer an online marketplace" and have annual revenues of $25 billion or more as "Platform Utilities." Under the plan, "Google's ad exchange and businesses on the exchange would be split apart," and "Google Search would have to be spun off as well."
Warren has also unveiled ambitious plans for cancelation of student debt and free college, universal child care and a new corporate accountability plan that would force high-ranking corporate executives to certify they'd conducted a "due diligence" inquiry, making it easier to prosecute them for misdeeds conducted under their watch.
She even created an "economic patriotism" plan that overtly targets many of the excuses for domestic job loss offered by her own party -- automation, a "skills gap" or just blunt economic reality when trying to compete with cheaper labor abroad. She calls bull on it all. "No," she writes, "America chose to pursue a trade policy that prioritized the interests of capital over the interests of American workers."
She then laid out a series of plans that create "aggressive intervention on behalf of American workers," create a "Department of Economic Development" and put an end to practices like corporations using public money for R&D, then eating the benefits in stock buybacks while exporting jobs. Her plan would give taxpayers an equity stake in publicly developed enterprises.
This idea has such broad appeal that it even had Tucker Carlson talking it up last week as he denounced companies that "wave the flag, but have no loyalty or allegiance to America." She even got Carlson to rip Republicans, saying, "Republicans in Congress can't promise to protect American industries. They wouldn't dare. It might violate some principle of Austrian economics..."
Warren's platform has a lot in common with some rivals -- especially Bernie Sanders, who would also offer free college tuition, force the very wealthy to pay substantial new taxes, and create domestic jobs through a "Green New Deal" (Warren's plan is called "Green Manufacturing").
The two politicians do have some important differences, many of which were elucidated in a speech Sanders just gave on Wednesday at George Washington University. In it, Sanders explained why he calls himself a "Democratic Socialist," a term Warren has not embraced. (She went out of her way in March to say, "I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets.")
Those inside the Sanders campaign would say the speech he gave this week--which explained his policies as a continuation of FDR's "New Deal"--outlined the main difference between the two candidates.
An oversimplified view might describe Warren's campaign as an effort to correct and more aggressively regulate the flaws of American capitalism, while also preserving the market-based system in which she does seem to genuinely believe.
Sanders, meanwhile, believes in "guaranteed economic rights for all Americans," and is faster to place the solutions to problems he and Warren both identify in the hands of government. He believes health care, for instance, should be completely divorced from market considerations, and is less squeamish about disenfranchising private health insurance and other powerful lobbies. In fact, his campaign believes that any candidate who isn't creating enemies is probably not proposing real change--as Sanders says, a Biden-esque "middle ground" platform "antagonizes no one, stands up to nobody, and changes nothing."
But both the Sanders and Warren campaigns essentially have the same critique of the corruption of modern American capitalism. In fact, a lot of the Democrats are campaigning on promises to alleviate inequities and injustices built into our current laissez-faire, corporate-backed Stupidocracy, from Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income scheme to Tulsi Gabbard's plan to end regime change wars.
They've all got good ideas, and this is exactly what primary season is for: debating which ones are best. That, however, is not what the campaign press is doing. When Warren burst into the news this week, the headlines almost all carried the same theme:
Newsweek: Elizabeth Warren Ahead of Bernie Sanders for First Time in Two New 2020 Election Polls
Politico: Warren Leapfrogs Sanders in Pair of 2020 Polls
New York magazine: Elizabeth Warren Edges Past Sanders in New 2020 Polls
Mediaite: Bern-Out: Elizabeth Warren Knocks Bernie Sanders Down a Peg in New National Poll
None of these stories features a lead like, "Surging on a blistering anti-corporate message, Warren..." Frankly the coverage of her rise is an insult to the work she's put in at crafting a plan to take on American systemic corruption that voters find plausible.
Instead, Warren's obvious appeal to the conga line of think-tankers and DC political consultants currently swooning over her campaign is her perceived utility in helping remove Sanders from the race. It's why Bernie's in almost every headline about her rise.
The Sanders campaign has come to expect the doomsaying headlines, even taking them as validation. Echoing the famous FDR quote, "We welcome their hatred," Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir suggested it's all par for the course.
"This isn't bean-bag politics," he said. "It's a war for what vision of the country you believe in."
As I wrote earlier this week, even if they're true, poll-watching horse race stories like this are almost unavoidably idiotic so early in the race. But these stories are dumber than usual. They're based on two data points: a Monmouth Nevada state poll of 370 likely caucus-goers that shows Biden at 36 points, Warren at 19 points and Sanders at 13. The second is a YouGov national poll that shows Biden at 26 percent, Warren at 16 percent and Sanders at 12 percent.
Again, I have no dog in this fight. I like both Sanders and Warren and have no idea how I'd vote right now because, among other things, I haven't seen all the candidates yet. (I'm anxious to check out Yang, for instance.)
But these latest stories praying for signs of a Sanders demise are as clearly absurd as all the ones that came before, and there have almost been too many to count -- from Salon's "The Sanders Revolution is Probably Doomed From the Start" in January, to RealClearPolitics' "Bernie Sanders, It's Over" in February, to the Chicago Tribune's "The Case Against Bernie Sanders" that same month, to Yahoo's "Why Medicare For All is Doomed'" and on and on.
Some of the stories are preposterous on their face. The Week, for instance, ran a piece called, "Bernie Sanders' socialism speech might have been more about Elizabeth Warren than about Trump." It quoted former White House communications director Jen Psaki, saying the address "is a pretty clear indication he is feeling the heat from Elizabeth Warren's recent momentum."
Does she mean the momentum from yesterday? The day before? The speech was scheduled six weeks ago, when Sanders was ahead of Warren by fifteen points. There's silly, and then there's really silly.
A different way to read the same polls is that both Warren and Sanders are rising right now, and the campaign that's actually declining is Joe Biden's. Even MSNBC cited just this week a new Quinnipiac Poll showing Biden at 30, Sanders 19, and Warren 15. Biden was down five points since May, while Sanders was up 3 and Warren was up 2.
The RealClearPolitics average of all the major polls, which is what I go by in the rare instances when I actually care enough to look, shows a clear picture: at the time Biden announced in late April, he was leading Sanders 29-23 percent, with everyone else below 10 percent. Biden then shot up to a high of 41 percent, with Sanders dropping to a low of 14.6 percent nationally.
Since then Biden has been steadily dropping (though he's still well ahead at 32.2 percent). Sanders has crept back up to 16.8 percent, while Warren (10.8 percent) and Buttigieg (7.2 percent) have gained.
You can read these numbers any way you like. Has Sanders gained 2.2 percent since May 14th (14.6 percent), or dropped 2 percent since May 20th (18.8 percent)? Is Biden up 2.9 percent since April 27th (29.3 percent) or down 9.2 percent since May 9th (41.4 percent)? It's moronic. Polls at this stage are just toys for pundits to serve up hot takes whose lives will be shorter than most ants or house flies. "There's a reason why we're not talking about President John Edwards, President Ben Carson, President Rick Perry," says Shakir. "It's a long campaign."
The observation about the Democratic race that's sure to be relevant when real bullets start flying in primaries is that Democratic voters are in schism: there is a corporate-funded, centrist wing and an oppositional/anti-corporate/anti-war wing.
Warren has smartly marketed herself as having a foot in both camps. She may very well prove a unifying figure -- if that is possible, given how fierce the resistance would inevitably be to any real attempt to reorganize the banking, pharmaceutical and tech industries. A lot will depend on how much credibility she'll muster with hardcore progressive voters, some of whom are already grumbling, for instance, about her unwillingness (to date) to confront the health sector via Medicare-for-All.
If she does win over those voters, she'll quickly end up with the opposite problem, i.e. Bernie's current problem. If Warren is beating Biden by next January, and Sanders has fallen off, bet on this: the candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, break up Amazon and Google and tax the hell out of the party's biggest donors will once again find herself besieged by negative press, and questions about what the Times has already called her "difficult path to winning over moderates."
