It Is Time For Unity Among Progressives

After the results of Tuesday’s primaries it should be clear that Hillary Clinton is going to be the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. While it might be the end for Bernie Sanders fight for the nomination, it most certainly is not the end for Bernie Sanders role in the Democratic Party or the progressive wave about to sweep this country. Throughout this entire campaign season Bernie Sanders has managed to pull Hillary Clinton towards the Warren Wing of the Democratic party. Hillary’s pivot to a more full throated liberalism on trade, the minimum wage, and the regulation of the financial sector is something that should be celebrated, not bemoaned. Bernie Sanders is an admirable candidate and I would certainly support him were he the presumptive nominee. However Bernie Sanders is not the presumptive nominee – Hillary Clinton is and we need to come together behind her as one if we hope to stand a snowball’s chance in hell against Donald Trump or whomever the GOP nominates in their quixotic quest to stop Trump in November.

 

Now I am not suggesting Sanders drop out of the race or even suspend his campaign. His influence has been a welcome one and signs point to him staying in the race long enough to amass a sizeable number of delegates to influence the party’s platform in July. His shift in rhetoric after Tuesday’s four defeats are a sign that he is ready to leverage his influence at the nominating convention and has taken his sights off of the presidency. My only concern is that Bernie seems to be under the impression that it is Hillary’s responsibility to court those that are currently feeling the Bern. While it is certainly the case that Hillary should reach out to the millions of individuals Bernie Sanders has touched, a better approach to this unification process would entail Bernie himself reaching out to his supporters to request their support in defeating Donald Trump in November. There is no individual better suited to court one’s own supporters than the candidate in question. Bernie should not only come to the convention in July ready to push a more progressive and inclusive platform, he should come ready to assist Hillary Clinton in bridging the gap between her campaign and his supporters. If Bernie Sanders truly believes that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be better than a Trump, Cruz, or “whomever the GOP nominates” presidency, then assisting Hillary in healing the wounds sustained from this most contentious contest would be the prudent course of action.

 

As for those among us who would rather see the entire country in flames so we can “learn a lesson” and “realize how bad things could get” so the “political revolution becomes inevitable,” I have two questions. Have you no heart for your countrymen? Are you so privileged & insulated from the daily reality faced by women, the lgbt community, immigrants, minorities, and the impoverished in this country that you cannot see the very real human costs of a Trump presidency? You cannot simply take your ball and go home when your guy does not win. That is not how politics works. Whether you vote or not, you will have a POTUS. The rest of us will make the decision for y’all. If we cannot unite behind the presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, we will surely lose in November, and while Ben Carson has assured us that a Trump presidency “would only be fours years” – that is four years too many. I want y’all to think long and hard about what a Trump presidency would look like and ask yourselves if it is really worth it. Ask yourselves if fours years of raising the cost of living on our most vulnerable citizens (like the impoverished or the elderly) through protectionist tariffs is worth it. Ask yourselves if four years of ethnic cleansing through aggressive deportation of undocumented immigrants is worth it. Ask yourselves if a generation of right wing rulings that would negatively impact women and minorities from SCOTUS and the appellate courts is worth it. I want you to seriously consider the implications of this “Bernie or Bust” reasoning and reconsider your position – look in your heart of hearts and ask yourselves if it is okay to turn your back on a progressive candidate because they are not “the” progressive candidate you wanted. Now is not the time to spite one’s face by cutting off one’s nose, we mustn’t splinter y’all. We have to stand together against Trump lest there won’t be a Republic to stand for much longer – at least not one we recognize. In November we must vote blue no matter who.

A Legislative Wrap-Up: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

With the 2016 Georgia Legislative Session behind us, it is time we consider what passed, what didn’t pass, and what almost passed. There were a number of contentious issues before us this legislative session and in the coming weeks Governor Deal will be faced with some tough decisions. From RFRA on steroids, which Governor Deal vetoed, to the campus carry bill currently sitting on his desk awaiting a veto or his signature, we were faced with one controversial bill after another. I guess we can chalk it up to it being an election year, both nationally and locally. With the stakes as high as they are at every level of government, it is not wonder we experienced an onslaught of anti-immigration, anti-LGBT, and questionable firearm policy. Now I know what y’all are wondering; what, if anything, was good for Georgians this session, what was good, and what caused the most uproar?

Before we get into the more controversial pieces of legislation from this session like the so-called religious freedom bill, the anti-DACA driver’s license bill, the campus carry bill, or the rape kit bill, let’s start off with some good news. We managed to pass MARTA expansion in the city of Atlanta with SB 6, it would allow the city of Atlanta to levy up to a 0.5% sales tax to fund MARTA and would exists concurrently with existing MARTA taxes. However the bill will be subject to referendum so if you want to see more expansion of MARTA in the city of Atlanta, make sure to vote. Furthermore the bill would authorize the rest of Fulton County to levy a five year T-SPLOST of up to .75%, which would also be subject to a referendum (vote), for transportation. The city of Atlanta may also levy a five year T-SPLOST of up to .75% but would count against the MARTA .5% expansion portion of the bill were it to pass. That means that if the City of Atlanta passes the .5% sales tax for MARTA expansion, it could levy no more than a .25% T-SPLOST for transportation. While the city and Atlanta and Fulton county have reason to rejoice over the prospects of more funding for transportation, some of Georgian’s own residents almost lost their right to freely drive throughout the state.

