Believe it or not, Donald Trump, is already a failure as a President. The first 100 days of a President's tenure are the most productive--at least, for most Presidents. The reason being that this is when most Presidents are the most popular and the most powerful. After all, theoretically, he was just elected by more than half the country, which implies that more than half the country is supportive, even excited, about the proposals a new President put forward during his campaign. This then puts pressure on his political allies and opponents to appease the majority of the country lest they be perceived as thwarting the will of the people.
This is not the case for Donald Trump. He lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, taking office with a majority of the country against the proposals he had voiced during his campaign. Not only this, but Trump's approval ratings--both his initial approval rating when inaugurated, and his rapid decline to his current 35% approval--are the lowest of any President in history at this point in their Presidency. So, he doesn't get a first 100 days; and, in fact, he may not get any days of popularity and power. There is no pressure on his friends or foes in Congress to appease him. Even Republican members of Congress have constituents speaking out against some of his proposals, and they are voicing those concerns very publicly.
We are currently 75 days into Donald Trump's Presidency--three quarters of the way through what should have been his most productive time in office--and he has racked up far more weeks of failure, controversy, and lawsuits than he has political wins. From his National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, having to step-down, to the Russian investigations, to his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, having to excuse himself from the investigation due to his possible involvement with the crimes being investigated, to his twice halted Muslim ban by the federal courts, to his and the GOP's colossal failure in repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, to his current Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, being held up and possibly denied Congressional approval without a historic change in Senate procedure, to a new lawsuit being heard by a federal judge in Kentucky for inciting violence at one of his own campaign rallies a year ago, Donald Trump is not only failing, he's flailing. Despite Republicans having control of the House, Senate, and White House, they are getting nothing accomplished during what is their most likely chance to do so.
It's unfortunate that Trump's failures are coming as no consolation to Democrats. Everyday social media is filled with alarmist memes and warnings about what Trump has proposed today, and while these are scary proposals for people with progressive values, they are only proposals. Nearly all of what Trump has done so far has been through Executive Orders and policy changes within federal agencies. These changes are no small deal, but they are temporary in that the next President, who at this rate of failure, backtracking, and full-on policy reversals (not to mention total lack of character and conviction and a very loose relationship with reality) by Trump will likely be a Democrat, can change on day 1 of his or her Presidency.
This may very well be the end for Trump. Even if he doesn't get impeached for colluding with the Russian government to sabotage Hillary Clinton's Presidential run or for conflicts of interest between his businesses and his role as President, legislatively, everything he wants to do has to get through Congress. To get through Congress, it has to have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. So, to pass any bill, to accomplish anything at all that will last past his final day in office, Trump must get 8 Democrats to sign-off on the legislation. This goes for budgets too; meaning, he can talk about building a wall all he wants, but unless he plans to pay for it himself or get Mexico to pay for it, as he promised, he's going to need Congressional approval for the funds. Same for his tax overhaul. Same for any of the outrageous things he's proposed over the last two years.
There are about nine months left before campaigns start for the midterm election. One-third of the 100 Senate seats are up for re-election. Nine of those are Republican seats; Democrats need to win five of them. In the House, elections will be held to elect representatives from all 435 congressional districts nationwide. Additionally, 36 states will be voting to elect Governors. How does this pertain to Trump? Republican members of Congress are going to be far less likely to side with a President embroiled in scandals, lawsuits, and legislative failures during an election year. Meaning, if Trump does not get some big wins in the next nine months, which is unlikely given his record during what should have been his honeymoon period, he may have both Democrats and Republicans publicly denouncing his policies and trashing his administration in their re-election campaigns. He may also find himself in a stalemate, if not impeachment hearings, for the final two years of his Presidency with a Congress being run by Democrats.
There is another silver lining to Trump's failure as a President. Whether he realizes it or not, he has brought the long-held beliefs of the Republican party out of the shadows for all the world to see. They were already expecting to be trounced during the 2016 elections. The only reason they weren't is because people wanted to protest and Trump was their pipe-bomb to the establishment. The policy beliefs of most Americans still do not align with the Republican platform. The demographics of American voters increasingly favor Democrats, and now, Donald Trump has exposed Republicans as all bluster and false promises with regard to immigration, health care, tax reform, and the like. If they can not make steps forward in any of these areas even with complete control of Washington, they may be looking at years of losses. This was their big chance to prove they are still worthwhile as a party and they are blowing it, BIG TIME. Not only this, but many moderate Republicans have come to see their party for what it is: a science-denying, racist, sexist, fake news-loving party who panders to the worst of society. This is not how moderate Republicans see themselves, and many may be looking to the far more moderate Democratic party to speak to their political needs.
During the 2016 election many progressives thought Donald Trump was the best thing to ever happen to Democrats. Then he won and they were appalled, frightened, and devastated. This is understandable, but maybe, just maybe, we needed a Trump Presidency for the world to fully appreciate how sinister, heartless, hateful, and incompetent the Republican party has become.
Monday, April 3, 2017
Monday, January 23, 2017
Passion is Great, Strategy is Better
After dwelling on the results of the election and remembering daily that this man has a majority in congress and will appoint Supreme Court Justices, I needed inspiration badly. This is why I was so inspired to hear former President Obama (it hurts to say former, doesn't it? ) express the wisdom he shared with his girls about the state of the world under the new administration: "The world isn't over until it's over." And he's right.
We progressives like to sadistically indulge in the catastrophic, even fatalistic, nature of bad news. I believe this is due to the fact that we allow ourselves to feel a wider range of emotions, including the emotions of others who are suffering, and try not to numb ourselves to the potential dangers of the information we hear everyday. Because of this, we tend to be a bit more wily, weird, and passionate about what is going on in the world. It's hard for progressives to fight politically because we have so much information and no overarching ideology for filtering what matters to us as a party. In fact, many progressives fear attaching themselves to the Democratic party for fear of having their views dragged to the middle. Compare this with conservatives who, rather than fearing their party will drag them to the middle, have dragged their party to the far right in a way we haven't see in two generations. Republicans often win elections because they have an ideological filter as a party that dictates whether or not they care about the information they are hearing. They hear the Earth is warming due to human behavior, and the more reasonable of them--the ever dying breed able to accept the consensus of experts in a field over partisan hacks on television--say, "Ok, well, how can we solve this in a way that doesn't tank the economy? How can we turn this into an opportunity for innovation? Is there even a realistic way to solve this problem without implementing strangling regulations that will lose our country a ton of money?" This filter allows conservatives to remain calm in the face of potentially detrimental information.