Horse race coverage exists so commercial news can cover presidential races without talking about issues. It's why outlets would rather report on Biden responding to being called "mentally weak," a "sleepy guy" and a "dummy" by Trump (this was on the front page of both the Times and the Post this week) than run stories asking which candidate has the best plan for getting Amazon, IBM and other companies to pay above zero in taxes.
If Elizabeth Warren is rising in the polls, it's not because people are tired of Sanders. It's because they're pissed at Amazon and Facebook, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, Dow-Dupont, Monsanto, Syngenta and countless other soulless, nationless, money-sucking companies -- along with their overpaid, under-prosecuted, deviant scum executives who've had outsized influence with both parties for too long.
By an amazing coincidence, this is also why Sanders is still very much in contention. Don't let anyone tell you that anything else is going on. Polls are noise. Fights over issues are real.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why 2020 Is Starting to Feel Like 2004
Sixteen years ago, leading Democrats shied away from doing the right thing. Today, they're perilously close to making the same mistake
Jun 03, 2019
On March 15, 2003, Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, at the time a decidedly second-tier presidential candidate, took the stage at the convention of the California Democratic Party. The first thing he said, to a thunderous cheer, was this: "What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the president's unilateral intervention in Iraq." He then ran through a litany of his party's failures to stand up to George W. Bush and the GOP, and finished with a rhetorical flourish that instantly made him a serious contender: "I'm Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
While Dean didn't win the nomination, his candidacy shone a bright light on the way Democrats had become timid and fearful, always worrying that if they were too clear in their criticism of the war or the administration that the public would reject them. More important, he showed how disgusted so many in the rank-and-file were with the way their representatives had been acting, and what a hunger there was for a more forceful brand of opposition.
Back then it was Iraq, and today it's the potential impeachment of Donald Trump.
Sixteen years later, the situation is not precisely the same, but it has some important parallels. That same fear--that if Democrats make their beliefs fully known or act too forcefully in opposing a Republican president, then the public will react against them--survives, even if it doesn't dominate the party's upper reaches the way it did in 2003. As they were back then, they are desperate to unseat the president, but divided on how best to do it. And on the question that dominates their internal debates, they seem to be concerned mostly with whether it's too politically risky to do the right thing. Back then it was Iraq, and today it's the potential impeachment of Donald Trump.
Perhaps I'm not being entirely fair to those many Democrats who voted to authorize the war in the fall of 2002. Some may have sincerely believed that it was a good idea. But coming a little over a year after September 11--and amid a constant barrage of Republican assaults on their patriotism--the fear of looking insufficiently "tough" dominated their thinking as they considered authorizing the use of force.
And it wasn't hard to see that the Bush administration was carrying out an enormously deceptive propaganda campaign to convince the public that if we didn't invade Iraq, at any moment they'd attack us with their fearsome arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. When Dick Cheney said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," there was no doubt he was lying, along with the rest of the administration.
But ambitious Democrats were certain that opposing war would be politically disastrous. So among those who voted to give the invasion the green light were future presidential candidates John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. History has not been kind to them on that score.
At the time, though, they justified their vote by arguing that the threat from Saddam was indeed a terrifying one. In stark contrast, it's almost impossible today to find a Democrat who doesn't agree on substantive grounds that Donald Trump deserves to be impeached. Many thought so even before Robert Mueller released the report detailing his findings, but the rest certainly do now, after Mueller laid out not only how Trump sought and welcomed help from the Russian government to win the 2016 election but the repeated attempts he made to obstruct the investigation.
And Trump adds to the grounds for impeachment on a near-daily basis. When the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment for Richard Nixon in July 1974, one of the articles cited the fact that he had "failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas" issued by Congress. Trump has not only done that multiple times, he has declared that he will simply refuse to comply with any and all congressional investigations of him and his administration.
There are no Democrats saying his actions don't warrant impeachment. The ones who oppose it, or at least oppose it for now, argue that it would be politically disadvantageous for Democrats. You might or might not find their arguments persuasive (I don't, though I'm willing to grant that no one knows for sure), but it's hard to imagine that when the history of the Trump era is written, declining to impeach him will look like some kind of profile in courage. As I've argued before, the simplest moral calculus says that if Donald Trump deserves to be impeached, then Donald Trump should be impeached.
The latest California party convention happened this past weekend, and there was no one who broke out with the kind of striking criticism of their party that Howard Dean managed in 2003. That's because there are already plenty of Democrats running for president who are not only ready to impeach Trump but are also advocating sweeping policy change. "When I lead the Democratic Party, we will not be a party that nibbles around the edges," said Elizabeth Warren. "Our Democratic Party will be a party of bold, structural change." In a similar vein, Pete Buttigieg said of President Trump, "He wins if we look like more of the same. Which means, surprisingly, that the riskiest thing we could do is try to play it safe."
There was a figure they and others were not-too-subtly referencing: Joe Biden, who not only advocates a more moderate set of policy solutions but recently said that when Trump is out of the White House, "You will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends," and they'll be ready for bipartisan governing. Biden's friend Mitch McConnell no doubt had a good laugh at that one.
While Biden is leading the polls at the moment, you can bet that his circa-2002 approach to the Trump presidency will become an issue as the primary race goes on. The question is whether the party is fundamentally different now than it was then, and whether they're looking for something else in their next leader.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fueled by Ambitious Policies and High Favorability, Progressives Celebrate an Elizabeth Warren Campaign 'On the Rise'
"Voters are inspired by her personal story of struggle growing up in Oklahoma and how she connects that to her big-picture worldview of fighting for everyday people and challenging power."
May 30, 2019
Progressives on Thursday pointed to new polling by a number of sources which suggest that after months of polling in the single digits in many national surveys, Sen. Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign is growing in popularity with Democratic primary voters.
In a poll released Wednesday by The Economist/YouGov, the Massachusetts Democrat was shown with a 42 percent favorability rating, coming in second behind Joe Biden's 45 percent rating. Sen. Bernie Sanders was behind Warren by one point in overall approval among Democrats.
Fifty-three percent of respondents identifying themselves as "liberal" said they were currently supporting Warren in the primary, with Sanders coming in second with a 47 percent rating.
"Warren has withstood the entry of 20-some competitors, and after mediocre polling led to media insinuations she couldn't sustain a campaign, she still ranks in the top handful of candidates," wrote Dylan Scott at Vox last week. "She has two supremely obvious things in her favor: She's very well-known and Democratic primary voters like her. Warren has distinguished herself with a very thoroughly prepared policy platform."
Warren also had the lowest "unfavorability rating" in the YouGov poll, with just 9 percent of respondents saying they had a negative impression of her and the campaign she officially began in February. Those who were surveyed often described the second-term senator as "intelligent," "strong," "smart," and "progressive."
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) argued Thursday that Warren's campaign, marked by the frequent roll-out of detailed policy proposals aimed at combating inequality through what Warren calls "big, structural change," has connected with voters.
"It's becoming clear to voters that Elizabeth Warren is the most electable Democrat we could put up against Trump," Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the PCCC, said in a statement. "Voters are inspired by her personal story of struggle growing up in Oklahoma and how she connects that to her big-picture worldview of fighting for everyday people and challenging power."
Warren's acceleration in polls, author Sady Doyle wrote, is "not just about her famously prolific policy rollouts -- though she's laid out detailed strategies on everything from housing discrimination to abortion access -- but about the depth and care with which she approaches every aspect of her campaign."
"It's about her tactical preparation in Iowa, where she has already hired more staffers than any other candidate," she added. "It's about the depth and breadth of her learning, and her commitment to having answers on the issues that matter."