Ever since the issuance of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order, there has been a concerted effort on the part of the GOP to push back against immigration by any means necessary. With that in mind, the Senate attempted to pass SB 6 or the Driver’s License Bill for Deferred Action Immigrants. DACA allows undocumented immigrants who were in this country before 2007 or before their 16th birthday to file for exemption from deportation and a renewable two-year work permit. DACA’s goal is protection of undocumented immigrants, especially students, who have been in the United States for most of their formative years and truthfully have little connection to their parents country. These individuals are basically Americans and DACA was an attempt to protect them from an increasingly anti-immigrant environment. What SB 6 would have done is make Georgia such an inhospitable state for DACA status individuals that they would have “self-deported,” and while the GOP cannot legally deport them, they can certainly make Georgia so intolerable that DACA status individuals would leave the state regardless. SB 6 would have prohibited the issuance of driver’s licenses to DACA status individuals. Instead, these individuals would be issued DACA licenses that they could not use to enjoy many age-gated benefits like watching an R-rated film or purchasing alcoholic beverages since DACA licenses would not be considered official state identification for the purpose of these activities. Furthermore, law enforcement would have the authority to impound vehicles of undocumented immigrants (including DACA status individuals) for up to 60 days. Fortunately SB 6 failed to pass the Georgia House. However SB 6 probably was not the most contentious bill before the Georgia legislature, at least not as contentious as HB 757.

As I’m sure everyone is already aware by now, there was an attempt to pass legislation in our state that would have legalized discrimination against the LGBT community, unmarried sexually active couples, and single mothers. HB 757 was a combination of two separate bills from this session, the Pastor Protection Act and the First Amendment Defense Act, and last year’s so-called religious freedom bill. This type of legislation, more than anything else, is a reaction to the recent landmark Marriage Equality ruling. Some socially conservative Christians in this country appear to be under the impression that their values are currently under attack by the “liberal agenda” (thanks, Fox News). Now, here’s the thing about this composite of a bill. Insofar as the Pastor protection portion, which would have allowed pastors to refuse to perform LGBT weddings and ceremonies, there’s nothing in Justice Kennedy’s landmark Marriage Equality ruling, and nothing on either the federal or state level that currently infringes upon the first amendment in a manner that would compel pastors to ordain LGBT weddings. That portion of HB 757 was not the controversial aspect as much as it was a reaffirmation of currently accepted and existing jurisprudence.

What made HB 757 problematic were the dubiously named “First Amendment Defense Act” and “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” portions of the bill. The First Amendment defense portion would have narrowly defined lawful marriage as an act between a man and a woman, it would have confined sexual activity to that very narrow definition of lawful marriage, and it would have allowed faith-based organizations and individuals with a deeply held belief in that narrow definition of marriage to discriminate against anyone and everything they believed to be in violation of that narrow definition. That kind of language would have negatively impacted members of the LGBT community who just won Marriage Equality, single unwed mothers, and sexually active unmarried couples. The addition of last year’s so-called “religious freedom” bill’s language would have then allowed individuals and businesses to opt out of laws in their entirety based religious belief, essentially making every individual the law unto him or herself. The passage of HB 757 in the house and senate unleashed a torrent of political pressure on Governor Deal to veto the bill from progressives, civil rights activists, and pro-business conservatives, and a few short days after the conclusion of the legislative session Governor Deal defied his party and vetoed HB 757. Unfortunately for Governor Deal and the state of Georgia, we are not out of the woods yet – there’s still the matter of guns on college campuses.

The Conceal and Carry on College Campuses bill or HB 859 would allow licensed weapons carry permit holders to carry concealed firearms on college campuses, except in sports facilities, housing, and greek (fraternity/sorority) houses. The problem with HB 859 is that proponents claim the purpose of the bill is to provide protection to college students on college campuses, however, if that were the case, wouldn’t it be more prudent to allow college students to carry firearms where they would be most vulnerable, especially in cases of date rape – given the prevalence of rape on college campuses? If this bill really were about protecting college students on college campuses, why can’t college students carry firearms in their dorms. So we can have guns in classrooms, guns in the quad, guns in our cars, but no guns in dorm rooms? Okay, gotcha. Makes complete sense (it doesn’t). Furthermore, the constitution protects both property rights and the right to bear arms yet HB 859 makes no attempt to reconcile the conflict between the two. Shouldn’t the academic institution have a say in what can be carried on their grounds? Normally we leave these questions to the academic institution so it seems out of place to suddenly tell academic institutions that they must allow firearms on almost every part of their campus except for where they are needed the most… in dorms. I can’t say with 100 percent certainty whether Governor Deal will veto HB 859 like he did HB 757, but it is my hope that he does. HB 859, with its current language and restrictions, simply does not make much sense. Now, if like me, you think HB 859 doesn’t make much sense (it really doesn’t), wait until you get a load of the debate surrounding SB 304 – the Rape Kit Handling and Storage Bill.