We progressives like to sadistically indulge in the catastrophic, even fatalistic, nature of bad news. I believe this is due to the fact that we allow ourselves to feel a wider range of emotions, including the emotions of others who are suffering, and try not to numb ourselves to the potential dangers of the information we hear everyday. Because of this, we tend to be a bit more wily, weird, and passionate about what is going on in the world. It's hard for progressives to fight politically because we have so much information and no overarching ideology for filtering what matters to us as a party. In fact, many progressives fear attaching themselves to the Democratic party for fear of having their views dragged to the middle. Compare this with conservatives who, rather than fearing their party will drag them to the middle, have dragged their party to the far right in a way we haven't see in two generations. Republicans often win elections because they have an ideological filter as a party that dictates whether or not they care about the information they are hearing. They hear the Earth is warming due to human behavior, and the more reasonable of them--the ever dying breed able to accept the consensus of experts in a field over partisan hacks on television--say, "Ok, well, how can we solve this in a way that doesn't tank the economy? How can we turn this into an opportunity for innovation? Is there even a realistic way to solve this problem without implementing strangling regulations that will lose our country a ton of money?" This filter allows conservatives to remain calm in the face of potentially detrimental information.
Progressives see this as heartless and cold and simple-minded, probably because we don't have a heady ideology. We have an emotional worldview that leads many of us to hear of global warming, blame ourselves, and withdraw from the 21st century altogether. We make, sometimes ridiculous, concessions like refusing to drive or fly or even reproduce. We take up urban farming with zero experience and find ourselves stressed-out by the new responsibility of maintaining multiple gardens and feeding livestock while trying to hold down jobs and raise our families. Not that these are bad things to do; I would even argue that progressives are far more creative and innovative and the more disciplined among us will be the ones to solve problems like global warming in a realistic and economically sustainable way, but we need to be more realistic in our approaches and strategy. Becoming a homesteader in the middle of a city and judging everyone else who isn't making the same effort is not a realistic approach to global warming or environmental sustainability.
This is my point. If there is one take-away from last year's election it is that Democrats--not as an institution, but as a constituency of voters--need to stop dabbling in the obscure and outlandish and focus on where we are now as a country (and a world). We need to get more disciplined at playing the game and start taking an interest in heady long-term strategy over feel-good, whimsical rhetoric. Republicans are in it to win it; and they are winning it. They are making very simple moves that transform their ideology into legislation and appointments at every level of government that will last a generation. Democrats elected the first black President with a message more liberal and optimistic than anyone since Kennedy and what did Republicans do? They said (out loud): "Our number one priority is to see that Obama fails." And they did it. They made his first two years appear so radical and out of touch that Americans voted in a conservative congress at the midterm elections and this new congress blocked every move Obama made and then demonized him as a tyrant and a dictator for taking executive action to go around them. And, had Mitt Romney had an ounce of personality or passion as a politician, Republicans would have had congress and the Presidency for the last four years. Furthermore, they gerrymandered their congressional districts nationwide to make sure they keep the House of Representatives in their camp for the foreseeable future. They are ruthless by progressive standards and that's because we take our opponents' rights and feelings into consideration even while fighting for our own agenda.
This has to stop. They will appreciate us when we win. And we will win when we start focusing on winning and not on gaining lip service to every pet-policy we feel so strongly about. We need legislative action. We need politicians who boil their message down to broad overarching themes while acting on everything we have always believed in as progressives. Those of us who understand the breadth of issues happening in the world today need to be smart enough to understand that these issues are better served when we empower our party to play chess instead of checkers. We need to stop expecting our politicians to speak publicly about our specific concern when those who don't understand the breadth of issues going on in the country have very different concerns than ours. Our Democratic Presidential candidates are forced to talk about such nuanced issues to get the nomination that they end up alienating half the country in the general election. We need to be expanding our base by speaking to the issues of people who don't already agree with us. Instead we are forever educating the public and chastising our opponents and by proxy the general public for not understanding every nuance of the political web of issues.
Republicans keep it simple: Small government, low taxes, military strength, and (though incredibly hypocritical and out of sync with the rest of their politics) family values. That's it, four things. Now the breath of issues they squeeze into these categories is enormous. What they expand these four themes to include once in office is equal to the array of issues Democrats fight for, but they don't try to cover in depth every policy they care about during their campaigns. They talk about these four issues in as vague and concise language as possible while attacking their opponents for not being strong on these four issues. In doing so, they frame the political discourse. While Democrats spend a year and a half going into great wonky detail on two dozen issues (some of which only a small percentage of the population are concerned with or even know exist) and mostly ignoring their Republican competitors until the general election, Republicans are pandering to their four issues (issues most Americans can get on board with even if they don't totally agree) and then squeezing the two dozen other issues they'll be responsible for into their four issue framework. They talk as much about Democrats during the primaries as they do about the issues and, as evidenced by last year's election, they fall in line like good little soldiers no matter how much they disagree with their candidates.
I truly believe that the future belongs to progressives. The demographics of the country are trending our way and the divisive and hateful message of Donald Trump has motivated Democrats like I haven't seen in my lifetime. However, if Democrats don't put their hearts in check and start using their heads, I fear we will continue to fail in the political realm. Fiery rhetoric and protests and petitions are all important, but they change nothing if we cannot put in place politicians--and as a result, legislation--who further our values as a party.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Is Trump Really the Next Hitler?
First of all, I want to be clear that I am not a fan of equating democratically elected leaders in the United States to Hitler. It was done when Obama was elected in 2008 and I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard. But, if there was ever a threat of a Hitler-esque leader taking the United States in a Nazi-esque direction, it is Donald Trump. The only similarity there was between Obama and Hitler was his charisma and passionate followers during his first campaign. That's it. And, Republicans turned those similarities into an argument for him becoming a tyrant who would destroy the American way of life, and thus an excuse to obstruct his agenda at every turn (nothing could be further from the truth as his eight years has shown us). The similarities between Trump and Hitler are many. He has unleashed and exploited a large faction of people who needed scapegoats for their fears and difficult circumstances. He gave them Mexicans and Muslims and Immigrants. He has a total disrespect for the media and sees them not as the people's last best defense against a secretive and nefarious government, but as a nuisance to be silenced by force from his followers (as he has encouraged at his rallies), if not legally through changing the libel laws (as he has proposed). He holds the same bigoted views of white supremacy as Hitler. He respects heavy-handed, unilateral power like Hitler. He uses populism to build support among those who may not agree with his bigotry, but enable it out of support for his promises to do things, like bring back coal jobs and overturn Row v Wade, that are nearly impossible to achieve. He is annoyed, at best, by pluralism, and lashes out whenever opposed by even the most trivial of opponents (i.e., SNL writers and the cast of Hamilton).
Those of us solidly against Trump are apparently inclined, as many were during Hitler's rise, to believe he won't be as bad as he sounds, or do the more radical things he has promised to do. Despite the fact that his party controls both the House and the Senate and will, through radical obstructionism of our first black President, appoint at least one and possibly three conservative Supreme Court Justices, we believe he will be kept in check by the more level-headed Republicans in Congress. Before you are so quick to be comforted by these supposed moderates, I would implore you to remember that they have been stoking the coals of bigotry, nationalism, fake news and angst toward the media, misinformation, and radical Christianity for decades. Based on their wishy-washy flip-flopping support for Trump during his campaign, it is not clear at all that they will stand in his way if going along with his dangerous and bigoted policies means getting conservative legislation passed that will serve as an albatross around the neck of future generations--generations, I might add, that are FAR from conservative in their politics (lest I remind you that marijuana is legal in a quarter of our states now, and a Democratic Socialist polled far ahead of Trump throughout the entire campaign season).
