Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

Political Rants

To the rescue.

Leave a comment

Congress approved the 1.9 trillion-dollar COVID rescue package this week, and while the final version didn’t include everything I would liked to have seen in the bill, there’s some decent stuff in there. What’s more, it is generally on a scale that approaches that of the problems we face. This is a departure, and one would hope a trend, away from the post-Reagan neoliberal consensus and towards a broader notion of what government may be called upon to accomplish on behalf of ordinary people. We have often heard pundits spin a false dichotomy between “big government liberalism” and “small government conservatism” – the fact is, conservatives and the right more generally are all in favor of big government, so long as it serves the interests of the powerful. The fact that the rescue package turns this on its head is an indication of how far we’ve come in recent years, despite all the resistance.

We’re overdue for that sort of turn, frankly. We’ve been living in the Reagan economic universe for forty years – essentially my entire adult life – with labor under siege, bloated military budgets, corporate-friendly multilateral investor rights agreements (popularly known as “free trade agreements”), and imperial swagger on the world stage. Obviously one bill is not going to change all of that, but it’s a step in the right direction, and a relatively bold one at that, compared to what we’re used to. Sure, the COBRA subsidies are kind of stupid and a massively inefficient way to extend health insurance to unemployed people. Sure, the checks should have been $2000 because that’s what everyone – including Trump – was calling for just after the election. Sure, they should have kept the $15 minimum wage because it was a solid provision that would have pegged the rate to inflation instead of giving employers a gradually increasing discount on the cost of labor. But what’s there is mostly good.

Biden and others have said that provisions in this bill will cut child poverty in half. I think that’s great, but it’s kind of like dividing the baby. If we can cut it in half, how about spending more and eliminating it entirely? So much of what’s in the legislation addresses inequality in a substantive way, but the solutions are almost all temporary ones. It’s incumbent on progressives to push the administration and Congress to build these initiatives out into more permanent benefits. We will see what kind of an effect this bill will have on families and individuals. If it’s dramatic enough, that could create the kind of popular momentum needed to push a broader agenda forward. We know what some of that will look like – the minimum wage, labor reforms, etc. We need a wealth tax, not so much to generate revenue (it will do that) but to reduce inequality and lessen the power and influence of the ultra wealthy. I’m talking about an upper limit on assets – something well south of a billion dollars. That’s the kind of tax system we need.

This could have come out much worse, and I think a lot of credit is due progressives like Bernie Sanders and some of the great people in the House. Their fingerprints are all over the more progressive pieces of this, and that’s cause for celebration.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

Joe. mentum.

Leave a comment

Bernie’s out. I guess it’s no surprise. There really wasn’t a reasonable electoral path forward to the Democratic nomination after the crushing defeats on Super Tuesday and in subsequent contests in Michigan, etc. While there are still many voters yet to be heard from, the mainstream Democratic party has coalesced around their preferred standard-bearer, the somewhat limp-minded former vice president, whose halting commentaries from a foot or two in front of an IKEA backdrop are barely making a ripple, even in MSNBC land. 

I almost never hear from Biden until his watery opinions are being criticized by left commentators. What the hell kind of communication shop are they running there? Is this a presidential campaign or a race for dog catcher? Just this past Tuesday, as Wisconsin voters were queuing up to vote in the midst of a pandemic, thanks to their state Republican party, the most Biden could manage to say about this disaster was that the science should decide whether or not it went forward. Really? Best you can do, Joe? What the fuck. Are you sure you want to be president?

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

It just never ceases to amaze me how dedicated the Democratic party can be to its own self-immolation. We had more than twenty people to choose from on that debate stage, and we went with the guy whose turn it was … the guy who the party felt was due a spot on the top of the ticket, just as Hillary was in 2016, regardless of his skills as a candidate, his mental acuity, his political baggage, etc. This outcome sets us up for a serious fight in November, and it’s not clear to me how we can possibly prevail, given the degree to which Trump and the Republicans are dedicated to gaming this election nine ways from Tuesday. Trump is already setting the predicate for claims of voter fraud, spouting BS about voting by mail. This, combined with the COVID-19 scare, will make it all the easier for the GOP to claim either victory or fraud, and who knows what consequences will proceed from that.