Allow me to preface by pointing out that SB 304 did eventually pass on Sine Die, however, it could have passed much sooner than that. I don’t normally call out legislators from my own county but SB 304’s delayed passage really made no sense. There was nothing wrong with the bill, it was supported by both sides of the aisle and is a legitimately good bill that would help both rape victims and those falsely accused of rape so why did we wait until Sine Die to pass it? Renee Unterman. Here’s the thing, she wasn’t opposed to the bill on any kinds of substantive ground. She felt slighted that the bill did not go through her. That’s it. Plain and simple. It was pride at its worsts and for that reason alone she opposed the bill. That’s an ugly reason to oppose a bill, especially if it’s a bill you would have supported if it came to you first. Legislators are here to represent the people that elected them, not to stroke their own egos or sense of self. We run and are elected to serve you, not ourselves.

All things considered, there are still a number of bills sitting before Governor Deal that he may sign or veto. While he may have vetoed the so-called “religious freedom” bill due to pressure from every direction, there is no telling which way his pen may be swayed with regard to the campus carry bill or a host of other bills that were passed by the legislature. It is imperative that you contact Governor Deal’s office at 404-656-1776 to have your voice heard about the pills that have passed the legislature. It will be your final chance to weigh in with your opinions regardless of which side of the aisle you find yourself in.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone for their continued assistance and support throughout the years, both in my capacity as an individual and in my capacity as a public servant. Without the continued enthusiastic support of the community, I would not be able to do what I do. It is through your continued assistance and support that we are able to do what we do every year starting in January and usually ending in March or April. That is why each and everyone of y’all are cordially invited to my reelection fundraiser on April 26th, 2016 at Apres Diem in the Midtown Promenade shopping center from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM. Invite your friends, family members, and neighbors – light appetizers will be served and all contributions are welcome. Again, thank you for your continued assistance in making Georgia ever more progressive, one yard at a time.

On Trade: The Sanders – Clinton Divide

Over this campaign season a lot has been made of free trade policies by both the Republicans and the Democrats running for the presidency. While the Republicans seldom breath a word of disagreement on free trade, the Democratic contenders are at odds – there exists a real divide between the Warren Wing of the party and the moderate entrepreneurial wing of the party. Bernie Sanders has made his opposition to what he has dubbed “unfair” free trade agreements clear – he opposes them. When pressed on the issue he claims that he “isn’t against free trade, he’s in favor of fair trade.” Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has taken a more nuanced approach to free trade by taking different stances on different agreements. Furthermore, while one may be inclined to criticize Hillary Clinton for the passage of NAFTA, we have to keep in mind that her Husband, Bill Clinton, was president. It hardly seems fair to blame her for NAFTA. However it is high time both candidates were really pressed on their free trade policy positions. In debate after debate each candidate is asked about free trade and it is often used as an opportunity to echo the same rehearsed line. There’s no real analysis of the issue going in. During interviews Free Trade is barely brought up and when it is, like the debates, it is just a platform from which the candidates may repeat their talking points. The media and the public need to do more.

 

As far as I can tell Sanders stance on free trade appears to be “no,” and while he hides behind this notion that he is favor of “fair trade,” we are compelled to ask how we should handle globalization absent rising tide inducing free trade in the long run. Surely “no free trade” is no answer at all. And what is meant by “fair trade”- is Sanders suggesting we push for trade agreements that would making signing parties beholden to standards a US laborer or union member may expect? Perhaps he would only be open to trade deals that include protectionist measures to prop up businesses at home and incite international retaliation? The last time we implemented protectionist policies (The Infamous Smoot-Hawley Bill) we exacerbated the great depression and the global economy felt the ripples. Standards of wages expected by U.S. laborers cannot be exported overseas through trade deals, no developing nation would sign such a deal. Furthermore, protectionism poses a legitimate threat to the current global economic order that has lifted so many out of poverty. In the short term Sanders may protect a few strategic businesses from international competition, but which industries would Sanders’s deem “strategic” and worthy of protection? If he’s trying to protect all industries then clearly he isn’t for free trade and he needs to be made to admit that.

 

While it is abundantly clear that Sanders is more than likely against free trade in general, Hillary Clinton would have to contend with a different line of scrutiny given her nuanced position on free trade. Hillary has stated that she is in favor of “good” trade deals but she has yet to enumerate what makes a trade deal “good” or “bad.” Furthermore she needs to be taken to task on her support of NAFTA (even if indirectly), the trade agreements she did vote for, and the trade agreements she voted against – did she only throw her hat in opposition to shore up support of the Democratic Base and Unions? Two issues with our past trade deals are job training and appropriating enough capital to to train workers displaced by the trade deal. Will Hillary Clinton assure enough allocation of capital to fund retraining of workers displaced by free trade agreements? That’s part of the reason why  NAFTA is remembered as such a disastrous policy. Insufficient funds were allocated to retrain workers displaced by NAFTA and too many barriers to access of those funds were erected. That has been an issue in other agreements as well and has been the driving force behind the angry anti trade voices supporting GOP candidates like Trump and left of center candidates like Sanders. The primary driving force is not environmental regulations, working conditions or workers rights in foreign countries – it is the displacement of our own workers to outsourcing and automation. If we refuse to address those issues, we will only make the problems worse politically. Leaving people behind via trade or technological progress is not progressive. Hillary must be asked how she would slow the displacement of American workers so they don’t get left behind by free trade or exponential technological advancement.