Despite a mountain of evidence pointing out that Trump means every word he has said over the last year and a half, Americans, with their hope springs eternal optimism, continue to say, "Well, this couldn't happen here, we have checks and balances." To which I say, "Maybe." Do we really want to test those checks and balances? How many of them are based on the assumption that we elected respectable, pluralistic statesmen to work together on behalf of all Americans? How do our checks and balances play out when a minority of the country puts, by all measures of human decency, an absolute heathen with no respect for said checks and balances, in the White House?
Do we want to see a President appoint military leaders who share his bigoted, war-mongering views and disregard for international law? Perhaps there are enough military leaders who would not carry out his unlawful commands, but even then, will they stand their ground and refuse to carry out orders, or will they resign, leaving a vacuum for other Trumpian leaders to take their place? And, if they do stand their ground, do we want to see what happens when a nation's military stands against its own President? Or, perhaps worse, fractures itself into those willing to follow Trump's commands and those who won't. These are terrifying possibilities. Is Civil War the kind of checks and balances Trump enablers have in mind? Because, at the end of the day, the Constitution doesn't prevent Civil War, or a military coup. And, lest you think I'm being alarmist, there have already been military leaders who have said they would not follow protocol if asked to commit war crimes, such as torture, going after the families of terrorists, or bombing opponents with no regard to civilian casualties (all of which Trump has proposed). If that actually happens, a constitutional shit storm will ensue.
There is also the question of nuclear war. Donald J. Trump will have complete autonomy in deciding if we use nuclear weapons--a man who can't watch a satirical skit about himself on SNL without voicing his hurt feelings on Twitter. There is no person in the country who can legally veto this decision by a Commander and Chief. His Secretary of Defense, whom he appoints, has to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it. Let that sink in for a minute. One man has complete power to end the world. Some check and balance. Also, Trump has said he would prefer more countries have their own nukes so they are not so dependent upon the U.S. for military protection. Where does that end? And, at what point do those countries decide they need to defend themselves against us? What many voters seem to have forgotten is that our greatest check against Presidential power is the ability to elect a President. Instead we seem to have elected a President in protest and are now assuming that the other constitutional checks can keep him for destroying everything we believe in. In a great many areas, they can't.
At the end of the day, the underlying force that keeps the peace, not only of the country, but of the world, is the United States military, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement agencies adhering to both the laws of the United States and International Law. Again, there are no checks and balances against the principle of "Might makes right," and we elected a man who has professed that he very much believes in this principle. At the end of the day, he who has the most guns, wins. I've heard Trump supporters/ enablers say such ridiculous things as, "Well, if he does anything like that, we as a people will rise up against him." To which I say, "Really? Rise up against the U.S. military? A military of 1.4 million trained killers, 4500 nuclear weapons, bombers, drones, tanks, etc, etc. And, was this your rationale when voting for him?! That you would 'Rise up' if he actually does the things he said he would do? How irresponsible are you?"
Regardless, it's too late to rethink this. He's in. We did it. And it wasn't even a majority of us. So, is Trump the next Hitler? And, if so, will our checks and balances save the most vulnerable among us (not excluding the environment we are dependent upon for survival)? We can only wait and see. One thing I would strongly advise against is normalizing this for yourself. I would not try to make this okay for yourself or for your fellow citizens who are terrified of this man and the men he is appointing. There is nothing okay about this and there is no evidence he will not turn our country into something that we, and the world, no longer recognize as a force for good. There is only him and what he decides to do. If that doesn't terrify you, then you terrify me.
Monday, March 14, 2016
How Bill Sold Me on Hillary
Last night I had the good fortune of hearing Bill Clinton speak on behalf of Hillary in a tiny high school gym in Asheville, NC with maybe 200 other people. I was for Hillary when this thing started. Let's be honest, she's a powerhouse on economic issues, on foreign policy, on social issues. You name it and she can talk at length about the best way to deal with it. The problem is, like many other progressives, I feel like she is too centrist and perhaps too enmeshed in the world of money and politics to make sweeping change.
Thus, for the last several months I have been feeling the Bern big time. He speaks to my values and my hopes for America in a way that no other candidate has. I want more public options. Period. Because to me, the choice is between paying taxes and letting my democratically elected government (representatives of the people who can be voted out when they stop standing up for my best interests) set up programs that provide me and my family with healthcare, education, infrastructure, livable wages, retirement savings, high speed transportation, parental leave, greener energy, stricter regulations on those who would do us harm or take advantage of our vulnerabilities as middle and lower class citizens, etc; or, waiting around until billionaires decide it is in their best interest to provide these options to their workers, clients, or customers and even then do so at a price that gives those who can afford a better life insurmountable advantages over the rest of us. We have no control over the billionaire class and the private sector they control except through our government. Bernie seems to get this more than any American politician I've ever heard and is getting huge support for doing so. thus, I've been really excited about him.
Then, in steps Bill Clinton. First of all, holy moly is this man brilliant and insanely informed. When he speaks, it's like the entire world and its web of intersecting politics is sitting in his brain at all times and he's just picking and choosing which parts to explain to his current audience. Having him sitting in the White House residence (and no doubt the oval office a fair bit too) is a tremendous resource and reason enough to vote for Hillary. This aside, he also effectively dampened my hopes that Bernie's vision is anymore than that, a vision; not something that will ever get accomplished in the next eight years. He reminded me that he and Hillary also pushed for single-payer healthcare (by far my biggest issue in choosing a candidate this year) and couldn't overcome the Republican filibuster. Basically, it's just math; without 60 Democratic Senators in Congress, single-payer is dead on arrival. As he pointed out, this is why Obama's passing of the ACA (Obamacare) is so impressive. He got this passed despite Republicans having the option to filibuster, and as imperfect as it is (and it's imperfect; it had to be to get enough Republican support to pass it), it's the biggest step forward toward universal coverage that we've made since WWII. The problems with it are: A) Many people's plans are still covering too little and costing way too much, B) Just to tow the line of conservatives trying to make Obama look bad, many Republican governors are refusing to take free federal money to expand Medicaid in their states, and, C) Many young people (who are a big part of the ACA's functionality since they will pay into the system and use it the least) are opting to pay the fine for not signing up rather than pay out the nose for a plan.
