Some contrarian views

Belief: Money buys elections

Observation: At least on the Republican side there seems to be an inverse relationship between money and success. Bush has raised the most and Trump the least among leading candidates and it is not just Trump's wealth that puts him ahead. He is not spending. No TV and virtually no ground game. On the Democratic side, Clinton has the big money but Sanders certainly leads in the dollar per polling point gain. Again, an inverse relationship.

Tentative conclusion: A strong message is worth an awful lot of money.

Belief: The corporate media is backing Clinton

Observation: The corporate media have been handmaidens to the Republican efforts to paint Clinton as untrustworthy. In particular the bogus reporting on Bengazi and email issues has been very damaging to Clinton despite the lack of facts. It is certainly true that she gets more ink than Sanders but that is not necessarily good. A fair look at political coverage over the past six months would favor Sanders with a better ratio of positive to negative stories.

Tentative conclusion: Sanders is actually winning the earned media wars.

Belief: The DNC is stacking the deck for Clinton

Observation: The Democrats delegate selection process definitely stacks the deck against "cause candidates" and tries to ease the way for "mainstream" Democrats. This is not new and not Wasserman Schultz's doing. It goes back at least to the Winograd Commission in 1977-78. I know because I was a member of the Commission.

Conclusion: Sanders can make some political points by bashing the rules but he knew what they were going in.

Belief: Restricting the number and timing of debates was done to favor Clinton.

Observation: Judging from post-debate polls, Bernie is lucky that there weren't more and more visible debates. Clinton's numbers go up immediately following the debates and Bernie's do not rise. The decision to restrict the number of debates was made long ago. The major rationale (wrong in my estimation) was to insulate the eventual nominee from embarrassing debate statements such as the ones that every one of the Republican candidates has made. In this sense, regardless of whether the nominee is Sanders or Clinton, the decision may be seen as smart.

Tentative conclusion: Debates will not decide the Democratic race. They change little and generally favor Clinton.

Belief: Clinton's past acceptance of Wall Street dollars will be a political killer

Observation: There is almost no evidence that the voting public makes decisions at the polls about where campaign dollars come from. The public believes that nearly every contribution is tainted. They may not like Wall Street but they also don't like progressive groups such as unions or groups like Planned Parenthood Votes or Sierra Club.

Conclusion: This is a total non-issue for the average voter and unlikely to determine primary outcomes.

On the Revised Revision of the AP History Curriculum

The following is a short response to an article which appeared in Ed Week on the 2015 revision of the AP US curriculum guide. This revision was produced by the College Board after a barrage of criticism from the right about the 2014 revision. The author of the article praises the latest revision as "balanced, neutral and contextual" - ie, sanitized.


I wish to respectfully disagree with Mr. Stern. To teach history in a "balanced, neutral and contextual" manner is to rip out any real value in the study of the past (and probably to bore students to death in the process). That is precisely why the right has attacked the history taught, not only in AP classes, but in all public schools. Mr. Stern might want to "contextualize" that.

The study of history is only relevant if we can utilize it to understand the present. Those who seek to sanitize history do so because they want to control the narrative today. For example: to gloss over the immorality of slavery and to give Jefferson a pass when he writes "all men are created equal" while living off the backs of his slaves, to fail to address the why and how of the overthrow of Reconstruction, to fail to condemn the KKK (while excoriating their brothers-in-arms in Nazi Germany) gives cover to those today who continue to deny the legitimate demands of groups like BlackLivesMatter.

Speaking of "all MEN are created equal", was it merely an oversight that it didn't read "all women and men are created equal"? Nope. In fact, not only were women not considered equal in Jefferson's time, they actually experienced a well documented decline in status in the period following 1800 as a result of industrialization. Should we look at that as an unfortunate aide effect of "progress"? Too bad ladies, but our economic development necessitates 78 cents on the dollar.

What exactly is the "balanced" approach to the exploitation of workers in the Gilded Age? How can one be "neutral" when teaching about how settlers gave blankets laced with TB to Native Americans or find justification for "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" slogan that guided policy during westward expansion.

Speaking of expansion, what exactly is the "context" of American Imperialism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? All the other whites were doing it?

I taught APUS History for 18 years, scored tests for the College Board for 6 of those years. In the classroom I presented an obviously biased analysis of our history with lessons for today, while at the same time emphasizing to my students that they should not accept anything that I said, that they read in the text or that they heard outside of class without thoroughly analyzing it themselves. I hope that today's teachers will do the same regardless of the tea party attacks or the College Board cave.

George Vlasits
Wilmington, NC

The Progressive Pulse: A View from the Left: More punditryPost by Laird HarrisAnother month do...

The Progressive Pulse: A View from the Left: More punditryPost by Laird Harris Another month do...: More punditry Post by Laird Harris Another month down the road to the 2016 presidential election. What has changed since my last writ...

More punditry

Post by Laird Harris

Another month down the road to the 2016 presidential election. What has changed since my last writings about the likely events of 2016?

On the Democrats’ side, the inevitable has happened and the field is essentally down to Bernie and Hilary. This is about as surprising as seeing the sun coming up in the east. What is surprising, at least for the moment, is Bernie’s lack of momentum. I still think he will win in Iowa and New Hampshire but he will have to work harder in those states than I had thought. By most accounts, Clinton leads in Iowa and is in a virtual tie in New Hampshire.

Winning the first two states is absolutely essential to any chance Sanders has to gain the nomination. The weeks after New Hampshire are brutal. As I wrote last month, Clinton will almost certainly win the next two states, Nevada and South Carolina, and then comes Super Tuesday when candidates need to be present in multiple states at the same time.