 

Republicans who are largely free trade and don’t believe in worker protections may be satisfied with platitude and shouting that they are going to protect the angry white male blue collar voters that make up their base. However, they are content with kicking that same base to the curb when governing. Democrats try to hold themselves to a higher standard so it is imperative that we press Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as “the adults in the room” to get them away from their slogans, talking points, and platitudes. They need to talk about how they will implement a 21st century global trade policy that will continue to uplift millions of individuals in developing nations out of poverty and assist those displaced or left behind by the pace of change in the long term. We need to become the party that promised to help people find that education, that job, and that opportunity that would allow them to move up the economic ladder and make a better for our children and our children’s children.

Bernie Sanders May Be Out Of Time

After Super Tuesday, and despite the results of the weekend primaries and caucuses on Saturday and Sunday, it might be time to face the reality that, barring a Machiavellian maneuver on the part of the GOP at a possibly brokered convention, we will be faced with a choice between former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the xenophobic racists populist nationalist real estate mogul, Donald Trump.That’s the reality we will be faced with. Suffice it to say, the delegate math does not favor Senator Sanders and Donald Trump is still the GOP frontrunner. What that means for the country is that we will have to decide between continuing the gradual march towards ever more progressive change or embark on a journey into dark waters with Donald Trump, a journey I would hope many of my fellow Americans would like to avoid.

 

Even without superdelegates Secretary Clinton is poised to widen or maintain the gap between her and Senator Sanders. It appears that she is the most likely nominee despite Senator Sanders picking up three more states over the weekend. Unfortunately for Sanders, the proportional nature of delegate allocation in Democratic Primaries and Caucuses means that unless Sanders starts winning by wide margins (10 percent or more), he will be unable to get a lead on Secretary Clinton. Many Berners are hoping that as the race continues Senator Sanders will begin to carry more states with wide enough margins to edge out Hillary Clinton and eventually clinch the nomination. That’s probably not what is going to happen.

 

Today we have the Michigan primary and the reality is that if Bernie cannot carry the state with at least a 10 percent lead on Clinton, the race might be over. Given that Real Clear Politics and Fivethirtyeight have had Hillary up in Michigan for months, it might be time to start writing the obituaries. While Bernie has stated he will stay in the race until the nominating convention in July, he will not be the nominee if he can no longer carry states that are both demographically and geographically advantageous for him.

 

Following Michigan we have five primaries on March 15th; Florida (214 delegates), Illinois (156 delegates), Missouri (71 delegates), North Carolina (107 delegates), and Ohio (143 delegates). The results of Michigan should give us an idea of how well Sanders will do in Ohio and Illinois but we already have an idea of the results of Florida, North Carolina, and Missouri. Hillary Clinton will carry these states and she will do so by wide margins like she has done throughout the South. Real Clear Politics average has Hillary leading in all three Southern states and even has her ahead in the midwestern states of Ohio and Illinois. That does not bode well for Senator Sanders.

 

We have to start being realistic with our expectations. Senator Sanders closing the gap on or after March 15th is an improbable outcome. Given the gap that emerged and the likelihood that it will widen rather than close as the Democratic primaries carry on, it is important to acknowledge the writing on the wall and come to terms with the most probabilistic outcome of this nominating process: Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump. The race will be Clinton v. Trump. One of those individuals will be president. Opting out does not prevent one of them from reaching the white house, you will have a president, and you will be impacted by his or her decisions in some way, shape, or form. That much is unavoidable and clear as day. With that in mind, I implore you to vote blue in November if there is even an inch of you that cares about progressive or liberal causes. Sanders will not run as an independent if he loses to Hillary Clinton. He cares too much about the health of progressive and liberal causes to jeopardize the chances of a Democrat taking the White House. Unlike Trump, Sanders would rather see a like-minded individual in office than hand the election to the Republicans. Sanders would rather see Hillary Clinton, a woman that he has pushed to the left throughout this campaign season, in the White House than any of the individuals running for the GOP nomination.

 

Perhaps that was Sanders’s goal the whole time. Sanders has not attacked Secretary Clinton as vigorously as he could have or as vigorously as the GOP has been attacking her for decades. His continued presence in the race has nudged her to the left and someone listening to a Clinton speech today may even mistake her for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Fundamentally that is a good thing. Perhaps when he entered this race he knew that a win would be an uphill battle so instead he opted to make Clinton as strong as humanly possible for the general by pulling her away from the center and towards the Warren-Sanders Wing of the Democratic Party. If one listens to Clinton’s rhetoric today and compares it to her rhetoric at the start of the race, it becomes clear that the pressure from Sanders on her left has had an impact on her campaign.

 

Furthermore, while Sanders may not be ready to suspend his campaign, he needs to start planning an end game so that he can maximize his influence by going out on a high note. So do not attempt to spite your face by cutting off your nose in November. Abstention from voting as a progressive or liberal is a vote for Donald Trump and while Berners may be reluctant to come to terms with that reality, it is an imperative that they put aside any discontent they may have with Secretary Clinton. Now is the time to begin unifying the party around a cohesive progressive platform that we can take into the general election to eviscerate the Donald Trump insurgency and its authoritarian trappings.