Taylor suggested that voters may be comparing Warren's far-reaching proposals with Biden's centrist approach.
To the contrary, Taylor said, "voters can picture Warren crushing Trump on the debate stage. As voters hear more from Biden and Warren, the trajectory is clear: Warren is on the rise."
On social media, other political observers in recent days have pointed out Warren's momentum.
At Vogue on Wednesday, Michelle Ruiz pointed to Warren's ambitious policy proposals--including her plans to forgive student debt and establish tuition-free public college and institute a universal childcare program, all paid for with her Ultra-Millionaires Tax:
She is hardly the first presidential candidate to introduce comprehensive plans. John Kerry had plans; John Edwards had plans. Of course, Hillary Clinton had plans, too--plenty of plans she often referred to as being spelled out in great detail on her website. Candidates' plans--and their implied, dreaded sense of policy wonkiness--haven't exactly been sexy sources of charisma or media buzz. But they've also, largely, been forgettable. Warren's proposals feel different, perhaps because they are so sweeping, so thoughtful, and so ambitious. Perhaps because they actually offer solutions to the very real drains on voters and the economy.
Other recent polls bolstered the case that Warren is growing more popular with voters. Quinnipiac University found in a survey released last week that Warren was behind just Biden and Sanders in terms of which candidates voters say they would support if the primary were to be held now. Warren held 13 percent of the vote, behind Sanders's 16 percent and Biden's 35 percent.
After frequently polling behind Sen. Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg in national polls, Warren was ahead of both candidates in a Morning Consult survey taken between May 20 and 26.
"Sen. Warren has national name recognition as an anti-Wall Street warrior and a person unafraid of standing up to both Trump and Mitch McConnell, who famously scolded her for 'persisting' on the Senate floor," Ruiz wrote. "But Warren's new momentum also feels like a triumph for the way she is shifting the political conversation from trending hashtags to real issues."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Year of Whatevs: Why Trump Fatigue Makes 2018 So Dangerous
Despite everything we've seen over the last couple of years, the majority of Americans cling to an "it can't happen here" mindset. But anything is possible in the Year of Whatevs.
Jan 27, 2018
On some distant future date when historians -- if there still are historians -- begin sifting through the smoking rubble and ashes of what was once American civilization, they'll probably pinpoint January 12, 2018, as a kind of turning point, the precise moment it should have become clear that something was fundamentally broken and no one knew how to fix it.
That was the day the Wall Street Journal published a stunning article about the president of the United States that had the all-too-predicable effect of stunning absolutely no one. The newspaper reported, in convincing detail, that Donald Trump's lawyer had arranged an $130,000 payment to a woman known as "Stormy Daniels" -- star of adult-film classics such as "Good Will Humping" -- in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign so she'd keep quiet about her affair with the future president in 2006, while his new wife Melania was expecting their only child. Attorney Michael Cohen even established a Delaware LLC to make the payoff, proof that Team Trump is indeed doing something for the economy.
It seemed too ironic that this all happened as the world's journalists (but few others) marked the 20th anniversary of the Mother of All White House Sex Scandals, Bill Clinton's hook-up with then-intern Monica Lewinsky. What a different time! I still have vivid memories of January 20, 1998, when I hopped off an exercise bike at a health club the split second I saw a CNN bulletin about presidential infidelity, racing back to the newsroom to write a Daily News cover story with the highly prescient (given Clinton's subsequent impeachment and the blow to his authority) giant headline, "Can He Survive?" But in 2018, the public reaction to Trump's dalliance and more specifically the $130,000 -- which looks a lot like the mistress payoff by former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards that led to his indictment (and a hung jury) -- can best be summed up by that popular internet meme, the Whatever Guy.
-\_(tsu)_/-.
The lack of caring over presidential porn-star hush money -- in fairness, the cable TV networks that week were already trying to process the fact that Trump had called African nations "shithole countries" in front of a room of U.S. senators and aides -- was punctuated when faith leaders like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council -- who'd led the charge against Clinton's defilement of the Oval Office -- said they were happy to give POTUS 45 "a mulligan" on his tawdry affair. "They (evangelicals) let him have a do-over," Perkins acknowledged to CNN. "They said we'll start afresh with you and we'll give you a second chance."
And with that, it was more clear than ever that America has entered a new, frustrating -- and highly dangerous -- dynamic. As the ball dropped on both 2018 and the second year of Trump's is-this-really-happening? presidency, we've inaugurated the Year of...Whatevs. The hourly cycle of outrage over Trump's many sins and vulgarities -- the classless tweets about "Fake News" and occasional taunting of nuclear-madman-in-arms Kim Jung-un, the rising tide of sexual-predator allegations, the sometimes blatant racism in the Oval Office, etc., etc., etc., etc. -- is still spinning around, sound and fury now signifying record cable TV ratings and next to nothing else.
The 36 Percent is maybe now The 40 Percent thanks to the indestructible (for right now, anyway) U.S. economy and an immovable base of Trump supporters who don't really care what Trump does or doesn't do, but instead feed on the liberal anger machine the way an Alaskan bear feeds on spawning salmon.
Only one thing feels different now. Trump Fatigue is setting in, a kind of political fibromyalgia marked by the realization that we have an irrational president and yet there is seemingly no rational action that can alter Trump, or the goofy yet destructive Trumpian momentum inertia that was launched on January 20, 2017, or that can change one mind among the millions of CNN haters who back Trump or the millions of Trump haters who still watch CNN, flabbergasted. It's a debilitating condition that makes you want to stay in bed all day, maybe all winter.
Of course, this national mood was best captured by Saturday Night Live, with its fourth-wall-bending skit about a game show hosted by an increasingly unhinged Jessica Chastain who went through an escalating list of Trump inanities (most of them real, sadly) to ask bemused contestants, "What Even Matters Anymore?" The unwavering answer, of course, is that nothing matters anymore in the Age of Trump.
The skit is so searingly true that ... it's not particularly funny. Almost instantaneous with its appearance, a flood of think pieces tried to put into less satirical words the utter futility of the Trump outrage cycle, and the growing sense of hopelessness that's beginning to engender among the roughly half of Americans who strongly disapprove of his presidency. The best of these pieces is by Slate's Katy Waldman, in which she describes the growing "Trump nihilism" while asking , "What's left to discuss when you've discussed everything, and nothing has changed?" She adds:
Trump possesses a radical power to remake reality--to alter not only the world but also the rules governing it. When he sends a tweet taunting Kim Jong-un about the size of his nuclear button, phallic military grandstanding on Twitter becomes a thing that presidents do. Political experts weigh in; historians take note. We argued that firing James Comey was wrong, imagining our judgments would enter the warp and weft of things, would create consequences. Perhaps our stories offered momentary clarification, illumination, or entertainment. Perhaps they even spurred some change. But they were no match for someone with a near-supernatural command over the country's ontology. They couldn't reverse the topsy-turviness Trump wrought. In 2017, we learned just how wide the gulf separating our words from the president really was.
These feelings were almost palpable as I strolled around the Women's March on the Parkway last Saturday, hours before that Jessica Chastain sketch hit TV. The Women's March -- which drew 4 million people in 2017 and at least a million or more around the nation and the world for 2018's sequel -- is a thing of beauty that generates real solidarity, a real source of strength to the participants. Just consider the many who found their voice in fighting sexual predators in the months following the inaugural march. It cannot and will not be underestimated.
But yet as generations of grandmoms and moms and daughters, some in strollers, rolled past, I also listened for the dog that wasn't barking. No one, to my knowledge, among the five million at these two signature events of "The Resistance" has been arrested -- but is that a feature or a bug? If Trump is the threat to democratic norms and to the American Eperiment that many of us believe him to be, where is an actual resistance that reflects the gravity of that threat, with civil disobedience, for example -- people willing to "throw their bodies upon the gears"?