The harder Sanders has to work to secure his needed wins in the first two states, the less he will have resources to lay the groundwork for a strong Super Tuesday showing.

Sanders has been an inspiring candidate and a huge contributor to the dialogue that needs to happen in  this country. The longer he can stay in the race, the better for all of us. And, of course, there is still the possibility he will be the nominee.

Bernie seems conflicted about how hard he should go after Clinton. I suppose his recent slippage in polls has led him to a more negative tone vis-a-vis Clinton. He should be careful with this since his attraction is as a different kind of candidate bringing positive messages. He has plenty of surrogates bashing her, not to mention the whole Republican party that is convinced that she will be the nominee. Bernie’s attraction is his positive message. He should be content to let others go after Clinton.

From a purely theatrical perspective, the Republican race is far more interesting than the Democrat’s.

I would not bet a nickel on any predictions for the ultimate denouement of their nomination process. Right now, the media is in love with Rubio and Cruz but the Republican voters still seem to like Carson and Trump.  The Republican establishment continues to believe that voters will come to their senses when they actually have to cast their ballots and will choose a substantive candidate.

My guess: the field will narrow a little between now and Iowa but there will still be seven or eight candidates working the first two states. If this is the case, it is almost certain that one of the protest candidates will win in these states. This is less important than is seems since Republican winners in Iowa and, to a lesser extent, New Hampshire have not fared well over the long run.

Super Tuesday is likely to be more of a watershed for the Republicans than the Democrats. Money will play a huge role and most of these primaries are in heavily red states. If Bush can hold out until then, his money may bring him back into the picture.

I’m going to be watching Rubio and Cruz over the next several weeks. The Republican establishment is trying to decide whether Rubio is their guy but I think he is really not their type. Cruz, on the other hand, is well positioned to reap Trump and Carson supporters as these candidates falter.

It will also be interesting to see how the next rounds of Republican debates play out. To this date, they have done nothing to help their nominee in the general election. I’ll be watching whether the so-called establishment candidates try to put forth a more positive vision rather than simply reiterating what they are against. This will be critical to their success in the general election but it may make nomination more difficult.

I admit to mixed feelings about all this. The longer the Republican field remains large and unruly, the better the chances of the Democratic nominee. The wonk in me, however, would rather have a legitimate debate about the future of the country. The danger, in my mind, is that the clown car may produce a candidate who is beaten badly by the Democrat but this will not be seen as a triumph of the progressive candidate but, rather, the failure of the other side.

Bernic Sanders and Democratic Socialism

We can take heart that a recent poll showed that 47% of Americans said they could vote for a socialist. But a lot higher percentage might be willing to do just that if they had a better idea of what democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders actually stood for.

An article I just read by the historian Eric Foner (http://www.thenation.com/article/how-bernie-sanders-should-talk-about-democratic-socialism/) points out that democratic socialism has a long and proud tradition in the US politics. Foner argues that Sanders should be drawing on that history rather than using Denmark as an example. I agree.

The premises of democratic socialism are that government should be the agency that protects society from the excesses of rapacious capitalism and that guarantees every individual basic human rights.

Democratic socialists argue that, left to itself, capitalism does not necessarily promote the common good. Examples abound. As Piketty documents in Capitalism in the Twentieth Century, left to it itself, capitalism produces gross inequality, which is both morally and economically indefensible and a threat to democracy. Left to itself, capitalism results in "bubble" economies (in the stock market, housing, commodities, etc.) which inevitably lead to systemic crises. Left to itself, capitalism fails to account for environmental costs of production, leaving us with levels of pollution and global warming that are a threat to our very existence. In essence, democratic socialists want government to regulate capitalism to protect it from its own excesses.

Democratic socialists also argue that every human being has inalienable rights, among those being the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". These rights must be guaranteed to all Americans and include: the right to participate in American democracy on an equal basis with every other American; the right to be secure in their person, protected not only from other individuals, but from arbitrary and capricious actions of government; the right to a job with a living wage and financial security when they are no longer able to work; the right to the best health care available; and the right to a quality education so that they have the opportunity to reach their potential. Government exists to guarantee these rights and provide the resources to make them a reality.

The basis for these rights and government's obligation to provide for and protect them can be found throughout US history, from political programs like those of the Populists and the New Deal, to the Four Freedoms of FDR, to the heroic battles of the abolitionist, labor, civil rights, LGBT and women's movements. It's a proud history of struggle, one that is unfortunately not always taught in schools. It is time to draw on that history and support its current manifestation. Whether he wins the nomination (and the presidency) Bernie Sanders has an opportunity to clarify and promote this vision. This is, as educators say, "a teachable moment".

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

There was an interesting article in the paper today. It noted that automakers were concerned about the possibility of an increase in interest rates, which the Fed has been considering. Such an increase, the article went on the say, would seriously cut into sales, and force the companies to cut back on production and/or make riskier and longer term loans to continue their brisk business (the best since 2006). It didn’t mention builders, but one can assume the same to be true there and most probably also for other durable goods manufacturers

This is a clear indication of the problem the Fed is facing. The current lackluster “recovery” (which, by the way, is the third or fourth anemic recovery in a row) is so precarious that the Fed has had to keep interest rates below zero (when inflation is factored in) to maintain it. This has a number of negative consequences, the most significant of which is that the Fed has no wiggle room should the economy slowdown from its current pace. In other words, the monetarists seem to have run out of effective tools to manage the economy.