The Death of Scalia: A Dangerous Political Game

As friends, family members, pundits, and lawmakers mourn the recent loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and a number of GOP Senators are vowing to block President Obama’s Supreme Court Nominees. The course that they have embarked upon is completely unprecedented in American history. Never before in recent history has the country been so politically polarized that a sitting body of Senators would be willing to subvert the constitution and refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty. While GOP obstruction of a Democratic President’s judicial nominees is to be expected, suggesting that a sitting president should not nominate someone during their last year in office due to an ongoing presidential election is highly unusual. We are well aware that it is an election year, but President Obama has one more year left and until his office is vacated and he is replaced by his successor he has a constitutional duty that must be fulfilled. Once again the GOP has chosen to ignore the mandates of the US constitution to further their own agenda.

 

It is a given that the President is unlikely to nominate someone with Scalia’s originalist streak, however, whoever he nominates will more than likely be rejected by the current sitting body of GOP Senators. It is telling that the death of this towering figure of American conservatism and originalism has been quickly and opportunistically politicized by the American right, a course of action that Scalia would have frowned upon. There are too many consequential cases pending for the nomination to be delayed, and with the court’s current leaning, the likely outcome is a series of 4-4 or 5-3 rulings (if Kennedy swings left) that would hold the ruling of the lower court or establish precedent favorable to progressives. Outside of a swing vote by Kennedy, no new precedent would be established. President Obama still has more than 10 months left until the next president takes office, his term officially ends on January 20th, 2017 and although the GOP has vowed to obstruct the law of the land, they would find it difficult to block one nomination after another for over 300 days.

 

The GOP is under the mistaken notion that there exists precedent that would bar a president or the Senate from fulfilling their constitutional duties during an election year. There exists no such precedent, it is cynical and opportunistic posturing on the part of partisan hacks who wipe their ass with the constitution as often as they revere it. In the words of the late Justice Scalia, it is political theater. Never in my days did I imagine that the GOP would drop all pretense of adhering to the words of the constitution, the asylum is clearly now being run by the inmates as these men rush towards their own potential self-immolation. They’re not pretending anymore y’all. They think this election is a referendum on the court. They fully intend on making the nomination process for Scalia’s replacement a campaign issue, one that they stand to be heavily rewarded for should they succeed.

 

Let me illustrate what is at stake and why the GOP is so willing to play this ridiculous and contrived game. The GOP currently holds 247 seats in the House of Representatives, 54 seats in the Senate, and total state control in 31 states, including our own. If they successfully block President Obama’s SCOTUS nominees and win the presidency, they will have an unprecedented degree of control. Should they successfully block President Obama’s SCOTUS nominees but lose the presidency, whoever Sanders or Clinton nominates will be given the legitimacy of the GOP’s rhetorical strategy as the nomination would be reflective of the desires of the American people Vis a Vis the presidency. The third possible outcome of this performance is a failure to block President Obama’s nominee. Of course the prudent thing to do would be to approve whichever moderate President Obama nominates instead of playing this high risk game. However, the GOP has not acted with prudence since this President has taken office so that might be asking for much. They clearly would rather take their chances with over 300 days of filibustering and the outcome of the presidential election. All things considered, now is not the time to not vote if your preferred Democrat does not win the primary. If it was not already clear, the stakes are simply far too high to spite one’s face by cutting off one’s nose if the other person, be they Hilary or Bernie, takes the Democratic Party nomination.

 

Trump, Sanders, and Cruz: The Long Arc of History

Those who thought this presidential primary nomination process would be a cakewalk got a wakeup call in Iowa and New Hampshire as the presumptive nominees, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, were routed by Bernie Sanders, a left wing populist, and Donald Trump, a right wing populist. Unless one of the individuals running is the incumbent, do not expect a coronation. There is a divide between party insiders and the base. Suffice it to say, both parties have a lot of soul searching to do and 2016 will be a struggle for the heart of the Democratic and Republican parties. The base seems to be throwing caution to the wind and ignoring any fears about electability.

 

In a general election, can a Trump, Cruz, or Sanders do the necessary pivoting to the center to appeal to more moderate general election voters? It is easy to be ideologically pure during a primary contests but it becomes considerably harder in a general election when you have to appeal to a much broader base of would-be voters. Each party has always been a big tent of multiple coalitions with varied interests, this tugging in different directions often means the emergent leader of the party has to be able to appeal to as many individuals as humanly possible. Someone far to the left or far to the right cannot do that. Furthermore, things get absolutely brutal during a general election. Republicans will not unleash the major attack ads during the primary unless they want to damage the brand for the general, neither will Democrats. If you are too tough on your primary opponent, you might jeopardize your position in a general election. That means hell does not rain down upon a candidate until after the nomination is secured and there is a clear frontrunner. Do you think that Bernie Sanders can withstand the full brunt of the Republican Party machine? If you think Hillary is being negative, you ain’t seen nothin yet. Someone selling themselves as a purist or single issue will face an uphill battle going into the general, whether the attack ads call them a self-avowed socialists (Sanders), a drunk uncle at thanksgiving dinner (Trump), or a theocratic fascists (Cruz).