Trump Fatigue isn't just exhaustion -- it's the clear and present danger that experts who've studied the rise of authoritarian regimes over the last 100 years have been warning about since Trump's shock election on November 8, 2016. This is exactly how autocracy happens, with an unaccountable government that doesn't just bend the truth but wantonly lies about matters great and small, exacting loyalty from aides and from no-longer-independent lawmakers or judges who are expected to now agree with Dear Leader when he says that "two and two equals five."
The goal is to wear down citizens who were once inclined to protest, and to discourage investigative reporters that any investigations are futile because, in essence, nothing matters any more. This downward spiral repeats until eventually the foundations of our democratic institutions may appear to be standing but their humanity -- and their ability to fight authoritarian government -- has been destroyed, as if a neutron bomb had been dropped. Last weekend's rapid capitulation by Senate Democrats in the vague and all-but-certain-to-be-unrealized hope of an immigration deal was one more sign of how far this erosion has already worn down the system.
I cannot tell you exactly where that road is going to lead over the course of 2018, or even, frankly, over the next 24 hours. I do know this: Very bad things are already happening in this country, from the assault on our natural environment and the denial of the science warning us about climate change, to the human-rights crimes committed by a goon squad called ICE that will only grow worse if and when America steps up its deportation campaign to rip apart the families of at least 800,000 American "Dreamers," as looks increasingly likely.
Most folks in the anti-Trump movement are focused on the one place where they can and should be focused, on the midterm elections in November. Many of us share that not unrealistic hope -- that a new Congress can locate its backbone in January 2019 and start to turn this wayward aircraft carrier around. But so much can happen between now and then -- a failure to pursue hard evidence of obstruction of justice or other crimes and misdemeanors by the president, or war in North Korea or the Middle East -- that might require a bold response from a public and from institutions already so beaten down by 12 months of Trump. Despite everything we've seen over the last couple of years, the majority of Americans cling to an "it can't happen here" mindset. But anything is possible in the Year of Whatevs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Will Whoever Fires Bob Mueller Please Turn Off the Lights
If Donald Trump tried to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, it could be a lot harder than people think.
Nov 07, 2017
White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders says he won't do it.
Last Monday, she was asked: "Is the President going to rule out, once and for all, firing [Special Prosecutor] Robert Mueller."
"There's no intention or plan to make any changes in regards to the special counsel," she replied.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn), fresh off warning that the President might start World War III, can't imagine he'll do it.
Last Tuesday, a reporter cornered the president's harshest Senate critic in a hallway and posed the following: "There are stories that the President is thinking about firing Mueller. Do you think that's appropriate?"
The tired-looking Corker replied: "I can't imagine there's any truth or veracity to the president thinking that he would consider firing Mueller. ... Hopefully the question being asked is a question about something that cannot possibly be reality."
Yet, all last week the President reportedly "seethed" in his third-floor private residence as he watched cable television reports of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's first indictments. Firing Mueller, the AP reported, is "a possibility that has weighed on him in recent weeks."
Indeed, as far back as July, Trump mused about firing Mueller. In a New York Times interview, Trump was asked if he would fire the special counsel if he started looking at subjects unrelated to the Russia probe, such as his finances.
"I would say yeah," Trump first replied. Then he added more forcefully, "I would say yes."
But suppose the president decided to ignore the advice of Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer in charge of the Russia probe, and John Kelly, his chief of staff, and decided to fire Mueller?
Just for fun, let's see how a Trump move to fire Mueller could play out.
His first call would be to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "Sorry, Mr.President," Session might begin. "No can do. I recused myself from this investigation, remember? Surely you recall saying you never would have hired me as attorney general if you had known I would recuse myself. Why don't you try Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general? He's the one in charge of Mueller. Hold on while I find his number."
So Trump would then call Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, a career Justice Department official, summa cum laude graduate of Penn, and former Harvard Law Review editor.
"Mr. President, as I explained in Senate testimony in June, 'I am not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate orders.' The special counsel can only be fired for good cause. With all due respect sir, you've put nothing in writing that proves good cause exists to dismiss the special counsel.
"Moreover, as I'm sure your lawyer can tell you, I have been interviewed as part of the investigation into the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. So I feel like I need to decline your order. I'm sure you understand."
At this point, the call likely ends in one of two ways: either Rosenstein is fired or he quits.
Next up on Trump's phone tree: the third highest-ranking official at Justice, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, a Harvard Law School graduate and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"Mr. President, as I'm sure you know, I can only fire Bob Mueller for 'misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.' And the law also says that the Special Counsel must be informed 'in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.'
'Sir, if I may speak freely, why don't you have your lawyers draw something up, and I'll take a look at it?"
At this point, Brand would probably be fishing in her purse for her office keys to hand to Justice Department security on her way out.
Trump, increasingly anxious because he might miss the opening of Sean Hannity, would then reach out to Solicitor General Noel Francisco, a former Justice Antonin Scalia clerk and University of Chicago Law School graduate.
"Well, you see Mr. President, I've got a problem here," Francisco might say. "Before you brought me into the Solicitor General's office, (thanks for that, by the way), I worked for Jones Day in D.C. where I was a partner with your White House Counsel, Don McGahn. And sir, you know how hard it is to unwind all these partnership things - I have money tied-up in the firm. And your 2020 campaign paid Jones Day $800,000 in the third quarter alone. I need to call the department's ethics director, Cynthia Shaw. Can I get back to you in a few days? Oh also, do you have anything in writing why there's good cause to fire him?"
Now here is where things get even stranger. According to a March 31 Executive Order on Justice Department succession, the next three officials in line are the U.S. Attorneys for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Eastern District of North Carolina, and the Northern District of Texas.
So the president's next call is to Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Boente has had a wild ride in the Trump administration. He was appointed to his current post by President Obama. But when Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired in February for refusing to defend the President's travel ban, Boente was named to replace her. He served as Acting Attorney General for ten days before Jeff Sessions was sworn in.
Boente then served as Acting Deputy Attorney General, the no. 2 post, for 75 days until Rod Rosenstein took over. Then Boente was one of 46 U.S. Attorneys in March who Sessions ordered to resign. Yet, Trump rejected his resignation. Now, Boente is serving as acting head of the Department's National Security Division until Trump's nominee is confirmed. A 33-year Department veteran, Boente is known for his mild manner and intense devotion to work.
"Dude, don't you read the papers? I announced my resignation Friday before last. I'm sticking around until you guys name a successor. Anyway, permit me to remind you that I was the guy who worked with Jim Comey investigating former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lobbying deals. I empaneled grand juries that subpoenaed his business records. Those grand juries are now being run by Mueller. And you want me to fire the guy?"
It is now 8:54 p.m. Only six minutes left before Hannity.
On to Robert "Bobby" Higdon, Jr., the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Higdon spent nearly 25 years as a federal prosecutor, working in both North Carolina's Eastern and Western districts. Yet, his record is hardly unblemished. He led the campaign finance fraud prosecution of former North Carolina Sen. and presidential candidate John Edwards, which resulted in an acquittal on one charge and the dismissal of the remaining five after a hung jury. (Full disclosure: I worked as Edwards' Senate legislative director.)
In 2013, Higdon was removed as head of the Eastern District's criminal division after two federal appellate judges delivered a blistering critique of the section, saying that it had frequently withheld evidence and failed to correct false trial testimony.
Higdon was sworn-in as U.S. Attorney October 10.
People behave unpredictably in unprecedented circumstances. It's entirely possible Higdon may prove no more malleable than the other recipients of the president's calls. As Trump himself likes to say: Stay tuned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare For All Is Coming, No Matter What They Say
Jul 12, 2017
The idea of Medicare for All, or single-payer health care, has grown in popularity so quickly that it was recently an answer on the quiz show Jeopardy:
More than half of all Americans, 53 percent, now want a single-payer plan, up from 40 percent in 1998-2000.