In any case, I want to acknowledge Bernie Sanders’ remarkable contribution to American politics over the past ten years in particular. Since he made that long speech on the Senate floor in the wake of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Bernie has brought progressive politics to the fore in a way that simply has no parallel in the modern history of this country. Across a broad range of issues he has staked out a distinctly leftist position in such a way as to pull the Democratic party in our direction and away from the neoliberal consensus that has ruled it for several decades. For that we owe him a debt of gratitude.

Regardless of who the Democratic presidential nominee is likely to be, Bernie has done a lot of the hard work of structural change since 2011. It is up to us to finish what he started.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Berned.

Leave a comment

It was a rainy Tuesday, and the revolution didn’t show up … again. Turns out revolutions are hard, even the electoral ones. As I said last week, these primaries are about proof of concept: if there’s a massive constituency for change, as Bernie Sanders has suggested, it should be mobilized enough to carry him into the presidency and to drive his agenda forward in the years that follow. There was no evidence of such a movement this week, and I don’t intend to denigrate the thousands of hard-working people who have powered Bernie’s campaign from the beginning – they have done remarkable work. But they are merely the vanguard – we need to hear from the masses. It is they who have the real power, and thus far they are not showing up.

Building a future, not just a campaign.

As someone who has been on the left all of my life, I am no stranger to political losses. Leftists tend not to be easily discouraged, and it’s a good thing. Make no mistake about the Sanders campaign – we are attempting to elevate to the presidency someone who has never taken part in the Nixon/Reagan conservative framing that has dominated our politics for decades. That is unprecedented in the modern era. It’s a heavy lift, and we should have no illusions about that. But as Bernie himself pointed out on Wednesday, his campaign represents majority positions within the Democratic party. It also reflects the priorities of a large majority of our young people – and by “young”, I mean 45 and younger. There is no question that that is where the party is going, not to some chewy center represented by people like Biden.

The fatal question for us as a society, though, is can we afford to wait another decade or more to see this new progressive majority emerge? I would say that the climate crisis has already answered that question. But I want to emphasize that the most important component of our response is in the organizing and the mobilization. Yes, Bernie Sanders is the only remaining candidate who, if elected president, would need little or no convincing to take on the enormous task of turning this fossil-fuel driven society around. But if we don’t achieve that maximal objective (and we should most definitely try to do so), we will still need the organizational institutions to push policy forward on whomever ends up in power next January. Short of Bernie, it would be better to have Biden than Trump; but either way we have to have mobilization. The Sanders campaign is like a progress indicator on the movement – the degree to which it succeeds is some rough indication of how well we’re doing on the ground. Yes, we’ve made progress over the past few years, but we have a long, long way to go.

My recommendation is simply this: don’t lose heart. We can still win this nomination. But even if we don’t, the effort is not wasted so long as we build on the foundation of this campaign.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Proof of concept.

Leave a comment

I won’t pretend I’m not disappointed by the “Super Tuesday” results. All night, the thing that kept ringing in my ears was the memory of Tom Brokaw back in 1984 saying, “Looks like another good night for Walter Mondale,” and just how nauseating that moment felt. Tuesday was a similarly nauseating experience, except that, if anything, I have less confidence in Biden as a candidate than I did in Mondale. I should say here that I am no stranger to political disappointment; very, very rarely does my first choice candidate rise to the top. That’s partly a function of my being to the left of the Democratic party, but it’s also due to the fact that I do not have a deep connection to the party as an institution.

Like most institutions, the Democratic party favors some people over others for leadership positions within the party. That dynamic pushes forward senior, well-connected, establishment politicians – people like Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, etc. – regardless of their relative talents, ability to connect with voters, etc. With regard to the presidential race, more often than not, they prevail, and when they prevail, more often than not, they lose in the general. Obama was an insurgent who became the establishment – he didn’t start at the top. Hillary was favored to win in 2016 because it was her turn; she lost on her own merits, or lack of same. Biden is being advance for the same reason – it’s his turn. It’s far from obvious that he’s the strongest candidate to go up against Trump, but that, it seems, is an afterthought for party leaders.

Sure looks like a lot of people.