 

Never before in our history have we been potentially faced with the option of electing a self-avowed socialist, a drunk uncle, or a fascist. I would advise caution on the part of both sides, Republican and Democratic primary voters. While ideological purity is alluring, it seldom gets the job done. We cannot attempt to just ramrod legislation down people’s throats and expect it to stick. First a broad consensus has to be built, then coalitions need to be brought together around that consensus, and only after that may we actually bring about revolutionary change. Our country has the mechanisms of revolution built right into it, however, it is an inherently slow process. A lot of inertia is built in to prevent sudden pivots to the far left or, god forbid, the far right when power changes hands. When one tries to circumvent the process, they face extreme backlash. When FDR crossed the line by trying to pack the court to get his agenda through despite a lack of consensus, he experienced that very backlash first hand. It was only after a national consensus in the states, the house of representative, the senate, and among the people formed that FDR was able to get his agenda through. We do not have that consensus yet, it has to be built. And expecting one Presidential election in November to bring about revolution without consensus in the house of representatives, the senate, the state governor’s mansions, state legislatures, and among the people is the path to disillusionment.

 

My hero, Ted Kennedy, may have understood that simple fact more than anyone. Change in our system does not come overnight. It is slow. To him politics was not a sprint to the finish, it was a never ending Football game. You learn from the past, you build consensus, and then you move the ball forward. You repeat this process ad infinitum through the long arc of history towards ever more progressive accomplishment. That has been the consistent pattern throughout our history. Our concern for whomever is the nominee of our parties, whether you’re supporting the socialist, the drunk uncle, or the fascists, should be whether they understand this process and are willing to work within the confines of the system to build consensus so revolution may occur over a generation’s time, because it won’t happen in the next four or eight years. This country may have been born in revolution but it has always been fundamentally centrist relative to its era. Whether we are talking Jefferson and Hamilton or Clinton and Bush. We have always been center-left or center-right with a penchant for center-left progressive policies. Change may be slow but it is skewed to the left and favors progressives. We must not lose sight of the forest for the trees. We learn from history, we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, we build consensus, and we move the ball forward. That is how it has always been done, sans a state of crisis.

The ‘hollowing’ of the middle class?

Originally posted on The Washington Post on 1/3/2016
by Robert J. Samuelson

We’ll be hearing a lot about the middle class in the coming months. That’s one sure bet for 2016, as both parties compete for votes. What’s less sure is whether we’ll get an accurate assessment of the middle class’s condition. By now, the conventional wisdom is familiar: The top 1 percent has skimmed most income gains for itself, producing decades of stagnant living standards for most Americans. Wall Street has slaughtered Main Street.

Now comes a report from the Pew Research Center that paints a more complex picture. It’s not that the Pew study contradicts all the conventional wisdom. It finds (as have others) that economic inequality is increasing. One of the study’s main conclusions is that the middle class is being hollowed out, as more Americans find themselves in either upper- or lower-income households. The extremes grow at the expense of the center.

Robert J. Samuelson writes a weekly column on economics. View Archive

Consider. In 1971, about 61 percent of adults lived in middle-income households (defined as three-person households with incomes from $41,869 to $125,608 in today’s dollars). By 2014, that share had dropped to 50 percent. Meanwhile, the share of low-income households (households with incomes of $41,868 or less) grew from 25 percent to 29 percent, and the share of upper-income households (incomes above $125,608) increased from 14 percent to 21 percent.

But the study convincingly rebuts the notion that the living standards of most Americans had stagnated for many decades. Pew calculated household incomes, adjusted for inflation, all along the economic spectrum and found that, until the early 2000s, most households reaped slow but steady increases. Growing inequality did not siphon off all gains for those who are not rich . Here’s how Pew describes this period:

“Households typically experienced double-digit gains in each of the three decades from 1970 to 2000. Middle-income household income increased by 13% in the 1970s, 11% in the 1980s, and 12% in the 1990s. Lower-income households had gains of 13% in the 1970s, 8% in the 1980s and 15% in the 1990s. Upper-income households registered a 10% gain in the 1970s [and] . . . 18% in both the 1980s and 1990s.”

What’s happened since, of course, is that the Great Recession erased some of these gains. Unemployment rose, overtime pay declined and many of the unemployed had to accept lower wages to get new jobs. Pew estimates that household incomes dropped to levels of the late 1990s. That’s a steep decline. Still, the Great Recession left intact most gains achieved since 1970. In 2014, typical middle-income households had incomes 34 percent higher than in 1970; in 2000, the advance had been 40 percent.

Indeed, these figures probably understate the gains. Like many others, the Pew study relies on pre-tax cash incomes. It ignores taxes and non-cash government transfer programs to the poor (food stamps, Medicaid) and employer-provided fringe benefits for workers (mainly health insurance and vacations). These blunt inequality and raise recipients’ living standards, as Cornell University economist Richard Burkhauser and others have argued.

The good news is this: Despite the top 1 percent’s outsize incomes, this hasn’t yet shut down the upward march of living standards for most of the population. We’ve mistaken what is plausibly a one-time setback — the response to the Great Recession — for long-term stagnation. People have understandably but wrongly taken their recent experience and projected it onto the past.