But at the same time, Medicare for All suffers from the rise of a new growth industry: telling Americans what can't be done to make their lives better. It seems like the nation that used to pride itself on its "can-do" spirit is constantly being told, "No, we can't." Why do critics oppose this idea, which could improve the lives of so many?
Bernie Opens the Door
Bernie Sanders' presidential candidacy injected the single-payer idea into the political discourse. That created an opening for Democrats to embrace the idea as they seek to oppose Republican efforts to dismantle Obamacare. These include, significantly, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
"President Obama tried to move us forward with health care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts," Warren recently said. "Now it's time for the next step. And the next step is single-payer."
Yet even as the idea grows in popularity, opposition to it has become more vocal. Much of that opposition adopts the world-weary pose of the seasoned professional who has abandoned the idealism of his youth and is regrettably forced pass his disillusionment on to those who are more naive.
Krugman for the Opposition
One example of this world-weary opposition is a 2016 column by economist Paul Krugman column entitled "Health Reform Realities." Krugman argues that Obamacare is the left's "biggest political success in almost half a century," that "incumbent players" like insurance companies are "too powerful," that there would be disruption in a switch to single-payer (more about that shortly), and that it would be "difficult to make that case to the broad public" that they will save more money from out-of-pocket health costs than they will spend in new taxes.
Krugman reiterates this argument in a recent op-ed, writing: "Most of the health economists I know would love to see single-payer -- Medicare for all. Realistically, however, that's too heavy a lift for the time being."
Elsewhere, Krugman approvingly quoted Ezra Klein, another healthcare "realist," for dismissing a major overhaul of the health system as "puppies and rainbows." Condescending phrases like that are a key element of the "world-weary" style.
Krugman argues that Medicare For All is politically unachievable, despite its growing popularity. But when he's confronted with a real political problem - Republican governors' unwillingness to work with Obamacare's Medicaid provisions - he waves the problem away, saying only that "Republicans show no interest in making that happen."
A health plan whose ultimate success relies on cooperation from Republican politicians and for-profit insurance companies? Now that's "puppies and rainbows."
False Hopes
But then Krugman has been misjudging the politics of healthcare for at least a decade now. In the 2007 primaries, a mandate-driven plan much like "Obamacare" was proposed by John Edwards and quickly embraced by Hillary Clinton. Krugman insisted on characterizing it as "universal health coverage." We chided him for it at the time, since it was always clear (or should have been) that many people would remain uninsured under such a program.
Krugman also misinterpreted a 2009 poll somewhat. The poll, conducted by the Boston Globe and the Harvard School for Public Health, found that 79 percent of Massachusetts residents wanted to keep the law. A closer reading indicated the political dangers facing Obamacare. Support for the law had begun to slip, even without the Republican onslaught that everyone should have seen coming at the national level. Residents were "evenly split" on whether the law could continue without changes. A majority wanted to see the law changed, with cost reductions being the primary concern.
Health care costs, even after the Affordable Care Act, are at crisis levels. The actuarial firm Milliman calculates that the average family of four with "good" employer-based PPO coverage will pay more than $11,000 in out-of-pocket expenses this year. So when Krugman writes that "most Americans under 65 are covered by their employers and are reasonably happy with that coverage," and that "they would understandably be nervous about any proposal to replace that coverage with something else" - well, I wouldn't be so sure about that.
The Trillion-Dollar Miscalculation
The Washington Post Editorial Board took a harder line than Krugman, weighing in recently with an editorial entitled, "Single-payer health care would have an astonishingly high price tag." The "astonishing" figure is derived, not from a dispassioned analysis of all health plans, but from a single, hihgly controversial analysis of a single plan. The Urban Institute reviewed Bernie Sanders' single-payer proposal in 2016 and concluded that it would increase government spending by $32 trillion over ten years. Single-payer opponents have been citing that figure ever since.
But that figure is "ridiculous," according to Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein of the City University of New York School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School. In a detailed rebuttal, they note that the Urban Institute's findings "project outlandish increases in the utilization of medical care, ignore vast savings under single-payer reform, and ignore the extensive and well-documented experience with single-payer systems in other nations - which all spend far less per person on health care than we do."
The Post's editors insist that "the public piece of the American health-care system has not proven itself to be particularly cost-efficient," but this is misleading at best. Medicare, our country's only nationally-run health system, has much lower overhead costs and inflation rates than private-sector health care. You could even say they're "astonishingly" lower:
Medicare's overhead amounts to 2 percent of total costs, versus 12-14 percent for private insurers, while annual cost increases between 2010 and 2015 were 1.4 percent for Medicare and more than double that (3.0 percent) for private insurance.
It's true that our government's healthcare programs are costlier than their European equivalents. But what the Post's editors fail to mention is that private profit-seeking is largely responsible for the additional cost. Medicare is forced to share the road with private-sector insurers who can drive rates up, especially when for-profit corporations are increasingly driving every aspect of treatment from hospital care to provider practice management. A single-payer health system could set rates and design treatment guidelines that are based on best practices and are subject to public debate, unlike private plans.
A Change is Gonna Come
The transition to a single-payer system will be complex, but despite what the no-can-doers say, it is achievable. None of the obstacles that are cited are insurmountable.
One-third of our health economy is already managed through government programs. Our best minds should be tackling the challenge of reforming the remaining two-thirds. We have already have built some of the infrastructure and expertise we will need.
Medicare For All is not only achievable. It's inevitable. Health care costs are already too high for most Americans, even those with "good" insurance . The demand for a better-run public system will only grow in the years to come.
It's easy to understand why the Washington Post, with its history of hostility to social spending, would oppose Medicare For All./ But why is there such entrenched opposition among some liberals? Some Democrats want to defend the Affordable Care Act out of loyalty, because it's a Democratic program.
Some people have developed deep expertise in the current, flawed system. Consciously or unconsciously, they will be inclined to resist changes that render their knowledge obsolete. Other people want to be proven right about politics, and they've staked their reputation on claiming that single-payer is a "hard sell" because it will raise taxes.
Actually, it's an easy sell: I can save you thousands of dollars a year by replacing a terrible system with a much better one. People say Medicare For All is "politically unfeasible." But the past ten years have taught us that it's politically unfeasible to aim for anything less.
Many single-payer advocates are also defending the ACA today for a very simple reason: people will die if it's repealed. But people are dying right now because we don't have a national health care system.
The best way to defend the ACA is the way Bernie Sanders is doing it. Sanders is barnstorming the country condemning Republican plans to gut the law, a move that would cause tens of thousands of needless deaths to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut. But he is also making it clear that the ultimate goal - the goal that reflects both the public's needs and our shared progressive values - is Medicare For All.
Until we achieve health care for all, it's our health itself that is in jeopardy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Politicians From Both Parties Ignore the Poor
Donald Trump isn't alone in his focus on rich and middle class voters
Jul 10, 2017
At a rally in Iowa in late June, President Donald Trump responded to criticism of his millionaire-and billionaire-studded cabinet by saying that while he loves both rich and poor people, "I just don't want a poor person" running the economy.
Trump's comment was offensive. But it was also a rare instance of a politician actually mentioning the poor.
A higher percentage of Americans--14.8 percent--were living in poverty in 2014 than during the late 1960s and early 1970s. And extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $2 a day, has roughly doubled from 1996 to 2012, according to Kathryn Edin and H. Luke Shaefer's book $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America.
But you wouldn't know it from listening to the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton's economic addresses focused much more on the middle class than on the poor, a New York Times analysis found. And transcripts of the three presidential debates show the middle class was mentioned thirteen times compared to just four mentions of poverty, the poor, or low-income people.
In ignoring the poor, Clinton and Trump have plenty of company.