So, healthcare is now available to everyone--insurance companies cannot deny people regardless of preexisting conditions, age, gender, etc, they have to cover more pre and post-natal care and many other things they wouldn't cover as of seven years ago--but that doesn't prevent insurance companies from passing the cost of the extra risk for covering all these new people and conditions on to their customers. Bernie says (as I believe) the ACA was a half measure and while commendable isn't hacking it. It's complicated as hell, it's a huge pain the ass for people to navigate, there's tons of information they're requesting annually to keep your subsidies, insurance companies are constantly changing and dropping plans , raising premiums, and reducing coverage, and it leaves many of us with an expensive plan that's better than nothing, but that's about it. Sanders wants to scrap the whole thing and expand Medicare to cover everyone and pay for it with tax increases, mainly on the wealthy, but a few percent higher on everyone else as well. I would like to see this happen. However, Bill Clinton just reminded me that not only will Bernie not have 60 Democratic Senators to break a Republican filibuster, the Senate will very likely still hold a Republican majority when he takes office. Thus, good idea, but not possible. Also, maybe not even a good idea based on a number of economists whom I have always respected when they've told me things I want to hear, but have been skeptical of recently because I want so badly for single-payer to be the silver bullet I believe it to be.
Hillary says, "Look, I believe in single-payer as well. I want us to get there when it's possible; I'm going to work with governors to try to get more states setting up their own single-payer plans; but, in the meantime, people need relief." I am one of those people. My wife and I currently pay about 15% of our after taxes income to healthcare. Hillary wants to increase subsidies up to $5000 per family to lessen the burden of out-of-pocket costs and premiums that go above 5% of a family's income while also amending the law so no family pays more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare costs. She wants to have the government negotiate lower prices with drug companies (as is done in every other country in the world--by the way, countries, who, all have single-payer universal healthcare plans that pay WAY less than we do per capita on healthcare costs); she claims she can work with Republican governors to incentivize the expansion of Medicaid in their state for lower income people; she'll invest in navigators, advertising, and outreach to get more people signed up, and more. Essentially, her plan is like wrapping a deep cut in gauze and applying pressure while pumping you full of pain-killers when the real fix would be to get a few stitches and be finished with it. Unfortunately, gauze and pain-killers are what's available for the time being. I'm mature enough to see and accept that.
Clinton's other plans as Bill articulated so well are similar in that they take what's currently happening and provide improvements, not complete overhauls. And some of her ideas are quite good. For instance, she wants to put 500 million new solar panels up around the country and power every home with clean energy in the next eight years. She wants to let every college grad refinance their student loans at current rates, make community college free and make changes (which are specific on her site, but too many and too complicated to explain well in debates and sound bites) that will in the end make college a debt-free experience. She wants to create jobs by investing in the ripping up of all the lead pipes nationwide that poisoning our drinking water; investing $275 billion in infrastructure over the next five years. Hillary Clinton really does have some great ideas, but they're complicated and piecemealed in a way that loses passionate progressives' interest. However, Bill Clinton laid them out in a much clearer and more inspiring way than she ever has. If he could just speak for her, I think she'd have even more support from the Democratic base. He is, after all, as Obama has called him, the Secretary of Explaining Stuff.
Bernie takes a much different approach than Hillary. He says, "To hell with these nips and tucks, we need a revolution! We need stitches, we can afford stitches, every other country in the world is getting stitches; where are our goddamn stitches? We're bleeding to death here!" And man o' man is that more inspiring to hear. Because it's true. We've been getting screwed by corporations and wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists and politicians in the pockets of shady billionaires for over thirty years. I, like Bernie, want nothing more than to tax the shit out of these people and spend it on government programs that benefit the middle and lower class. It happens everywhere else in the civilized world. We don't get the perks of a wealthy nation because all of our wealth is isolated in the top 1% of earners and they aren't about to share the wealth of their own free will (and the American public is apparently too stupid to vote in favor of their own best interests).
That being said, the system is what it is and as we've seen with Obama's "In like a lion out like a lamb," Presidency, the President only has so much power to create change in the country. Congress can be very effective in shutting down a President's agenda if it is not in line with their politics--and our current Congress' politics are batshit conservative if not childishly obstructionist. I think Hillary's plans are plans she can get Republican support for, or at least enough Republican support to push them through. Bernie's plans only work if, in addition to electing him we elect a Democratic super majority to Congress. That would be a revolution and that's something I and most progressives are very much behind. BUT, that isn't anywhere close to happening. We have the rise of little hands Hitler on the other side of the aisle. No way he wins in the general, but his following is out there and they vote--locally and otherwise and it's people like them that will forever keep us from accomplishing Bernie Sanders-like progress. I think it is much more likely that we'll see blue states making big progressive moves on their own, proving these changes work, and eventually getting the rest of the country on board. I think Bernie's plans could work on a state level, in the right states, but on a national level, I just don't see how he gets any of what he's saying passed. And, if he can't get the big ideas passed, what's his back-up plan? What we end up with may be far less organized and functional than what Hillary is purposing because it will be an ACA-like compromise on what he's after (if he doesn't get categorically blocked by Republicans for eight years solely based on calling himself a Democratic Socialist. Maybe we need to consider that Hillary Clinton is pretty experienced with all of this stuff and married to one of the most brilliant Presidents we've had in recent times who is no doubt advising her on all of her positions.
Ultimately, as progressives, we don't want to admit that these billionaires and huge corporations make up a significant portion of our economy and have the potential to pay for a lot of nice stuff the country really needs. Calling them liars and crooks and coming after them with lofty rhetoric about high taxes and tough regulations, while inspiring to hear, is not a great way to get them on board with making positive changes. They're grasp on the country is not going to loosen just because a Democratic Socialist becomes President. He can't Executive Order them into submission. He needs congress to do any of the things he's talking about, and quite frankly, after hearing Bill Clinton talk for an hour, I am inclined to say Hillary will make our lives better, faster by playing the game than Bernie will by insisting the game is stupid (Even if it is). After all, what kind of politician can't take someone's money and then screw them down the road? I think Clinton is politically savvy to know this and do this. She plays the game and plays it well and while she won't get us a revolution, she may get us eight years closer to a country that benefits our children more than it does the children of people who would be fine if they paid 95% of their income in taxes.
Thus, for the last several months I have been feeling the Bern big time. He speaks to my values and my hopes for America in a way that no other candidate has. I want more public options. Period. Because to me, the choice is between paying taxes and letting my democratically elected government (representatives of the people who can be voted out when they stop standing up for my best interests) set up programs that provide me and my family with healthcare, education, infrastructure, livable wages, retirement savings, high speed transportation, parental leave, greener energy, stricter regulations on those who would do us harm or take advantage of our vulnerabilities as middle and lower class citizens, etc; or, waiting around until billionaires decide it is in their best interest to provide these options to their workers, clients, or customers and even then do so at a price that gives those who can afford a better life insurmountable advantages over the rest of us. We have no control over the billionaire class and the private sector they control except through our government. Bernie seems to get this more than any American politician I've ever heard and is getting huge support for doing so. thus, I've been really excited about him.