Add to this the fact that many major economies outside the US (China, European Union, Japan) are weak (which precludes the US exporting its way out of a possible recession) and the fact that the average business cycle is about 10 years (and the last recession started 7 years ago). Not a pretty picture.

The cause is undoubtedly the extreme and increasing inequality. As Thomas Piketty pointed out in his book, Capital in the Twentieth-First Century, the extreme level of inequality is a central feature (we might even say, contradiction) of capitalism throughout most of its history, except for the extraordinary period between WW I and the 1970s. Two factors account for the reduction of inequality during that period – first, the destruction of capital that resulted from two World Wars and the Great Depression, which greatly reduced the “claim” of capital on the national income, and second, significant government actions to redistribute income during that period.

If this analysis is correct, then the only way to avoid a crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen since the end of WW II, is income redistribution, on a scale which probably goes well beyond what even progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders are proposing. With the current political dysfunction at the national level, will it be possible for the US to move in this direction or are we destined to head further down the rabbit hole?

George Vlasits

October 18, 2015

Book du Jour

American Nations (http://www.colinwoodard.com/americannations.html) was extravagantly recommended to me when I was in Florida over the previous winter. I tried to get my hands on a copy as soon as I returned to DC but wasn't able to do so until very recently. Seems the library's copies were that much in demand. So, being something of a contrarian, the praise for the book mostly made me feel a bit skeptical. It couldn't be that good, could it? Well, maybe it is & maybe it isn't but it's good enough, that's for certain. The book is at it's most authoritative in the early chapters when it is purely a work of North American colonial history. We truly started out not as a nation at all nor even as closely related & supportive settlements. For the most part the original colonies very independent, with little in common, & divergent interests and these differences were not obliterated but only briefly put aside by the growing dispute with the mother country. So, the United States of America was very much a marriage of convenience which has persisted through all of its history explaining much of the nature of our constitution, our geographic spread across the continent & our shifting disputes, wars, enmities & allegiances to the present day. At least that is what the book attempts to describe & in my estimation it does a very creditable job of it. In other words, the author tells us a great deal we hadn't otherwise been taught & answers many questions about how our history has unfolded.

No book is perfect - except religious ones, of course - & what seems to be lacking in this one is hard evidence. Logically it holds together wonderfully well but one wonders if other interpretations might serve equally. There are numerous citations & claims that historical voting records support the stated conclusions. At this point, I have not subjected these claims to critical scrutiny but feel somewhat reassured that the citations exist. Furthermore, the book offers little in the way of solutions to our present state of impass except hypothesizing that if the present course persists the US as we know it cease to exist as presently constituted; that is might be split into constituent parts, that certain regions of the present US, Canada, & even Mexico might form new federations, & that the nation or nations that ensue might resemble the EU in terms of regional independence vs central power. At minimum the book is thought provoking & I in turn recommend it highly.

A Personal Experience wth Privatization

Yesterday, Thursday September 24th, I rode my bike down to the National Mall to express support & admiration for the Pope & to stand in solidarity with those of compatible views. When the session at Congress was over & the motorcade had driven out of sight, I headed back in a homeward direction, discovering that many streets were still blocked to traffic & pedestrians so I was forces to zigzag in a general homeward direction. It was largely coincidental that I soon found myself in proximity to the H. Carl Moultrie courthouse of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Not long ago, I was summoned to appear at that courthouse to make myself available to serve on a jury. I showed up as ordered & spent an idle & mostly wasted day waiting to see if I would be called & selected. I was not; later in the day along with many other prospective jurors I was dismissed after having been given a plastic debit card drawn on Chase Bank (JPMorgan Chase) & credited with a dollar value of $4.00 which is the amount of Metro Fare here in DC & is what a person who is summoned & not selected for jury duty is paid. There were no written instructions on how these cards were to be redeemed but some general verbal instructions on the flavor of ATM's which would accept the cards without charging a fee. I did not rush out to claim my fee in cash as the amount due to me didn't seem overly significant. When I finally did, I sought out an approved ATM & was unable to cause it to dispense $4 or any other amount of money nor was I able to effect a tranfer of the sum to my own credit union account. Over the course of the follow several weeks I made a few more fruitless attempts. I will admit that by this time, the financial arrangements between the DC Court System & JP Morgan Chase was beginning to set off warning signals in my mind.

So, there I was on a weekday a block away from the courthouse; it was an easy decision to stop in seeking redress, repayment of debts owed or at minimum information. Pretty much immediately upon walking the bike into the open plaza leading up to the courthouse, I was accosted by a large uniformed & armed man demanding that I identify myself & state my business. I did state my name but then I said “I have business in the courthouse & I do not believe that there is any requirement that I answer any other questions.” He visibly eased up & said that most of the offices were closed for the Pope's visit & he was just trying to save me the trouble of finding that I couldn't conduct my business. He added that just about the only functioning service at the time was the information kiosk. I said that the information kiosk might very well be the only service I needed & he directed me to go into the building thru the security entrance. The woman at the information kiosk was at first defensive & I was angry but I tried to communicate that my anger was not directed a her personally & she was open to that concept. It took a bit of time – not an enormous amount – for me to explain my issue to her. Finally she told me firstly that she had no information on how I could claim my $4, that she believed that it was impossible to get $4 out of an ATM from a debit card, that my claim that this was a scam design to cheat people by the court system in cahoots with the bank was completely admissible, & finally that my assertion that I would refuse to show up for jury duty in the future unless that policy was changed would only result in my going to jail. I left with the remark that I hoped I would have sufficient courage to face jail in lieu of cooperating with a system designed to cheat me & disgrace the name of justice.