During his presidency, Barack Obama spoke less about people living in poverty than any of the past ten presidents. In contrast, Obama led those ten predecessors in talking about the middle class. Obama's 2012 opponent, Mitt Romney, said he was "not concerned about the very poor" and was instead focused on "middle-income Americans."
To be fair, some presidential candidates have treated poverty as an issue worth discussing. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders brought up topics related to income inequality and poverty so much that Clinton accused him of being "a single-issue candidate." John Edwards also made poverty a central aspect of his 2008 presidential campaign, taking his "two Americas" theme to the end of the primary season, before his campaign blew up.
Congress has also been criticized for ignoring the poor. "Missing in action," is how Representative Marcia Fudge, a Democrat from Ohio, described Congress's record on poverty.
Robert Moffitt, Krieger-Eisenhower professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University, agrees that politicians generally avoid the topic of poverty and the poor.
"Most people in Congress aren't really addressing it," he tells The Progressive. "They seem to be more concerned with the prospects of the middle class."
The poor have noticed how little they seem to matter to the politicians. "I feel like they're not talking to me," one struggling mother told CNN. Many poor people don't trust that the government has their back, and 60 percent of them believe the government should do more to help those in poverty.
Why do politicians ignore the poor?
C. Nicole Mason, executive director of the Center for Research and Policy in the Public Interest, believes politicians focus on those they think can help them the most.
"The middle class is a strong, vocal voting block, so they tend to get a lot of attention from politicians," she tells The Progressive. "The poor, not so much."
Timothy Noah, labor policy editor at Politico, tells The Progressive that the middle class is simply bigger than either the upper or lower classes, leading to a greater focus on them.
It wasn't always this way. In his 1964 State of the Union Address, President Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty." During his presidency, he ushered in programs to help the poor, such as the Food Stamp Act and Medicaid.
But the very notion that government should help those less fortunate came under attack in the 1980s by a renewed rightwing intent on destroying social safety-nets. President Ronald Reagan's "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" revolution changed the political and public mindset toward poverty.
"When Reagan started talking about poverty as a cultural pathology linked mostly to black women and communities," Mason says, "the public will to really confront the root causes of poverty eroded."
But the Democrats are also to blame. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton made Reagan's rhetoric and actions against those in poverty bipartisan by limiting the poor's access to welfare. The effect was devastating, leading to a huge spike in extreme poverty. And the Democrats have never undone the impact of that blow against the poor.
Mason says both parties tend to scapegoat those in poverty. "Some liberals and Republicans all think the same way about the poor," she says. "They blame the poor for their condition of not being able to reach the middle class."
Noah argues that this kind of rhetoric has "dehumanized" those in poverty. And he says today's politicians are still steeped in that political attitude.
"The poor are still demonized by conservatives, and I think Democrats are intimidated by the Republican rhetoric on this," Noah says. "So you don't see much discussion of poverty."
It's worth noting that under the current administration, the poor might be better off being ignored. During his campaign, while rarely explicitly naming the poor, Trump promised to help struggling people. But since taking office, he has proposed a budget that would slash programs many in poverty rely on and a health care plan that would kick many off of their insurance.
Meanwhile, Moffitt says the large number of people still in poverty has created a perception among many lawmakers and voters that poverty is an intractable issue.
However, politicians may be missing out on potential voters by not talking about poverty. About 68.5 percent of adults with an income under $30,000 a year didn't vote in 2014. That increases to 75 percent for people making under $10,000. Politifact reported the more money a person makes, the more likely they are to vote.
One reason people living in poverty don't vote in big numbers is because of an explicit strategy to lock them out: voter ID laws minimize poor people's ability to vote. However, it's also plausible that many poor people don't vote because politicians aren't speaking to their main issue--escaping poverty.
If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party had spoken more directly to these voters and their needs, rather than focusing almost exclusively on the middle class, they might be in control of the levers of government instead of completely out of power.
Moffitt insists it's possible for politicians to focus on both the middle class and the poor.
"There shouldn't be any conflict," he says. "The middle class has their problems and the poor have theirs, and neither one of them deserves priority over the other. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Targeting Corporate Democrats Is Part of the Fight Against Trump
On November 14, six days after the election of Donald Trump, some 40 young people walked into the office of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, calling on the senior lawmaker to step aside in his bid to be Senate minority leader. Carrying a banner that read "Wall St. Democrats Failed Us," they argued that Schumer, who has received more than $3 million in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry in the last five years, was exactly the wrong figure to lead the opposition to Donald Trump.
Nov 23, 2016
On November 14, six days after the election of Donald Trump, some 40 young people walked into the office of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, calling on the senior lawmaker to step aside in his bid to be Senate minority leader. Carrying a banner that read "Wall St. Democrats Failed Us," they argued that Schumer, who has received more than $3 million in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry in the last five years, was exactly the wrong figure to lead the opposition to Donald Trump. When the senator refused to meet with them, the protesters sat on the floor to barricade the office, filling the halls of the Hart Office Building with protest songs. In the end, 17 were arrested.
Asked about the purpose of the protest, organizer Yong Jung Cho stated, "The establishment Democrats have failed the American people. The establishment Democrats failed to stop Donald Trump." Another leader, Waleed Shahid, added that the group, #AllOfUs, would continue to target Democratic senators "who don't do anything they can to filibuster Trump's legislation that promotes his hatred or his greed."
At a time when so many people are furious at Donald Trump and terrified of his agenda, some will ask why these activists are targeting leading Democrats. After all, isn't that attacking the wrong side?
A look at the history of social movements under hostile governments provides a counterintuitive answer. At a time when Donald Trump has risen to the presidency by railing against the Washington establishment and upending the traditional rules of politics, the Democratic Party's propensity for compromise and triangulation only plays into his hands. The only hope for unseating Trump and minimizing the damage of his agenda will be to fight his racist right-wing populism with a progressive vision. This vision must express a genuine disgust for Washington politics, but be devoted to eliminating the corrupting power of the wealthiest one percent, rather than scapegoating immigrants and people of color.
In the short run, this will require pressuring fickle and opportunist politicians to stubbornly oppose and filibuster White House extremism, even at the risk of being labeled obstructionist by critics. In the longer term, it will involve creating an effective opposition in the Democratic Party to ensure that Trump's next opponent will not be another establishment candidate, deeply compromised by ties to corporate America. Rather, this opponent must be someone who can genuinely speak to the disenfranchisement and frustration that many in this country feel.
In choosing targets such as Schumer, organizers recognize that, in the next few years, direct opportunities to win concessions from the Trump-Pence administration will be slim. In contrast, social movements will have a much greater role in rallying and reorganizing the opposition. They have the power to tarnish politicians who once denounced Trump but now say they want to cut deals with the president. And they can work -- at local, state and national levels -- to elevate insurgent challengers willing to pursue a different type of politics.
Learning from the anti-war movement under Bush
The anti-war movement in the 2000s under George W. Bush provides an important example of a mass mobilization that arose in a time of Republican control, when the prospects of directly influencing policy appeared remote. Because of this, it offers lessons in how a movement can have much greater impact in affecting Democratic politics than in changing White House behavior.
Movements against the current regime do well to not merely study the example, but to avoid replicating its shortcomings. The challenge they face is making sure that the political candidates empowered by organized anti-Trump activity cannot simply co-opt the energy of the movement, but rather represent a true shift in power away from the corporatist center.
In 2003, as President George W. Bush and his cabal of neoconservative advisers were determinedly steering the United States towards new wars in the Middle East, an impressive number of people rallied in a reinvigorated anti-war movement. Its defining protest took place on February 15, 2003, when upwards of 10 million people in 600 cities around the world came out for what was possibly the largest day of coordinated international protest in world history.