Then, in steps Bill Clinton. First of all, holy moly is this man brilliant and insanely informed. When he speaks, it's like the entire world and its web of intersecting politics is sitting in his brain at all times and he's just picking and choosing which parts to explain to his current audience. Having him sitting in the White House residence (and no doubt the oval office a fair bit too) is a tremendous resource and reason enough to vote for Hillary. This aside, he also effectively dampened my hopes that Bernie's vision is anymore than that, a vision; not something that will ever get accomplished in the next eight years. He reminded me that he and Hillary also pushed for single-payer healthcare (by far my biggest issue in choosing a candidate this year) and couldn't overcome the Republican filibuster. Basically, it's just math; without 60 Democratic Senators in Congress, single-payer is dead on arrival. As he pointed out, this is why Obama's passing of the ACA (Obamacare) is so impressive. He got this passed despite Republicans having the option to filibuster, and as imperfect as it is (and it's imperfect; it had to be to get enough Republican support to pass it), it's the biggest step forward toward universal coverage that we've made since WWII. The problems with it are: A) Many people's plans are still covering too little and costing way too much, B) Just to tow the line of conservatives trying to make Obama look bad, many Republican governors are refusing to take free federal money to expand Medicaid in their states, and, C) Many young people (who are a big part of the ACA's functionality since they will pay into the system and use it the least) are opting to pay the fine for not signing up rather than pay out the nose for a plan.
So, healthcare is now available to everyone--insurance companies cannot deny people regardless of preexisting conditions, age, gender, etc, they have to cover more pre and post-natal care and many other things they wouldn't cover as of seven years ago--but that doesn't prevent insurance companies from passing the cost of the extra risk for covering all these new people and conditions on to their customers. Bernie says (as I believe) the ACA was a half measure and while commendable isn't hacking it. It's complicated as hell, it's a huge pain the ass for people to navigate, there's tons of information they're requesting annually to keep your subsidies, insurance companies are constantly changing and dropping plans , raising premiums, and reducing coverage, and it leaves many of us with an expensive plan that's better than nothing, but that's about it. Sanders wants to scrap the whole thing and expand Medicare to cover everyone and pay for it with tax increases, mainly on the wealthy, but a few percent higher on everyone else as well. I would like to see this happen. However, Bill Clinton just reminded me that not only will Bernie not have 60 Democratic Senators to break a Republican filibuster, the Senate will very likely still hold a Republican majority when he takes office. Thus, good idea, but not possible. Also, maybe not even a good idea based on a number of economists whom I have always respected when they've told me things I want to hear, but have been skeptical of recently because I want so badly for single-payer to be the silver bullet I believe it to be.
Hillary says, "Look, I believe in single-payer as well. I want us to get there when it's possible; I'm going to work with governors to try to get more states setting up their own single-payer plans; but, in the meantime, people need relief." I am one of those people. My wife and I currently pay about 15% of our after taxes income to healthcare. Hillary wants to increase subsidies up to $5000 per family to lessen the burden of out-of-pocket costs and premiums that go above 5% of a family's income while also amending the law so no family pays more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare costs. She wants to have the government negotiate lower prices with drug companies (as is done in every other country in the world--by the way, countries, who, all have single-payer universal healthcare plans that pay WAY less than we do per capita on healthcare costs); she claims she can work with Republican governors to incentivize the expansion of Medicaid in their state for lower income people; she'll invest in navigators, advertising, and outreach to get more people signed up, and more. Essentially, her plan is like wrapping a deep cut in gauze and applying pressure while pumping you full of pain-killers when the real fix would be to get a few stitches and be finished with it. Unfortunately, gauze and pain-killers are what's available for the time being. I'm mature enough to see and accept that.
Clinton's other plans as Bill articulated so well are similar in that they take what's currently happening and provide improvements, not complete overhauls. And some of her ideas are quite good. For instance, she wants to put 500 million new solar panels up around the country and power every home with clean energy in the next eight years. She wants to let every college grad refinance their student loans at current rates, make community college free and make changes (which are specific on her site, but too many and too complicated to explain well in debates and sound bites) that will in the end make college a debt-free experience. She wants to create jobs by investing in the ripping up of all the lead pipes nationwide that poisoning our drinking water; investing $275 billion in infrastructure over the next five years. Hillary Clinton really does have some great ideas, but they're complicated and piecemealed in a way that loses passionate progressives' interest. However, Bill Clinton laid them out in a much clearer and more inspiring way than she ever has. If he could just speak for her, I think she'd have even more support from the Democratic base. He is, after all, as Obama has called him, the Secretary of Explaining Stuff.
Bernie takes a much different approach than Hillary. He says, "To hell with these nips and tucks, we need a revolution! We need stitches, we can afford stitches, every other country in the world is getting stitches; where are our goddamn stitches? We're bleeding to death here!" And man o' man is that more inspiring to hear. Because it's true. We've been getting screwed by corporations and wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists and politicians in the pockets of shady billionaires for over thirty years. I, like Bernie, want nothing more than to tax the shit out of these people and spend it on government programs that benefit the middle and lower class. It happens everywhere else in the civilized world. We don't get the perks of a wealthy nation because all of our wealth is isolated in the top 1% of earners and they aren't about to share the wealth of their own free will (and the American public is apparently too stupid to vote in favor of their own best interests).
That being said, the system is what it is and as we've seen with Obama's "In like a lion out like a lamb," Presidency, the President only has so much power to create change in the country. Congress can be very effective in shutting down a President's agenda if it is not in line with their politics--and our current Congress' politics are batshit conservative if not childishly obstructionist. I think Hillary's plans are plans she can get Republican support for, or at least enough Republican support to push them through. Bernie's plans only work if, in addition to electing him we elect a Democratic super majority to Congress. That would be a revolution and that's something I and most progressives are very much behind. BUT, that isn't anywhere close to happening. We have the rise of little hands Hitler on the other side of the aisle. No way he wins in the general, but his following is out there and they vote--locally and otherwise and it's people like them that will forever keep us from accomplishing Bernie Sanders-like progress. I think it is much more likely that we'll see blue states making big progressive moves on their own, proving these changes work, and eventually getting the rest of the country on board. I think Bernie's plans could work on a state level, in the right states, but on a national level, I just don't see how he gets any of what he's saying passed. And, if he can't get the big ideas passed, what's his back-up plan? What we end up with may be far less organized and functional than what Hillary is purposing because it will be an ACA-like compromise on what he's after (if he doesn't get categorically blocked by Republicans for eight years solely based on calling himself a Democratic Socialist. Maybe we need to consider that Hillary Clinton is pretty experienced with all of this stuff and married to one of the most brilliant Presidents we've had in recent times who is no doubt advising her on all of her positions.