All that said, Bernie should have performed better Tuesday night. Which proves the obvious: grassroots organizing is hard, tremendously hard. No one even pretends that Biden has a grassroots activist organization – nothing of the sort. Bernie does, but they missed the mark on Tuesday, for the most part. A candidate like Bernie can only prevail if he has a mass movement behind him. What he’s proposing from a policy standpoint is reliant on the existence of such a movement. Bernie is quite frank about that. Without the movement, there’s no Sanders presidency and no Sanders agenda. So these primaries amount to proof of concept at some level. If he can’t build the support now, it wouldn’t be there for him later. His agenda cannot succeed on the basis of a narrow win against Trump. We need a progressive wave, and thus far, it hasn’t materialized.

My hope is that the movement does rise in time to put Bernie over the top. But if it doesn’t, make no mistake – we will still need the movement for what’s ahead of us. Our survival as a species depends on it.

luv u,

jp

New podcast drops

I’ve launched a new political commentary podcast called Strange Sound. It’s free, it’s brief, and it’s available now at anchor.fm/strangesound.

Political Rants

The last war.

Leave a comment

On various occasions over the past week or two I’ve felt like I was tele-transported back into the mid-twentieth century. It started with MSNBC host Chris Mathews during a broadcast in New Hampshire spouting some crazy-ass rant about revolutionaries from Castro’s Cuba executing him in Central Park as American leftists – including Bernie Sanders – looked on approvingly. He later went full retrograde pundit, comparing Sanders’ victory in Nevada to the Nazis overrunning French defenses at the start of World War II. Then, this past week, Bernie Sanders’s comments about literacy programs in Cuba somehow became a central issue in the Democratic primary campaign, hoisted high by the “liberal” cable outlet MSNBC as evidence of Bernie’s unelectability and nefarious socialistic tendencies. The crew on Morning Joe jokingly addressed one another as “comrade”, jumping up and down on Sanders for being a Castro apologists, then – practically in the same breath – remembered the late dictator Hosni Mubarak as a source of stability in a troubled region. Can’t. make. it. up.

Sees commies everywhere. Still.

Now mind you, it isn’t like the MSNBC crew (and others) needed to resort to fighting the last war to properly bash Bernie. Their hair was on fire in the wake of Nevada particularly, and they are using what influence they have to trip him up in South Carolina, where their peculiar favorite Biden is favored to win. But resort they did, and in so doing, they (with some notable exceptions) revealed just how steeped in right-wing historical narratives their correspondents remain. I expect nothing better from Scarborough, a former right-wing congressman from Florida, but frankly one would hope that more than a handful of these journalists might acknowledge the neo-colonial relationship we’ve had with Caribbean and Central American nations over the past Century.

Comparing Cuba with the United States is a meaningless exercise. The former is a small, poor, underdeveloped country; the latter, a global superpower and the richest nation on Earth. A more apt comparison would be between Cuba and Guatemala or El Salvador, as these examples are also poor and underdeveloped, but remained in the U.S. sphere of influence, unlike Cuba post 1959. Compare literacy rates, the availability of health care, and other social goods, and trust me, Cuba is head and shoulders above the other two for the vast majority of their respective populations, despite Cuba having endured a crushing U.S. embargo (in addition to all-out terror) since its revolution sixty years ago. It’s also worth remembering that Cuba stood firmly on the side of Angola and the ANC throughout the 1970s and 1980s, when we were actively supporting apartheid South Africa. That’s why Raul Castro was honored so lavishly at Nelson Mandela’s funeral – they, more than any other nation, brought about the end of apartheid, and it cost them dearly.

I think Majority Report’s Michael Brooks had it right on Wednesday when he said that, given Cuba’s status as a cash-starved country under sustained attack for six decades, we could be excused for not obsessing over its authoritarian tendencies when we’re perpetually giving a nearly free pass to powerful, massively abusive authoritarian countries like China (as Bloomberg and CBS debate moderators did this past Tuesday).

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Winning and losing.

Leave a comment

I’ll start this post with some overly simplistic observations about human nature – here goes. My first thought is that, in general, modern-day Americans are encouraged to think that the sky’s the limit, but that that sky is about three inches over their heads. It’s a freakish hybrid of the power of positive thinking and terminal pessimism. This comes to mind as I consider what we as Americans are capable of vs. what we’re likely to even try to accomplish over the next few years. We have done enormous things before, no question. While the problems facing us are of an almost unprecedented scale, they are ultimately solvable if we have the political will to act. And yet, because we have been admonished for decades to “think small” when it comes to what we can ask of our government, it feels like we’re frozen in place, like a deer in the headlights. That, it seems to me, is problem number one.