Yet today, this anti-war movement is typically viewed as a failure, for a simple reason: critics point out that it did not succeed in stopping the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Although this point is obviously true, the narrative of failure deserves critical scrutiny. A large number of those who turned out to protest in early 2003 were well aware that stopping the administration's much-desired invasion would be next to impossible. Indeed, they were already planning protests to take place immediately if and when the war commenced. Organizers pursued this activity not so much with a naive hope of pulling off a miracle, but rather with more sophisticated goals in mind: They were determined that the war, from the start, should be viewed by the public as a reckless and destructive endeavor, that the official justifications for invasion be exposed as lies, and that, as much as possible, popular opposition constrain the wider foreign policy agenda of the neoconservatives.
Given that the Bush-era militarists were interested not only in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but also bombing countries such as Syria and Iran, the anti-war movement served a critical function in limiting the wave of patriotic fervor that typically accompanies the start of a new war and quickly putting the neocons on the defensive. In the end, these hawkish advisors saw their credibility swiftly plummet, and anti-war opposition helped render Bush a lame duck for the majority of his second term in office.
But arguably the most profound effect of the anti-war movement was not felt inside the Republican White House, but instead inside the Democratic Party. This dynamic is noteworthy for anti-Trump protesters. The movement succeeded in turning the party's base against Democrats who had supported Bush's invasion, and it made strong anti-war stances into the pragmatic position for politicians concerned about their political futures.
Before it commenced, a large number of Democratic officials were fully complicit in facilitating the Iraq War. In the fall of 2002, a majority of Democratic Senators -- 29 out of 50 -- joined the Republicans in voting to empower Bush to launch an invasion. Mainstream Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden likely believed that a "no" vote would expose them to criticism of being unpatriotic or soft in the "war on terror," and that an anti-war stance would come back to haunt their future political prospects.
Grassroots organizing played a vital role in turning this reasoning into a huge miscalculation -- making opposition to Bush the safe bet for Democrats and ensuring that centrists such as Clinton would grow to regret their Iraq War votes.
In the 2004 Democratic presidential primary, Howard Dean rose from obscurity to seriously challenge for the nomination, based on strong support from anti-war voters and activists in the party base. To fend off Dean's challenge, candidates such as John Kerry struggled to present themselves as leaders who had actually opposed Bush's war from the start. Later, in 2007, the same constituency propelled a little-known Barack Obama to prominence as an anti-war candidate, with more established politicians such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards scrambling to explain away their earlier hawkishness.
By this time, the political wisdom that pro-war stances by Democratic politicians were necessary to safeguard their political futures had been completely reversed. Like many historical shifts, this might seem inevitable when viewed in hindsight, yet it was anything but.
Examined through the simplistic lens of "did the movement stop the invasion of Iraq?" the anti-war movement may be seen as a failure. Yet it deserves significant credit for convincing reluctant politicians to begin standing up to Bush, redefining political common sense within the Democratic Party and coalescing a powerful constituency for peace.
Blocking a hateful agenda
Of course, many progressives were hardly satisfied with President Obama's handling of foreign policy once he was elected. And this points to the need to build oppositional movements that cannot be co-opted by politicians willing to adapt themselves to the norms of Beltway "realism." Progressives face the challenge of building a base of insurgent challengers who can articulate a wider vision of social, racial and economic justice. Fortunately, the revived movement organizing over the past five years (from Occupy to the Movement for Black Lives and beyond), along with the unexpectedly strong primary run of Bernie Sanders, have created a more robust basis for pushing forward a proactive program than existed during the Bush years.
Currently, the stage is set for a battle over the future of the Democratic Party. Schumer did not back down in his bid for leadership and has now become Senate Minority Leader. Yet, at the same time, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, representing the populist branch of the party, were also named to leadership positions, Sanders as the party's new "Chair of Outreach" and Warren as party vice-chair. For those committed to combating corporate control of the Democrats, these latter appointments -- along with the prospective appointment of Keith Ellison to head the Democratic National Committee -- represent first steps in an effort that will only intensify in the next two years. This fight will take place not only with regard to federal politics, but also at the state and local levels.
Whatever one makes of the prospects for realignment within the Democratic Party, there is little question for progressives that politicians prone to conciliation must be compelled to take steadfast stands to block Trump's extremist agenda, even if the right denounces these stands as obstructionist.
In recent years Republicans, pressured by a Tea Party base, were willing to relentlessly stonewall to stop Obama, taking the unprecedented step of never even holding hearings on the president's latest nominee to the Supreme Court. In contrast, some Democrats who have a long history of triangulation are already expressing a willingness to work with Trump. If the incoming president was truly anti-establishment, seriously willing to take on Wall Street, end the rule of the rich over our democracy, and uphold Constitutional values of equal rights, religious tolerance and free speech, there might be grounds for such cooperation. Instead, Trump has given every indication that he will fill his administration with corporate lobbyists and advocates of hate. Any legislation he presents as an overture toward bipartisanship -- on infrastructure, for example -- is certain to be loaded with poison pills that damage vulnerable communities.
In this context, politicians who play along with the White House fall into a trap: They grant Trump the opportunity to present himself as the man who made Washington work, instead of forcing him to bear the burden of a failure to govern.
Social movements have every reason to oppose this tendency, to create the political will to filibuster, and to bolster politicians who will break with the discredited neoliberal center. This involves an approach that does not spare ostensibly friendly insiders. As #AllOfUs has already demonstrated, fighting Trump may often mean targeting the Democrats.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Did Donald Trump Cheat on His Social Security and Medicare Taxes?
Oct 12, 2016
In 1995 and other years, has billionaire Donald Trump paid less for Social Security and Medicare than minimum wage workers paid? If he did, he probably cheated. The only way to know for sure is to see his federal income tax returns. But there is indeed evidence already in the public domain that suggests that, on top of being a racist, a misogynist, and a xenophobe, Donald Trump is a tax cheat.
The first page of Donald Trump's 1995 New York resident income tax return, published by the New York Times, reveals that he reported on his 1995 federal tax return that he had just $6,108 in salary for the year. On that small salary, just $378.70 would have been paid for Social Security and just $88.56 for Medicare, for a grand total of just $467.26.
"Like most other crimes, [Trump's] fraudulent mischaracterization is not victimless."
That same year, workers, earning the 1995 federal minimum wage of $4.25 an hour, made $8,840 for full time work. On those wages, $676.26 was paid for Social Security and Medicare - $209 more than paid on the reported salary of the billionaire Republican presidential nominee.
Donald Trump earned a salary of only $6,108 in 1995? Less than a minimum wage worker? Hard to believe. And, indeed, it is contradicted in a report filed in 1997 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which shows that Trump received a salary in 1995 of $583,333 and "other compensation" of $4,830,000 for a total that year of $5,413,333. If all of that income should have been assessed for Social Security and Medicare, Trump should have paid a total of $164,575.46!
So which is it? Did Trump and his corporation pay $164,575.46 for Social Security and Medicare, just $467.26, or some amount in between? And what was he required to pay? There is no way to know without seeing his federal tax return.
How widespread is it? A GAO study reviewing 2003 and 2004 tax returns calculated that Subchapter S corporations mischaracterized earned income by a whopping $23.5 billion, resulting in underpayments to Social Security and Medicare of billions of dollars in just those two years.
Like most other crimes, this fraudulent mischaracterization is not victimless. When cheating is done with respect to domestic and other low-income workers, those individuals are denied the disability, survivor, retirement, health, and unemployment protection the law requires they have. If Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, and their wealthy compatriots are illegally avoiding paying what they are obligated under the law to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, and Workers' Compensation, they may be able to get by without the benefits, but they are cheating us.
Social Security and Medicare work so efficiently and well because they are universal. Given the perilous and rising income and wealth inequality over the last few decades, I do not believe the wealthiest are paying their fair share. But, it appears that Trump and his plutocrat friends may not even be paying what they legally owe already.