Ultimately, as progressives, we don't want to admit that these billionaires and huge corporations make up a significant portion of our economy and have the potential to pay for a lot of nice stuff the country really needs. Calling them liars and crooks and coming after them with lofty rhetoric about high taxes and tough regulations, while inspiring to hear, is not a great way to get them on board with making positive changes. They're grasp on the country is not going to loosen just because a Democratic Socialist becomes President. He can't Executive Order them into submission. He needs congress to do any of the things he's talking about, and quite frankly, after hearing Bill Clinton talk for an hour, I am inclined to say Hillary will make our lives better, faster by playing the game than Bernie will by insisting the game is stupid (Even if it is). After all, what kind of politician can't take someone's money and then screw them down the road? I think Clinton is politically savvy to know this and do this. She plays the game and plays it well and while she won't get us a revolution, she may get us eight years closer to a country that benefits our children more than it does the children of people who would be fine if they paid 95% of their income in taxes.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Elected or Not, Bernie is the Future
Maybe he wins. Maybe he doesn't. But America cannot ignore the political realignment that is a Democratic Socialist in a close race for President of the United States.
What Bernie Sanders has done in just a matter of months is quite remarkable. In the same way that Donald Trump has brought racist, xenophobic, sexist, and generally uncivilized white people into the spotlight this election season, Bernie Sanders has highlighted just how many Americans are ready for radical progressive change on scale with the likes of FDR. It's what many of us thought we would get with Barack Obama and were sorely disappointed. Had we known he would run to the middle as soon as the political calculations of doing so seemed advantageous he most likely would not be where he is today. That being said, he has gotten a lot accomplished in the face of nearly unprecedented obstructionism from a republican party so divided that the only thing they want to see the first black President fail.
I only bring up Obama because he has laid the ground work for Bernie Sanders to get the support he has gotten. He brought the youth vote and the minority vote into the mix in a big way, and while he couldn't fulfill their wildest dreams of a progressive utopia, they're paying attention now and they're ready to vote for someone who will push the envelope even further.
Don't believe this shift to the left is happening? That's fair--it's hard to see through the thick, putrid smog that is Donald Trump ranting and bullying and carrying on like a five year old with ten billion dollars in the bank--but let's look at some numbers.
Favorability ratings among the general electorate--not just republican primary voters--show that Donald Trump is unfavorable with 58% of potential voters and favorable to only 33%, giving him a net favorability rating of -25%, the worst of any candidate in the race on either side. Does that mean he won't win the nomination? Not at all, but it does mean he is very likely to lose in November. On the other side, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in the race with a positive favorability rating of +3. Does that mean he'll win the nomination? Nope; but it does mean that if he does, he'll have a good chance of becoming President. In fact, in Real Clear Politics' average of all polls, Sanders beats Trump in a hypothetical match-up by 6 percentage points. Clinton, meanwhile, only wins by 2.8 over Trump, if at all. Say the candidate is somehow Cruz or Rubio instead: Sanders beats Cruz by 4.7% and is tied with Rubio while Clinton is tied with Cruz and loses to Rubio by 4.7%.
The point here isn't that Bernie Sanders is going to be President, it's that he could be President. By the numbers, he's the better candidate. He's better liked and has more voters lined up in his column in head-to-head match-ups against republican challengers. Unfortunately, he's still 5 points behind Clinton nationally. Worse, Nate Silver, the statistics and probability wizard who has in the past two elections predicted with absurd accuracy, not just who will win which states, but who will win which counties within those states, says Clinton has a 62% chance of winning the nomination to Sanders' 38% chance. He also says Trump has a 97% of winning the GOP nomination, which even if he's way off the mark, pretty much guarantees we're going to see a lot more of a very unfavorable person this year.
For Sanders' supporters, myself included, these are very frustrating numbers. Our candidate is better liked and more likely to win and yet it seems very unlikely that he will be the nominee. But, regardless, his message and his policies are the future. A Pew Research Center poll found that while only 31% of all Americans react favorably to the idea of Socialism, most Americans favor Socialist policies and Socialist values, especially young people. 49% of voters age 18-29 have a positive view of Socialism and only 47% view Capitalism as a positive concept. The link above give a much more exhaustive and cited list of the specific Socialist programs Bernie is proposing that the majority of Democrats and Republicans support (as long as the programs aren't called, "Socialist"). A quick preview though: 64% of Americans support reducing greenhouse gases emissions, 58% of Americans believe the big banks are too powerful and need to be broken up, 63% believe the minimum wage needs to be raised to $15 in the next few years, 53% support new legislation to make it easier for workers to unionize, 68% of households say wealthy families pay far too little in taxes, 85% of business owners favor closing all overseas tax loopholes in their entirety, 68% of the public agrees that the government should close all tax loopholes for large corporations that ship jobs offshore, more than half of all Americans say corporations and private parties should be banned from donating to political campaigns and campaigning should become government funded, over 50% also agree we should move to single-payer healthcare, and finally, most voters support expanding Medicare and Social Security as well as Medicaid (Again, click here for citations of the polls backing these numbers).
As you can see, Bernie may not win, but the majority of Americans are already Democratic Socialists. We are worlds away from the policies of the Republican Party, if such a party can even be said to exist anymore given its multiple dueling factions, and even further from their intolerance of people unlike themselves. 2015 was the first year minorities outnumbered whites enrolling in kindergarten. yet conservatives seem to be latching ever tighter to their hate toward these people. We've moved left, we'll continue to move left, and mark my words, by the time Gen Xers reach retirement, the Republican Party, if it doesn't drop this title altogether, will look like today's Democratic Party and the Democratic Party will be a party of Democratic Socialist fully out of the closet.
What Bernie Sanders has done in just a matter of months is quite remarkable. In the same way that Donald Trump has brought racist, xenophobic, sexist, and generally uncivilized white people into the spotlight this election season, Bernie Sanders has highlighted just how many Americans are ready for radical progressive change on scale with the likes of FDR. It's what many of us thought we would get with Barack Obama and were sorely disappointed. Had we known he would run to the middle as soon as the political calculations of doing so seemed advantageous he most likely would not be where he is today. That being said, he has gotten a lot accomplished in the face of nearly unprecedented obstructionism from a republican party so divided that the only thing they want to see the first black President fail.
I only bring up Obama because he has laid the ground work for Bernie Sanders to get the support he has gotten. He brought the youth vote and the minority vote into the mix in a big way, and while he couldn't fulfill their wildest dreams of a progressive utopia, they're paying attention now and they're ready to vote for someone who will push the envelope even further.
Don't believe this shift to the left is happening? That's fair--it's hard to see through the thick, putrid smog that is Donald Trump ranting and bullying and carrying on like a five year old with ten billion dollars in the bank--but let's look at some numbers.
Favorability ratings among the general electorate--not just republican primary voters--show that Donald Trump is unfavorable with 58% of potential voters and favorable to only 33%, giving him a net favorability rating of -25%, the worst of any candidate in the race on either side. Does that mean he won't win the nomination? Not at all, but it does mean he is very likely to lose in November. On the other side, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in the race with a positive favorability rating of +3. Does that mean he'll win the nomination? Nope; but it does mean that if he does, he'll have a good chance of becoming President. In fact, in Real Clear Politics' average of all polls, Sanders beats Trump in a hypothetical match-up by 6 percentage points. Clinton, meanwhile, only wins by 2.8 over Trump, if at all. Say the candidate is somehow Cruz or Rubio instead: Sanders beats Cruz by 4.7% and is tied with Rubio while Clinton is tied with Cruz and loses to Rubio by 4.7%.