There is a bit more to this story which I almost forgot to mention. The woman at the information kiosk noticed that there existed a customer service number for Chase Bank on the back of my debit card & she suggested I call then. I agreed that was a good idea & thanked her. I did call the number this morning only to discover that my attempts to cash in the card had resulted in my $4 balance being reduced to almost nothing. I pushed buttons until being connected to what I think might have been a human being who told me that she could not cancel the services charges which had been assessed nor could she restore my balance. She suggested I might do something about the remaining balance - about a dollar - but I decided against any further efforts to seek justice. Actually, I decided to seek a different kind of justice!

Bernie's Rough Road Ahead

Bernie’s Rough Road Ahead

Like many progressive Democrats, I’ve watched with joy as Bernie Sanders boldly places issues on the national agenda that challenge the status quo. The strength of his early campaign is more than a pleasant surprise. In short, Bernie has won my heart. But he has not won my head. Maybe it is just because I don’t want to risk another disappointment or maybe it the result of lingering doubts about Sanders’ ultimate electability.

Over the past few weeks I’ve been trying to sort through my thoughts and, in particular, thinking about Bernie Sanders’ road to the Democratic nomination.  Polls are not much help at this stage, however much the media love them. Rather, the structure of the nominating process is what really sets the stage.

I was the executive director of the Rules Committee for the 1976 Democratic National Convention and was subsequently appointed to the Democratic Party’s Commission on Presidential Nomination and Party Structure. Most of the rules for selecting a Democratic presidential candidate were laid down in that period. They will create a great challenge for a campaign like Bernie’s

It is likely that Bernie will “win” Iowa, at least as the media will play it that way. Assuming the race is between him and Clinton and she puts major resources into Iowa, even a close second will be seen as a win. Bernie must win New Hampshire outright and should. I suspect that Clinton will make little effort in Bernie’s backyard. So where do things stand on February 10? The media will give Bernie two big wins but what will this mean for the rest of the process?

This is where it gets challenging.

From February 20 through March 22, 26 states will conduct primaries or caucuses.  These states include nearly all the Southern states and other red states such as Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, Idaho, Utah and Alaska. The most important of the southern states for Bernie are Florida, Virginia and North Carolina where there are pockets of white liberals.

One deep blue state, Massachusetts, also chooses delegates in this time frame. So does Minnesota that is more purple than blue. To Bernie’s advantage, both states have strongly progressive Democratic parties. Three powerhouse industrial states, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois, also have primaries during this period.

Bernie faces a real uphill battle after (presumably) winning Iowa and New Hampshire. The next state up is Nevada. It is a caucus state that where labor and minorities generally call the shots. This should be a fairly easy win for Clinton. Next is South Carolina where the primary electorate will be heavily black. Clinton is substantially ahead here. Jim Webb, if still a candidate, will put a major effort here to try to become the Southern Democratic candidate. In this climate, I believe, a 30% showing by Sanders would be a victory.

Then comes “Super Tuesday” on March 1. The following southern states will all have primaries on that day: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Massachusetts also has a March 1 primary and Minnesota has caucuses.

The next week does not get better with Louisiana, Nebraska and Kansas with primaries or caucuses.  Michigan comes on the 8^th as well and is likely to be seen as an acid test for Sanders. I foresee a big Sanders win in Massachusetts and a close one in Minnesota. The score at this point is likely to be 12 states for Clinton and four for Sanders, not counting Michigan.

Later in March come three powerhouse states: Illinois, Florida and Ohio. They are also states where Clinton is currently substantially ahead of Sanders in recent polling. Florida is an interesting battleground with its large Jewish voting population but also a very large minority population voting Democratic.

Polls show Sanders making real progress with white liberals and millennials, but not much movement among minorities. Clinton’s support among women, although somewhat weakened, is still very strong. Although the results are not clear, it appears that Bernie is making some progress among some rank and file workers.

Primaries and caucuses are low turnout events and therefore sensitive to a strong “ground game.” Obama certainly understood this in 2008 as did Clinton in 1992, Carter in 1976 and McGovern in 1972. A strong ground game can maximize turnout, especially if these is a motivated group of voters to be activated. Small states and those having caucus systems are the most likely to be won by “cause” candidates. This would explain, for example, Huckabee’s win in Iowa.

 I think Sanders has the potential to do this in several states and think his campaign is working in this direction. He faces two problems: can he grow his support in the crucial early primaries beyond white people who identify themselves as liberals, and can he finance a strong ground game in larger states?

Sanders is very unlikely to be able to increase his support much among minority voters. There are lots of reasons for this but, I think, he must continue courting them but not expect much in return. (Even if he doesn’t get much minority support during the primary season, he would need active support in the general.) His best two population groups with potential for growth in the nomination process are young voters and rank and file white workers. Neither group will have high turnouts in primaries, however, unless there is a strong and targeted effort at the ground level.

As an aside, most commentators see a Biden entry into the race as hurting Clinton more than Sanders. While this may be true in the aggregate, I think it would hurt Sanders more in the long run. Biden is a darling of the rank and file. His entry into New Hampshire is the one scenario that I can see that could keep Sanders from winning there. Southeastern New Hampshire is a heavy labor area where Biden would run extremely well. With him in the race and with a little effort by Clinton, it would be very difficult for Bernie to get the clear win he needs.

Biden would also run well in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. He would erode Sanders’ support at the rank and file level and serve to block him in attempts to gain ground among this critical block of voters.