Still, greater inequality threatens future living standards. That’s the bad news. The middle-class spirit is central to the American tradition. By Pew’s definitions, middle-income households still dominate. This is a unifying force in an era of growing fragmentation. But if present trends continue, it will weaken. Class warfare, already rising, will intensify.

What can be done?

We need a prudent agenda — not a vendetta against the rich or the poor but a purging of policies that abet inequality with few offsetting benefits. Tax breaks that favor the rich, starting with the infamous “carried interest” subsidy, should be abolished. Limits on unskilled immigrants, who inflate the ranks of the poor, should be enacted as part of comprehensive immigration legislation. Half of Hispanic immigrants have low incomes, Pew says.

The hollowing of the middle class is simply not in America’s best interest. The biggest boost to middle-class fortunes could be a tight job market that raises wages without triggering an inflationary wage-price spiral. Whether this ideal outcome can be achieved in the real world may be one of 2016’s big stories. We’ll see.

All rights reserved to The Washington Post and Robert J. Samuelson

Moderation in the GOP, a Dying Strategy

When the 8th most conservative man in Congress is not conservative enough to be the speaker of the house for the GOP you know the party has drifted too far to the right. Fellow progressives, do not be so quick to celebrate John Boehner’s resignation. Things are not about to get better, they can only get worse from here on out. What we are witnessing is the result of years of a rightward drift that has culminated in the capitulation of the Republican party’’s reins to it’s most extreme elements. John Boehner’s resignation announcement may have partly averted a government shutdown over planned parenthood funding but at what cost?

While Boehner was a less than effective speaker of the house (from a progressive perspective) and while very little consequential legislation was passed under his watch, we have little reason to believe his resignation will herald the coming of an age of compromise and dynamic governance. In fact, we have every reason to believe the opposite will occur. Boehner’s loudest critics following his resignation announcement are conservatives, not progressives. Consider the reaction of conservatives at the Values Voter Summit where Senator Marco Rubio announced Boehner’s resignation. That is the sound of jubilee, not mourning. Progressive legislators in the house and senate are less than enthused over Boehner’s pending resignation, as they should be. Who could possibly follow in Boehner’s footsteps? Certainly not someone more willing to compromise. It was the perception among conservatives that Boehner was too willing to compromise with President Obama that led to his downfall.

John Boehner may have not been the speaker conservatives wanted but he was most certainly the speaker they needed. Boehner managed to keep a party that believes shutting down the government is a legitimate form of governance in line. We have a party with an extreme wing holding it hostage (the tea party) that believes a shutdown that cost the United States economy an estimated 24 billion dollars is a legitimate strategic model. What will follow Boehner’s resignation is more of the same; more threatened shutdowns, more do-nothing legislation, and more wasteful hearings over manufactured controversies. This extreme element has a painfully unrealistic worldview, if they do not get their way – if legislation is not of the most extremely conservative variety – they will jettison it. This unwillingness to compromise is not conducive to good governance. Even John Boehner acknowledged and respected this aspect of our Republic when he stated, “Our founders gave us a system of government, a majority in the House, you need 60 votes in the Senate. If the House and Senate can agree, the president gets to decide. And our founders didn’t want some parliamentary system where, if you won the majority, you got to do whatever you wanted. They wanted this long, slow process. And so change comes slowly, and obviously too slowly for some.”

This fundamental understanding of our government’s design, that change comes in increments and cannot be forced through by shutting down the government or being unreasonable, seems completely lost on the GOP. They have allowed the purely ideologically driven tea party to takeover and dictate what is good for their party and the nation. If Trump is the spirit of the tea party made real, John Boehner’s resignation is the harbinger of the GOP establishment’s abdication of power to the tea party. We cannot expect anything good to come from John Boehner’s resignation. Whoever follows him will be more than willing to shutdown the government, less than willing to compromise, and the personification of the most extreme elements of the tea party.

A National Black Lives Matter Platform and the Lessons from Occupy

From the carcass of the great recession emerged Occupy Wall Street, a movement predominantly dominated by college aged progressives. Driven by a burning desire to highlight the growing wealth inequality in the United States, the plight faced by recent college grads burdened by thousands of dollars of debt and the rapidly deteriorating new deal consensus, they protested from city to city. From the heartland of America to her coasts, the occupy movement spread like wildfire. These individuals had frustration, idealism and a progressive ideological streak in common. What they lacked and what they needed most was direction, and it would be that lack of concrete and achievable goals that ultimately led to their downfall. While there still remains some vestiges of Occupy in American politics and while some candidates echo their rhetoric, the spirit of the movement was lost in the process of their directionless downward spiral. The lesson of occupy is that without concrete and achievable goals, a movement cannot make the necessary transition from changing hearts and minds to changing policy.