The point here isn't that Bernie Sanders is going to be President, it's that he could be President. By the numbers, he's the better candidate. He's better liked and has more voters lined up in his column in head-to-head match-ups against republican challengers. Unfortunately, he's still 5 points behind Clinton nationally. Worse, Nate Silver, the statistics and probability wizard who has in the past two elections predicted with absurd accuracy, not just who will win which states, but who will win which counties within those states, says Clinton has a 62% chance of winning the nomination to Sanders' 38% chance. He also says Trump has a 97% of winning the GOP nomination, which even if he's way off the mark, pretty much guarantees we're going to see a lot more of a very unfavorable person this year.
For Sanders' supporters, myself included, these are very frustrating numbers. Our candidate is better liked and more likely to win and yet it seems very unlikely that he will be the nominee. But, regardless, his message and his policies are the future. A Pew Research Center poll found that while only 31% of all Americans react favorably to the idea of Socialism, most Americans favor Socialist policies and Socialist values, especially young people. 49% of voters age 18-29 have a positive view of Socialism and only 47% view Capitalism as a positive concept. The link above give a much more exhaustive and cited list of the specific Socialist programs Bernie is proposing that the majority of Democrats and Republicans support (as long as the programs aren't called, "Socialist"). A quick preview though: 64% of Americans support reducing greenhouse gases emissions, 58% of Americans believe the big banks are too powerful and need to be broken up, 63% believe the minimum wage needs to be raised to $15 in the next few years, 53% support new legislation to make it easier for workers to unionize, 68% of households say wealthy families pay far too little in taxes, 85% of business owners favor closing all overseas tax loopholes in their entirety, 68% of the public agrees that the government should close all tax loopholes for large corporations that ship jobs offshore, more than half of all Americans say corporations and private parties should be banned from donating to political campaigns and campaigning should become government funded, over 50% also agree we should move to single-payer healthcare, and finally, most voters support expanding Medicare and Social Security as well as Medicaid (Again, click here for citations of the polls backing these numbers).
As you can see, Bernie may not win, but the majority of Americans are already Democratic Socialists. We are worlds away from the policies of the Republican Party, if such a party can even be said to exist anymore given its multiple dueling factions, and even further from their intolerance of people unlike themselves. 2015 was the first year minorities outnumbered whites enrolling in kindergarten. yet conservatives seem to be latching ever tighter to their hate toward these people. We've moved left, we'll continue to move left, and mark my words, by the time Gen Xers reach retirement, the Republican Party, if it doesn't drop this title altogether, will look like today's Democratic Party and the Democratic Party will be a party of Democratic Socialist fully out of the closet.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Bernie's Proposals Will Get Us To Clinton's Proposals, Maybe Further
I came across this article today, which is a tough, fair look at Bernie's proposals. I highly recommend you take a look, especially if you're a Bernie fanatic. As much as I agree with his ideas, as you'll see in this article, he has some details to hash-out for us, to say the least.
That being said perhaps a candidate's ideas, not speculation of whether their ideas will ever come to fruition, is the criteria on which we should base our vote. I don't believe for a minute that campaign promises will be accomplished. It seems to me they are less promises and more insights into what a candidate considers ideal. One can tell a lot from another person's utopia, be that a country of gun-slinging multi-millionaire cowboys with no federal government, no taxes, no minorities, and Jesus Christ plastered atop our American flag. Or, an America with considerable taxes, a huge federal government, and considerable public benefits; one with no monstrous corporations or insurance companies or big banks or risky stock market gambling. Or, finally, a middle of the road, inured continuation of business as usual with a few tweaks to avoid a global calamity or a public uprising. In case that was too subtle, that last "utopia" belongs to Hillary.
Clinton's proposals, while more probably achieved, say a lot about what she'll be like as a leader. If she loses, it will be due to a lack of dreaming and reaching. Shoot for the middle, get the middle. No one is inspired by achievable. No one grows up dreaming of being middle-management and taking home an average salary to their affordable house and taking affordable vacations with someone they married because they were tired of looking for a perfect match. Is this where a lot of people end up? Sure. But you can't shoot for that. You can't make that the goal. Hillary Clinton is running in a primary against a revolutionary politician proposing huge changes with sky-high rhetoric for the second time in a decade and she appears to be making all the same mistakes. She's going to have to go beyond the achievable as a campaign promise. Bernie is saying, "Let's do an Ironman together!" Hillary's response can't remain, "Yeah, right. How about a Turkey Trot?"
No one is going to bad-mouth Bernie if he doesn't get us single-payer universal healthcare or free college, or any of the other big benefits he's promising, so long as he tries. Maybe he only ends up making some steps forward on the Affordable Care Act, but that's all Clinton is even proposing. No one is going to vote for that. It's uninspired. Maybe he doesn't get us free college tuition but gets us to a debt-free college tuition. Again, that's Clinton's plan. No one is going to vote for that when the other guy is pitching free tuition brought to you by the assholes who destroyed our economy and then demanded we save them from going under and taking the world with them--the same people who have been pulling down record profits and paying themselves obscene bonuses throughout The Great Recession instead of giving back to the people who bailed them out. Maybe Bernie's plans only get us to Clinton's plans, but maybe they get us a little further, and regardless of the details or the achievability of his vision, isn't that worth voting for to find out?
That being said perhaps a candidate's ideas, not speculation of whether their ideas will ever come to fruition, is the criteria on which we should base our vote. I don't believe for a minute that campaign promises will be accomplished. It seems to me they are less promises and more insights into what a candidate considers ideal. One can tell a lot from another person's utopia, be that a country of gun-slinging multi-millionaire cowboys with no federal government, no taxes, no minorities, and Jesus Christ plastered atop our American flag. Or, an America with considerable taxes, a huge federal government, and considerable public benefits; one with no monstrous corporations or insurance companies or big banks or risky stock market gambling. Or, finally, a middle of the road, inured continuation of business as usual with a few tweaks to avoid a global calamity or a public uprising. In case that was too subtle, that last "utopia" belongs to Hillary.
Clinton's proposals, while more probably achieved, say a lot about what she'll be like as a leader. If she loses, it will be due to a lack of dreaming and reaching. Shoot for the middle, get the middle. No one is inspired by achievable. No one grows up dreaming of being middle-management and taking home an average salary to their affordable house and taking affordable vacations with someone they married because they were tired of looking for a perfect match. Is this where a lot of people end up? Sure. But you can't shoot for that. You can't make that the goal. Hillary Clinton is running in a primary against a revolutionary politician proposing huge changes with sky-high rhetoric for the second time in a decade and she appears to be making all the same mistakes. She's going to have to go beyond the achievable as a campaign promise. Bernie is saying, "Let's do an Ironman together!" Hillary's response can't remain, "Yeah, right. How about a Turkey Trot?"