Bottom line, I see Biden as a bigger long range threat to Sanders than to Clinton.

But back the structure.

Democratic Party rules require the allocation of delegates selected in primaries and caucuses on a proportional basis, with the exception that no candidate receiving less than 15% of the vote gets delegates. Those votes are proportionately given to candidates getting more than the 15% threshold. What this means it that, even though the schedule is stacked against him, Sanders can come to the end of March with a fair number of committed delegates.

Starting on March 26 and running through June 7, western states and really big blue states hold their primaries and caucuses. The big question is whether Sanders will still be viable at this point. Washington and Oregon should be good for Sanders. California is currently pretty strong Clinton territory but it could swing. I don’t think Biden, if still in the race, will do well in the west.

But then there are the big eastern states. New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island that have primaries in a two week stretch in April. This will be tough sledding for Sanders and these primaries come before California and Oregon. They are also expensive media states where a large war chest is essential. Assuming he is still viable at this point, will Sanders go after the big donors that will be needed to win?

So here we are. Time to talk about the filthy lucre of political contributions. Bernie is doing well attracting large numbers of smallish contributions and I think this will continue to be his central strategy. I doubt that Sanders will be able to duplicate Obama’s success in grass roots fundraising but even if he comes close, it will not be enough to win the big states where major media buys are essential.

I don’t presume to know what the exact number is, but Sanders will need to raise hundreds of millions if he is to win the nomination and then even more if he is to win the presidency. To a large extent, political money follows success. If Sanders comes through the first several weeks of the primary season as a credible candidate, I have no doubt that mega dollars will be there to be had. But Sanders will need to ask for them. I hope he will but, of course, this will turn off some of his supporters.

Beyond the primaries, there is the issue of automatic delegates. These are people who become delegates based on their status within the Democratic Party such as being governors, members of Congress, state party officers, etc. Unlike delegates selected through primaries and caucuses and therefore committed under party rules, automatic delegates are not. They are free to support any candidate regardless of primary outcomes in their states.

There will be about 3,200 committed delegates selected through primary and caucus voting and roughly 730 automatic, uncommitted delegates. By and large, they will tend to follow primary results in their states but they can act as power brokers in a close convention.  That said, the automatic delegates are the party establishment and are currently still skeptical of Sanders’ electability. Primary wins will certainly help, but Sanders’ campaign should be ready to work this group starting right now.

The Sanders campaign faces several tough decisions over the next several weeks. For example, they need to decide how much resource to put into early voting red states. He cannot let Clinton (or Clinton/Biden) have a free run but he also needs to focus his resources on states he must win later. Many of those states will be very expensive. (It is no accident that Southern states decided to hold their primaries in such a short window early in the process. They see this move as an offset to a liberal bias they perceive resulting from Iowa and New Hampshire results.)

.

A second decision must be finding the right balance between building credibility among minority voters and growing strength among millennials and working class whites. This must be reflected both in messaging and personal campaigning. Polling shows significant distrust of older white liberals and “privileged” college kids among minority and working class voters. Big rallies on college campuses are actually a turnoff for these groups.

The third, and I believe the most difficult decision, will be whether his campaign can raise enough money to be competitive in large states without changing its fundraising strategy.

And then, if Sanders looks like a winner early in the year, the very effective right wing/ Republican attack machine will go to work on him. They have been very effective in raising doubts about Clinton over non-issues even among Democrats, so Bernie’s “clean” record will not exempt him from these attacks. He will need strong third party voices ready to respond and this gives his campaign another thing to be working on in the upcoming weeks.

In summary, Sanders has done extremely well to this point in the race but the road ahead is a lot tougher than the one already travelled.

Some Background and Perspective on US Immigration and Immigration Reform

Will the Real Populists Please Stand Up?

“At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or wealthy elite.” (vocabulary.com)

The mainstream media (MSM) has been promoting the idea that US politics is currently experiencing the rise of a new populism, a form of extremism on both the left (as exemplified by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al) and the right (as exemplified by most, if not all, of the Republican candidates for President).

This attempt is designed to dismiss both as extremist departures from the traditional moderate positions of the Republican and Democratic Parties – in the center – which is supposedly the only way to win elections and to govern.

There are two interrelated problems with this analysis. The first is that to equate what is happening on the left and the right and to call both populist, totally eviscerates the meaning of populism. Sanders and the “Warren wing” of the Democratic Party are, in fact, true populists in that they represent “the power of the people” in the struggle against the wealthy elite which dominates politics in the US (and unfortunately both political parties). The policies they put forth have the potential for broad support among the populace and they offer a vision of what a government of all the people can look like.

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Walker, Bush and the rest of the Republican circus represent the existing power structure and the wealthy elite. While they use fear, uncertainty and distrust to win “popular” support for some of their ideas, their base is not that of ordinary people, but of the ruling classes. Their vision is that of a government that serves the interests of that elite, providing protection at home and abroad for their wealth, promoting privatization of the commons, etc. all designed to increase the wealth and power of the few at the expense of the many. That’s the antithesis of populism.

The second problem with this analysis is that it diverts attention from the content of the true populist platform. Because that platform has broad appeal, the ruling elite will do anything it can to prevent it from being aired. They are terrified by the prospect of another “New Deal” which might reinstate (and, heaven forbid, even expand) the rights and protections of ordinary Americans, which have been eroded over the past forty years. Their goal is to marginalize this populist sentiment; one way to do this is to equate it to the reactionary idea that they themselves have supported on the right.

The real populists are standing up for all of us. We need to support them in any way we can.

George Vlasits

September 7, 2015

Partisan Divide

Let’s explore the phrase “partisan divide".  A little play with the language may potentially be constructive. The US political system is actually quite well made for partisan divide, with all those checks and balances, including the need to get two legislative bodies, one president, and potentially the Supreme Court to agree on national legislation. In one sense the partisan divide cannot get much wider, with the presidency in one party and both houses of Congress and to a large extent the Supreme Court in another party. But maybe there are other mixes of these 3 (or four) components that would spell even more partisan divide. And since much of our government takes place at the state level, we have 50 more contributors to partisan divide. The immediate solution to this version of partisan divide is, of course, a sweep by one party of all branches of the federal government and most states.

Another possible meaning of "partisan divide" is the overlap or lack thereof in political and other positions of members of the parties. One can look at the question in the populace as a whole or in the Congress. Certainly most rankings of congress persons as liberal or conservative now have almost all the Democrats ranking as more liberal than any of the Republicans, and this is a change from the past, partially because of the disappearance of moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats in Congress. Looking at the partisan divide among the public, from a recent Pew Center report, just one-in-ten conservative Republicans say the Earth is warming due to human activity. By contrast, 78% of liberal Democrats hold this view.  These differences in beliefs have consequences: 86% of liberal Democrats favor setting stricter power plant emission standards to curb climate change, compared with 34% among conservative Republicans. Fully 87% of conservative Republicans favor allowing more offshore drilling. By contrast, 28% of liberal Democrats favor this. This is only a small sample of basic differences between the parties at the rank and file level. If this is the meaning of “partisan divide” then none of us on this blog would favor reducing the divide by moderating these views among Democratic voters. As for the Congress, Democrats are often not partisan enough, for example on the issues of regulating Wall Street, regulating guns, ameliorating climate change, campaign finance reform, and so on.

How far away are we from a sweep by one party? With the Republicans currently way ahead in the States and controlling two houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, it is easy to be fearful of that particular version of a sweep. Ignoring the current goings-on in the 2016 pre-primary politics, recent national trends are for more Democratic voters than Republican. With a few major exceptions, like Bush v Gore, this usually means a Democratic president. Unfortunately, getting more Democratic votes for the House, nationally and in states like mine, North Carolina, does not mean getting more representatives. The Republicans are currently way ahead in gerrymandering shenanigans!  Voting would likely be even more favorable to the left if the wealthy did not have such a big sway in US politics and if we didn’t make voting so damn difficult, and again, the Republicans are leading in these forms of corruption. Not to push the language too far, I hope, this may qualify as another form of partisan divide.

With gerrymandering, money in politics, and making it difficult to vote, add in regulatory capture in the government and the revolving door between government and the corporate world and we have major corruption, US style. These last two forms of US-style corruption have bipartisan support among elected politicians, though it could be that one party does it better. Among the public there seems to be less partisan divide on some of these corruption practices. Maybe the way forward is indeed to span the partisan divide with a vociferous combined opposition to this corruption and the effect of big money. Polls find support for these ideas in the public, from both parties. It is the politicians in office, executive and legislative, who resist, and here, with these elected officials, we have too often have too little partisan divide.

In my last check of Bernie’s website I find “Getting Big Money out of Politics” in the number two spot, so it is moving up. Unfortunately, as Lawrence Lessig states so well, if we don’t accomplish this and other cures for the corruption, we will not very quickly, if at all, accomplish the other goals of Bernie’s campaign.

The National Clown Show

I have done my best to avoid following the national clown show, aka the campaign to decide the Republican candidate for President in 2016. I think there are 17 announced candidates (or was it 27?). I do know that a man named Trump, has so far “trumped” all the others, based on being the most outrageously stupid contender, which, it would appear, appeals to those who have had their brains washed (both literally and figuratively) by years of Faux News.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a card-carrying member of the Republican Party. But I used to think that at least a few Republicans had their heads screwed on straight, even if I didn’t agree with them. Not anymore. One has to wonder what happened and why there aren’t “sensible” voices on the right staking out a claim for one of their own.

So why bother to write about them. Because this clown show is actually a very important side show in the larger circus being orchestrated by the Koch brothers, ALEC and the other tea party reactionaries. I’m not much on conspiracy theories, but it is clear to me that the anti-government strategy of the right depends on creating and constantly reinforcing cynicism among the American populace about government and politics.

Despite the best efforts of Faux News and much of the mainstream media, the majority of Americans (in many cases the LARGE majority) disagree with the reactionaries on just about every single issue. How to keep these Americans from getting involved in politics and fighting for the issues they support and how to keep them from the polls is the focus of much of the right’s activities. Voter suppression and gerrymandering can only do so much. Don’t get me wrong, these actions are a very serious threat to democracy. But cynicism can be very effective in keeping those who can still vote from going to the polls – just look at the turnout for the 2014 election, which was the lowest in the last 70 years.

So where does the clown show fit in? It turns attention away from the serious issues confronting us and it makes politics into a joke. All one sees is one buffoon after another grabbing the headlines by attacking what the government has done, consistently emphasizing the negative in order to leave the impression that there is nothing that can be done other than “to get government out of the way”.  It is one part of a strategy to disable the opposition (read Democrats) by creating Fear, Uncertainty and Distrust (FUD) among the general public.

What can be done? The fight back involves a vigorous defense of the role of government (and of the “commons” – more about that in another post) in a democratic society and of those institutions that serve the needs of the people. We need to hammer away at how Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are essential to the quality of life for the elderly, the disabled, the poor and can be paid for by repealing the massive tax cuts for the very rich which have been enacted over the past 40 years.

We must renew support for public education, which is the most important investment we can make for the future. We must defend the Affordable Care Act, demanding that it be expanded rather than repealed, since healthcare in the richest society in history ought to be a right of every citizen.

We have to make it clear that the alternative to diplomacy in dealing with the Iranian government is another long, destabilizing war like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, only on a much greater scale. We need to emphasize that taxes are investments in our future, not burdens that deprive us of our hard earned cash. And most important of all we need to be crystal clear that black and brown lives matter and that women must have control over their own bodies.

In other words we must not give in to those who would have us compromise, tone down the rhetoric, duck and weave when controversial issues (say Obamacare) come up. We must resist the temptation to moderate our demands in order to broaden our appeal to those in the middle (as if such a thing still exists), since all this does is move the “middle” further to the right. It is a strategy that has seen progressives loose again and again over the past 40 years. This is the appeal of candidate Bernie Sanders and non-candidate Elizabeth Warren.

To paraphrase a former Republican candidate for President, extremism in the pursuit of justice is a virtue. In my opinion it is also a strategy for winning.

Trump a winner?

I like the fact that Trump is outing the nativist, racist and destructive currents in Republican pandering to its “base.” It’s clear though that his appeal goes beyond undereducated, under employed, bitter white men. He appeals to many others because, unlike typical politicians, he “tells it like it is.” Polls show that a good part of his support comes from people who say they don’t agree with all that he says but, at least, he says what is on his mind without a lot of politically correct phraseology.



I think Bernie gets a lot of support for similar reasons. He speaks “truth to power” and says things that other politicians don’t. Like Trump, a significant percentage of poll respondents like that he is not just another typical politician even if they don’t necessarily buy his entire policies.



In my mind, all of this is a reaction to the broken politics of the national government. Congress has historically low approval ratings. Obama is better but still does not have a majority. Nothing gets done until the last minute and then only after what is seen as weak kneed compromises (as viewed from either the left or right.) The public is turned off by constant partisan bickering and looking for something different.



In many ways, I would love a Trump-Sanders race. It would almost certainly assure a Sanders win. That said it would be one of the ugliest races ever.  It would boil down to a racist reactionary (as defined by the left) vs looney socialist do-gooder (as defined by the right.) It would leave a weakened winner with little ability to govern. Unfortunately, the constituencies of both candidates are too willing to believe a president can make sweeping changes by himself. A nasty presidential race would, in my opinion, deepen divisions in Congress even further.  It seems likely that the Democrats will regain the Senate, but the Republicans will almost certainly retain the House. It will continue to be difficult for anyone winning the presidency to make changes and impossible if the partisan divide widens even further.



Can Trump win the nomination? For a lot of technical reasons (the Republicans allow winner take all primaries and some big states have them) a continuation of a large Republican field could open the door for a Trump win without achieving a majority in any state. I think the field will begin to narrow very soon and that will be the time to recalibrate Trump’s chances.

Book du Jour

Waking up White by Debby Irving, Elephant Room Press
http://www.friendsjournal.org/waking-up-white-and-finding-myself-in-the-story-of-race-books/

As frequently occurs, I have the DC Public Library's new books shelf to thank for this selection.  It's about race, talking about race & understanding that "Race 'R Us".  Debby Irving is the American Dream, educated, accomplished, privileged, secure, entitled & even in possession of a strong sense of noblesse oblige.  She has awakened to discover that she owes what she has to unknown benefactors who have had to pay for her status.  & even worse, she had thought it was all because she was deserving!  Suddenly "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more." - maybe the great American Dream as we know it is a zero-sum game & we've been cheating.

More to follow.

But how can we pay for it?

Money, money, money. According to the Republicans (and some Democrats who act more like Republicans at times) all of our problems are due to the fact the government spends too, too much money. Social Security – we can’t afford it. Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare – we can’t afford it. Apparently the only things we can afford are more wars, but that’s another subject for another day.

What the Republicans don’t say is why we can’t afford it. Simply put it’s because, for the last 40 years, they have been whittling away at the government’s income through cutting taxes on the very wealthy and corporations. So the rich get richer and the rest of us, well we have to do with deteriorating government services. This then allows the right-wingers to argue that there is no money and anyhow government doesn’t work. How convenient.

Well there is a way to get the resources needed to provide services and support (and even expand) Social Security, Medicare, provide tuition free public college education for all who want it, etc. And it will have other beneficial side effects.

It’s called the financial transaction tax. Put simply the government puts a very small tax on all financial transactions (for example stocks and derivatives). A 0.1% tax (that’s a $1 tax on every $1000) would result in well over $130 billion a year in new revenue. Other benefits include

·        it would not have any effect on the vast majority of Americans who don’t “play” the stock market

·        it would begin to address the inequality that threatens our democracy by taxing those who use money to make money

·        it would reduce the probability and severity of stock market bubbles by discouraging short term stock trades.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars more that could be gleaned from the 1% through raising the rate paid by the top income brackets and closing corporate loopholes.

Sounds like new, radical ideas. Not hardly. The US had a tax on stocks until the mid-60s. That was when the top income tax bracket (for millionaires) was over 70%, corporations actually paid a significant share of taxes and we had a strong and growing middle class.

Actually all we would be doing is UNdoing what has been done in the last 40 years. Ahh, the good old days.

White Progressives and BlackLivesMatter

From “An Open Letter to Progressives” by Monique Teal (published in the Daily Kos)

“If you support Black Lives Matter activists up until they do something you don’t agree with, then you were never really in solidarity. If you support the Black Lives Matter movement but have never done anything to challenge systems of privilege and power, then you aren’t actually an ally. You are part of the problem.”

“At every single point of transformative change in this country, disruption has been key. Making your problem the entire country’s problem is how social movements have advanced time and time again. Illustrating the moral dilemma is what makes the crisis real to those not directly affected or purposely obtuse. Being uncomfortable is the catalyst to moving this country forward.”

I was struck by the force of these two short passages from Monique Teal’s posting. Her challenge to white progressives is to twofold. One is to recognize and follow the leadership of a movement of black activists. White progressives can not set the agenda for Blacks in this country any more than men can set the agenda for the women’s movement. The privilege that white males enjoy makes it impossible for them to comprehend the needs of these movements and any attempts to exert influence should be seen as an attempt to maintain the same old “systems of privilege and power”.

Her second challenge is to point out that white progressives must step out of their comfort zones if they are to be allies of the BLM movement. It begins by accepting the reality of white privilege, not out of guilt over the past, but rather because the relationships of wealth and power privilege whites TODAY! It involves white progressives taking up the struggle as an ally of BLM and bringing that struggle to all aspects of their work. It will make people uncomfortable at times, but unless the progressive movement can come to grips with institutional racism in all its aspects, it will be doomed to failure.

George Vlasits

August 25, 2015

Pope Francis and the Three Crises of Capitalism & Democracy

Humankind is currently facing three interrelated crises which threaten the very existence of civilization as we know it. And, while the Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope Francis, has begun to focus attention on dangers of continuing down the road to "armageddon" and the need for systematic changes, the world's major government's seem oblivious to the situation. The clock is ticking; the time for business as usual is over.

The first, and ultimately most devastating, crisis is that of the environment. Since the advent of the industrial revolution, human society has displayed a reckless disregard for nature, using (and in some cases just destroying) resources faster than they can be renewed and upsetting delicate balances in nature - all in the name of economic growth and profit. Today we are already feeling the impact of two catastrophic and interrelated crises, depletion of water resources and global warming. Both of these crises are a threat to political and economic stability around the globe today or in the very near future. And what has been the response of governments around the world, and in particular, right here in the US? While Nero fiddles, the world is burning.

The second is the growth of inequality. Inequality in most industrialized countries has reached a point not seen since the 1920s, and in some cases surpassing that of the Gilded Age of the 1890s. The gap between rich and poor nations continues to grow wider. The concentration of wealth (and power - see the third crisis below) has created a bubble economy which is totally unsustainable and which has already produced the most significant economic crisis since the Great Depression. Despite the views of many mainstream "economists" (who function more as cheerleaders for the 1% than as serious analysts of what is happening), the recovery from the Great Recession has been minimal for most and it is likely that we will continue to experience periodic economic downturns followed by anemic recoveries (unless of course their policies or lack of policies lead us to the "big one").

Unfortunately, the prescription of most mainstream economic advisors (and many of the clowns running for President in the US) is restoring economic growth through austerity. This will lead to more "bubbles" based on borrowing and will contribute to both increased inequality (with even more wealth being transferred to the uber-rich) and to further environmental degradation. So why is this "solution" the one touted both here in the US and abroad (in the case of Greece - need I say more)?

Enter crisis number three - the crisis of democracy. In the US the basic ideas of democratic governance have been subverted by the massive influx of money from corporations and wealthy individuals; both major political parties and their candidates (with a few exceptions) are beholden to their large donors. As the case of Greece has demonstrated, the bankers can overrule the elected representatives of the people and impose their dictates (austerity, austerity and more austerity) on entire countries (something which third world countries and the citizens of Detroit have known for a long time). Once more the "golden rule" applies - he who has the gold, rules - and he uses that power to enhance his wealth (gender of the pronoun used advisedly).

The situation is bleak, but not without hope. Political movements, in the US and abroad, have begun to question to viability of the system which has created these simultaneous crises and which cannot begin to address the needs of people around the world either today or in the future. Pope Francis didn't start the fire; his actions are a response to people's movements and a recognition of the morality and justice of their demands. But his apparent support for systematic and revolutionary changes can set the tone for our struggle to build a better future for our children. Viva Francis!

George Vlasits 8/9/15

Greece, Student Debt and Inequality

Some preliminary thoughts:

In his landmark work, Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty talks at length about the growth of inherited wealth in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries and its claim on national income. Marx might have used slightly different terms, but noted the same trend in 19th Century Europe. In both periods, this seems to have contributed to, or perhaps caused, the growth of inequality.

How is this growth accomplished? Is it a product of the dominance of finance, at least in the current period? Do the banks and other financial institutions essentially facilitate the transfer of wealth from labor to the owners of capital, from the large majority of the population which actually produces wealth, to the owners of "dead labor", i.e., capital?

Forgetting for a moment the moral issues involved in inequality, if the build up of debt continues and inequality deepens, can the economy go on indefinitely without a crisis (or multiple crises)? Historically debt is destroyed in one of ways: inflation (as happened during the post WW II years), or bankruptcy (a form of forced debt forgiveness) which occurs on a large scale during depressions.

It is unlikely that the bankers, here or in Europe, will allow a period of inflation to lift the heavy load from countries (and cities) and young people. And the German bankers have made it clear in the case of Greece that voluntary debt forgiveness is not on the table (just as it is not on the table in the US for student debt). So, as we continue down the rabbit hole, it looks like the only solution is an economic crisis (or a series of "mini" crises). Well there is another solution, but ...