That was the lesson Hillary Clinton echoed as she discussed the methodology of the Black Lives Matter movement with its representatives. The movement found itself at a crossroads, do we focus exclusively on changing hearts and minds or do we push a national platform that can be co-opted by progressive elected officials to change policy. While protesting, rallying, and civil disobedience are legitimate methods to have one’s voice heard, repeating mantras at rallies and events is not enough to bring about change. More needs to be done. Furthermore, white elected officials cannot be expected to know the best policies to implement to end police brutality, disproportionate mass incarceration or the general over policing of communities of color. Secretary Clinton said it herself, that her push for three strikes legislation was intended to help communities of color and that she did not expect it to negatively impact communities of color. Secretary Clinton could not be reasonably expected, as a non person of color, to know how to best resolve the plights facing communities of color. A non person of color cannot reasonably be expected to know how to best resolve the problems facing communities of color around the nation. We can implement policy that we think may work but there is no better group to identify the problems of a community than the members of the community most knowledgeable of that community’s issues. If white allies are permitted to play a role in this movement that goes beyond the hashtags and mantras, we must be given a platform that we can follow, co-opt, and implement nationwide. It is unrealistic to expect change without policy proposals or some buy-in by non people of color. Thankfully, after the Black Lives Matter confrontation with Secretary Clinton, the movement released a national platform that recommends a concrete and achievable set of policy goals.

Among the policy recommendations made by the black lives matter movement is ending broken windows policing. Oftentimes, in the course of policing, officers will stop an individual for a minor violation (like a traffic violation) or non-crime and rapidly escalate until the suspect has been unlawfully arrested or killed. That was the case with Sandra Bland in Texas. She was pulled over for getting over without signaling and within a span of ten minutes the officer escalated what should have been a warning or citation into an arrest. Sandra Bland was subsequently found dead in her jail cell. That was the case with Michael Brown in Ferguson (jaywalking), Walter Scott in South Carolina (non-functioning brake light), and Tamir Rice in Ohio (being a black child with a toy gun), just to name a few. Putting a stop to broken windows policing is just one of many recommendations made by the Black Lives Matter movement, they also recommend the implementation of community oversight through the erection of a Community and Civilian Complaints Department, limiting police use of force by training officers to use the international deadly force standard,  implementing body cam legislation that would prevent officers from reviewing the footage of an incident before completing initial reports, statements, or interviews about the incident and putting a stop to for-profit policing by limiting the total municipal revenue that can be derived from fines and fees to 10 percent. The Black Lives Matter movement also recommends state and municipal officials demilitarize the police by putting a stop to the acquisition of military grade equipment using federal grants, the use of military grade equipment currently in the possession of local law enforcement and the deployment of SWAT in non-emergency, life-threatening, or high risk situations. While every policy proposed by the Black Lives Matter Movement may not be feasible, those of us on the local level, whether it’s folks like me in the General assembly or folks in county and city governments or local activists, can and should examine the proposals made by the Black Lives Matter movement and create workable and implementable legislation to stymie the tide of police brutality and over policing of black and brown lives.

What You Should Know About the Hillary Clinton Situation

If you’ve been watching a lot of FOX News or Morning Joe and are an independent or moderate, you might be convinced that Hillary Clinton is mired in corruption and controversy. The reality of the situation is that the so-called scandal is being blown horribly out of proportion. The 24 hour right wing media establishment is hard at work trying to keep Hillary’s emails on the airwaves until the general election, but there are a couple of things you should know before you buy into their narrative.

FBI Screenings are standard protocol when something is subject to a freedom of information act request, as is the case here. Those on the right would have you believe that the mere act of a screening by the FBI (pursuant to a freedom of information act request) is enough for a guilty plea. Far from it, anything requested under the freedom of information act goes through an FBI screening. Secretary Clinton’s emails being screened is not the smoking gun those on the right would like you to believe it is. Furthermore, using non government emails is not unusual, Colin Powell used personal emails in his capacity as Secretary of State and he hasn’t been accused of any misdoings. People are seeing what they want to see.

If you lean left and want to see Hillary as weak relative to another Democratic candidate, then this email “scandal” will seem much more serious than it actually is. If you lean right or independent and want to see Hillary as a corrupt bureaucrat, your mind will spin all kinds of fanciful conspiracies into existence based solely on her use of personal emails. If you want to see weakness or corruption, everything looks weak or corrupt. This whole situation is less a case of scandal or the result of investigative journalism than it is a case of individuals merely confirming their own personally held biases against the Clintons by grasping at straws. Y’all, the right started with a conclusion: “Hillary Clinton is corrupt (because we, the right, don’t like her – she, therefore, must be corrupt).” They, the right, then worked their way backwards from that conclusion (from their preconceived notions of the Clintons) and endeavored to find anything that will stick and vindicate their worldview. There’s nothing there. This drama changes no one’s mind. Those on the right aren’t going to support Secretary Clinton and neither are those on the left supporting Bernie Sanders (yet). All this drama does is serve as fuel for their biases, that’s it. Even if we take the new noise about classified information or the comparisons to General Petraeus into consideration, it still isn’t a real scandal.

The emails people are now saying were classified were not actually classified while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. They are classified now but at the time of their passage through her personal email they were not. She did not send information that was classified in her capacity of Secretary of State, not like General Petraeus. The American Right seems to have a convenient case of amnesia. They like to compare Secretary Clinton to Petraeus but they omit the fact that Petraeus deliberately sent classified information to his mistress so she could write a book. At worst, Hillary’s use of a personal email is negligent but it is most certainly not duplicitous. This so-called scandal is just more of the same mudslinging the American right has been using to attack the Clintons for years. Don’t buy into their narrative.