No one is going to bad-mouth Bernie if he doesn't get us single-payer universal healthcare or free college, or any of the other big benefits he's promising, so long as he tries. Maybe he only ends up making some steps forward on the Affordable Care Act, but that's all Clinton is even proposing. No one is going to vote for that. It's uninspired. Maybe he doesn't get us free college tuition but gets us to a debt-free college tuition. Again, that's Clinton's plan. No one is going to vote for that when the other guy is pitching free tuition brought to you by the assholes who destroyed our economy and then demanded we save them from going under and taking the world with them--the same people who have been pulling down record profits and paying themselves obscene bonuses throughout The Great Recession instead of giving back to the people who bailed them out. Maybe Bernie's plans only get us to Clinton's plans, but maybe they get us a little further, and regardless of the details or the achievability of his vision, isn't that worth voting for to find out?
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
The Real Grown-up's Table: Predictions for Tonight's Debate
After enduring months of GOP un-hopefuls acting-out like a gang of middle children seeking media attention--sharing such enlightening comments as all Mexicans are rapists and the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the Jews were all armed to the teeth like present day Americans--we get to hear from the grown-ups.
What to expect:
Bernie Sanders is still mostly unknown despite his nipping at Clinton's heels in the polls. A strong performance tonight could put him over the top. His advantage lies in the low expectations of his performance. Unless he falls asleep at the podium, a-la Obama in the first 2012 debate against Romney, he's going to gain some new followers and stand in stark contrast to Hillary's long history of flip-flopping, half-truths, and ties to the same wall street types Sanders wants to put in jail for destroying the economy.
On the other hand, Bernie is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, which to most Americans just means Socialist. Here's a word that's been used on both sides of the aisle for decades to marry progressive politicians to the ideas of Stalin and Lenin and the like...and Bernie is using it to describe himself. If Hillary doesn't use this word at least a dozen times tonight it will show a great deal of self-restraint and perhaps a poor debate strategy. However, even if she does, Bernie is an incredibly articulate man and has been defending this title effectively for years. I'm sure he will have an educational response to any accusations that he somehow sides with hammer and sickle Socialism just because he promotes public benefits that people of other wealthy nations have enjoyed for decades. Still, that shouldn't stop Clinton from highlighting that America has historically been repulsed by all things Socialist, which limits his chances in the general election.
Whether Hillary will get to play offensive tonight depends a lot on the moderators. Based on the CNN GOP debate, it seems likely that we'll see the moderators stirring up petty arguments about emails and Benghazi accusations, and trying to pit Hillary against the politics of her husband. She will have to skillfully pivot out of these traps if she wants to compete with Bernie's big ideas for revolutionizing our social and economic way of life in the U.S. It would be greatly to Clinton's benefit to try to stay on offense, because, based on Sanders' campaign thus far, he is not going to go negative. He's brilliant at keeping interviewers on topic and rarely stoops to bashing other Democrats when there are so many real life institutions and broken policies to rail against--not to mention, Republicans. If Clinton spends the debate tearing down Sanders instead of talking up her own plans, she's going to come off as a bitch, which I assume she is desperately trying to avoid.
As for the other candidates, Joe Biden's empty podium has a better chance of getting the nomination. Why they were even invited I do not know. Hopefully, this will be the first and last time we hear from them; although, I'm sure Clinton and Sanders will be relieved to have some non-threatening candidates giving them a break from talking every once in awhile. The rest of us, barring some brilliant ideas that these candidates have that are simply not making their way into the media cycle, will be annoyed with them cutting into time we could all be sleeping. Which begs the question: Why the hell aren't these things done on the weekend? But hey, that's neither here nor there.
Happy viewing! Regardless of what happens tonight it will be good to hear from a few politicians who didn't spend 48 hours prior to the debate prepping themselves on Wikipedia about the issues facing our country. Clinton and Sanders are some powerhouse intellectuals with some stellar political skills. I imagine we're in for a treat.
What to expect:
Bernie Sanders is still mostly unknown despite his nipping at Clinton's heels in the polls. A strong performance tonight could put him over the top. His advantage lies in the low expectations of his performance. Unless he falls asleep at the podium, a-la Obama in the first 2012 debate against Romney, he's going to gain some new followers and stand in stark contrast to Hillary's long history of flip-flopping, half-truths, and ties to the same wall street types Sanders wants to put in jail for destroying the economy.
On the other hand, Bernie is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, which to most Americans just means Socialist. Here's a word that's been used on both sides of the aisle for decades to marry progressive politicians to the ideas of Stalin and Lenin and the like...and Bernie is using it to describe himself. If Hillary doesn't use this word at least a dozen times tonight it will show a great deal of self-restraint and perhaps a poor debate strategy. However, even if she does, Bernie is an incredibly articulate man and has been defending this title effectively for years. I'm sure he will have an educational response to any accusations that he somehow sides with hammer and sickle Socialism just because he promotes public benefits that people of other wealthy nations have enjoyed for decades. Still, that shouldn't stop Clinton from highlighting that America has historically been repulsed by all things Socialist, which limits his chances in the general election.
Whether Hillary will get to play offensive tonight depends a lot on the moderators. Based on the CNN GOP debate, it seems likely that we'll see the moderators stirring up petty arguments about emails and Benghazi accusations, and trying to pit Hillary against the politics of her husband. She will have to skillfully pivot out of these traps if she wants to compete with Bernie's big ideas for revolutionizing our social and economic way of life in the U.S. It would be greatly to Clinton's benefit to try to stay on offense, because, based on Sanders' campaign thus far, he is not going to go negative. He's brilliant at keeping interviewers on topic and rarely stoops to bashing other Democrats when there are so many real life institutions and broken policies to rail against--not to mention, Republicans. If Clinton spends the debate tearing down Sanders instead of talking up her own plans, she's going to come off as a bitch, which I assume she is desperately trying to avoid.
As for the other candidates, Joe Biden's empty podium has a better chance of getting the nomination. Why they were even invited I do not know. Hopefully, this will be the first and last time we hear from them; although, I'm sure Clinton and Sanders will be relieved to have some non-threatening candidates giving them a break from talking every once in awhile. The rest of us, barring some brilliant ideas that these candidates have that are simply not making their way into the media cycle, will be annoyed with them cutting into time we could all be sleeping. Which begs the question: Why the hell aren't these things done on the weekend? But hey, that's neither here nor there.
Happy viewing! Regardless of what happens tonight it will be good to hear from a few politicians who didn't spend 48 hours prior to the debate prepping themselves on Wikipedia about the issues facing our country. Clinton and Sanders are some powerhouse intellectuals with some stellar political skills. I imagine we're in for a treat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)