Again, it is impossible to know if one of those plutocrat-cheats is Donald Trump without seeing his tax returns. But perhaps that is one of the reasons he is being audited.
It is amazing he is being audited for any reason, given the efforts of those in Congress to protect him and his fellow elites. Thanks to budget cuts, the rate of individual tax returns being audited is lower than it has been in over a decade.
But Congress's protection of the wealthy is even worse. One of the truly outrageous requirements imposed on the Internal Revenue Service is to spend its limited resources disproportionately on those returns of the poorest workers in the nation, those who claim the Earned Income Tax Credit ("EITC"). Hounding the working poor with audits should stop.
Indeed, Social Security should be expanded for those working poor and for all Americans. Those expansions can and should be paid for by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. And while we are at it, let's make sure that they pay every penny that the cheaters among them are failing to pay now. The perfect poster boys for this effort are John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, and, quite likely, Donald J. Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Late 2007, Obama Trailed Clinton By 26 Points. Bernie Sanders Is 2016's Barack Obama
Nov 30, 2015
Before the Iowa Caucus in December of 2007, Pew Research reported that Barack Obama was 26 points behind Hillary Clinton. In the "Democratic Horse Race," Hillary Clinton enjoyed 48% support while Obama was stuck at 22%. According to Gallup in late 2007, Hillary Clinton held a commanding lead over Senator Obama:
Gallup's 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries.
Clinton has led the Democratic pack in every Gallup Poll conducted between November 2006 and October 2007. For most of this time, Clinton has led Obama by a double-digit margin.
Clinton's lead over Obama has expanded to nearly 30 points in Gallup's latest poll, conducted Oct. 12-14: 50% vs. 21%.
Of course, we all know that because of a lead that expanded to nearly 30 points, there was little chance for Obama to win at that point. If anything, the words "Clinton has led the Democratic pack in every Gallup Poll conducted between November 2006 and October 2007" should have meant that only one candidate was electable, or capable of winning the primaries.
Sound familiar?
President Obama won, despite the polls, and Hillary Clinton lost, primarily because one candidate was able to generate immense energy and enthusiasm.
However, it's difficult to generate enthusiasm when you're a Democratic nominee who voted for Iraq and is funded by prison lobbyists, but alas, Clinton supporters base their vote upon the perception of political power. This viewpoint ignores the fact that Democrats lose elections when voter turnout is low, and only Bernie Sanders can ensure a high voter turnout in 2016. Between an expanding FBI investigation, Clinton's negative favorability ratings, and her longstanding ties to Donald Trump, Republicans would win the White House with a Clinton nomination.
Thus far, 14% of Democrats according to CBS News will not support Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, I explain in The Huffington Post and Salon that I'm one of these Democrats. Yes, I will risk four years of a Republican to ensure the Democratic Party doesn't shift dangerously to the right on foreign policy; electing a Democrat with neoconservative support and advisers, funded by prison lobbyists, and who once falsely claimed "I remember landing under sniper fire."
Furthermore, many voters (astonished by a liberal who won't vote for Clinton) fail to realize the difference between a president and a member of Congress. Unlike a Senator or member of Congress, the president has the AUMF and can wage war unilaterally, and I don't trust Clinton with this kind of power.
If you hate guns, you should also hate Hillary Clinton's "neocon" foreign policy. In terms of deadly weapons, the NRA is nothing compared to the number of guns Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would utilize, and based on her record, there's a likelihood of more American ground troops sent to Syria, Iraq, and other quagmires.
If you don't believe me, just read Clinton's book review in The Washington Post of Henry Kissinger's World Order.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, already defeats Trump and Bush in landslide victories according to recent general election polls. Unlike Clinton, who's now the subject of impeachment by a GOP Congressman (one year before the election), Bernie Sanders is respected on both sides of the aisle and won the Congressional Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Sanders appeals to Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans.
In my latest appearances on The Benjamin Dixon Show, the discussion centered on why Bernie Sanders is the best chance Democrats have of defeating Donald Trump. We also discussed Clinton's use of race against Barack Obama in 2008, as well as why Bernie Sanders is able to motivate voters, whereas Hillary Clinton's record on the biggest issues is a liability.
Benjamin Dixon also has a message for the Sanders campaign. At 28:10 on the YouTube segment, he states "I'm behind Bernie Sanders 100%" primarily because "Hillary Clinton is a damn good Republican" and this is a moment when Americans should volunteer to ensure Bernie Sanders wins in 2016.
The host of The Benjamin Dixon Show is so passionate about Bernie Sanders, he's willing to campaign for him in South Carolina (joining Cornel West and other African American supporters) and speak to black voters in churches and other locations, simply to ensure that Vermont's Senator wins the presidency.
This the type of enthusiasm is the hallmark of Bernie's campaign, like Obama's in 2008. In terms of enthusiasm, I explain in this YouTube segment why Clinton is unelectable due to negative favorability ratings.
I also explain why voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the nation will vote for Sanders over Clinton or Trump in this YouTube segment.
Although some observers are convinced that poll numbers have ensured a Clinton victory, there's a reason Hillary Clinton finished third in Iowa, behind Obama and John Edwards, in 2008.
When Yahoo News writes an article titled More Americans distrust Hillary Clinton than trust her, it's difficult to generate energy and enthusiasm amidst such negative favorability ratings. These issues plagued Clinton in 2008, and the coming year will see an ever-expanding FBI investigation linked to her emails, as well as a potential mutiny from progressives.
There are already 25,000 people who've decided to write in Sanders if he's not the Democratic nominee. This number will almost certainly grow in the coming months, as many voters will refrain from choosing the lesser of two evils in 2016.
In contrast, Bernie Sanders reached 1 million donations faster than any presidential campaign in history, and according to Zaid Jilani, "Barack Obama did not reach this threshold until February of 2008." In fact, Bernie Sanders is raising more money than any Republican candidate. As for campaign funding, Clinton answered a question about her Wall Street donors by evoking 9/11; an answer that correlates to polls indicating swing states don't trust Clinton.
Back in August, over 100,000 people had attended events with Bernie Sanders; the total has no doubt increased by a substantial amount. Also, something interesting happened during the first debate. Bernie Sanders won the battle for hearts and minds of Democrats the moment Anderson Cooper asked Hillary Clinton, "Will you say anything to get elected?"
During the first debate, CNN's most recognizable host introduced his question with a paraphrase of everything I've been trying to illustrate in my writing:
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN:
Secretary Clinton, I want to start with you. Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency.
You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard." Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
Will you say anything to get elected?
Most politicians would be ashamed of such a question, and most supporters would be incensed, but not the Clinton campaign. In addition, professional pundits overlooked the question and gave Clinton the win, while a Time magazine poll of 284,688 votes shows that 60% of viewers (compared to a notable 26% for Jim Webb and only 12% for Clinton) felt Bernie Sanders won the debate.
Speaking of Time Magazine, Bernie Sanders leads Time's Person of the Year Poll, beating Pope Francis and Barack Obama. In contrast, Time writes that Hillary Clinton "has earned 1.3 % of the vote, trailing the likes of Vladimir Putin..."
Also, Democrats can't win going into Election Day with an ever-expanding FBI investigation. A POLITICO article on November 10, 2015 titled FBI steps up interviews in Clinton email probe explains the magnitude of the ongoing investigation.
Finally, as Lelita Cannon writes in The Root, "Before Killer stepped away from the podium, he made sure to clarify that Bernie 'spent the last 50 years radically fighting for your rights and mine.'" When African American and Latino voters choose Sanders over Clinton, America is looking at a landslide victory within the Democratic Primary for Bernie Sanders. The more people learn about Clinton, like the fact her campaign was funded by prison lobbyists and used race as tool against Obama in 2008, the greater the likelihood of Sanders running away with the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders, not Clinton, is 2016's Barack Obama, and ever-changing poll numbers won't stop Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy