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 ...