Bernie and the also-rans.

My second observation is about Democrats – more specifically, people inclined to vote for Democrats. They (or I should say, we) are shell-shocked and obsessed with the project finding a presidential candidate that can win against Trump. We listen to talking heads and prognosticators who tell us the relative merits and risks associated with this candidate, that candidate, etc. But the risk of any Democratic presidential candidate, it seems clear, is that Democratic voters won’t show up for them in November. So this ends up being a kind of Dorothy/ruby slipper problem. We waste all of this time and effort on scarecrows, tin men, and cowardly lions, bowing to bogus wizards in hope of salvation when in fact we have had the power to save ourselves from the very beginning. Just pick the goddamn candidate you agree with, then whoever gets the nomination, fucking vote for that person in the general. If we all do that, we will prevail.

With the Nevada caucuses now underway, we need to focus on policy, not competitive politics. Let’s not obsess over which Democrat the never-Trumpers prefer as our nominee. And even more importantly, let’s not be swayed by the notion that we can’t get hard things done. We are faced with a series of hard problems – not in the sense that the solutions are obscure or unknowable, but rather that they require a heavy political lift that we as a nation are wholly unused to. That doesn’t mean we can’t do it. We lifted ourselves out of the Great Depression. We created Social Security and kept it running, despite the many attacks, for all these years. We achieved formal political rights for black people, women, even if those efforts remain works in progress. In short, we need a real sense of possibility if we’re going to accomplish any of these vital task before us.

I think Reverend William Barber said it best when he observed that Martin King wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if, say, at Selma he just said, “Oh, well …. we can’t win.” We can win, if we are willing to work toward it. In fact, that’s the only way.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

First in the nation.

Leave a comment

What more can be said about the New Hampshire primary? Just this: Bernie won. I’m sure someone has said it, somewhere. It was a bit more than annoying that we had to sit through excruciatingly long third-place and second-place trophy acceptance speeches before hearing from the man himself, but it was worth waiting for. Like any other supporter of the Vermont senator, I would have liked to have seen a more decisive victory, but in a crowded field in a year when most voters are scared, exhausted, and looking for an answer, 26% is okay. That said, we have to do better.

I do mean we. The candidate can only do so much. His surrogates, excellent as they are, can only fight so hard. These primaries and caucuses are instructive in the sense that they demonstrate in stark terms what it would take to achieve the ambitious agenda that Sanders is putting forward. If we want Medicare for all, we’re going to have to do a lot better than we did in Iowa and New Hampshire. Policies like M4A, the Green New Deal, wealth tax, and so on will not come close to passage without massive mobilization. Let’s not kid ourselves: at best, these programs will take years to implement under the best of circumstances. But they won’t even get off the ground without an unprecedented groundswell of popular will, much as Bernie has described in virtually every stump speech. I think he understands what’s needed … but do the rest of us?

Say it loud: Bernie won.

The signs aren’t all bad. There appears to have been strong turnout in New Hampshire. Given how flaccid the 2016 primary participation rate was, it’s good to see things back up around 2008 level. The real test, though, of our strength as a governing coalition is in the level of support for Bernie and other progressive candidates. There’s no way that Sanders is going to get big things done if he just squeaks by in November without any fundamental changes in the complement of Congress. That’s why I would encourage my middle-of-the-road friends not to feel any reluctance about voting for Sanders or Warren. If you’re worried about M4A and the rest, there will be a million ways to put roadblocks in front of anything like that. I know that sounds pessimistic, but understand – I believe change is possible, but possible isn’t easy. Likely policy is going to be shaped by whoever ends up a part of the electorate. The more we vote, show up, etc., the stronger the case for good policy.

I could go on, but probably shouldn’t. Suffice to say that we will get the president we ask for, good or bad. It’s up to us. Latest polls have Bernie ahead in Nevada, ahead in Texas, ahead nationally. Let’s build on this, folks … it’s our last, best chance.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Bad start.

Leave a comment

My god, what a depressing week. Our first-in-the-nation presidential electoral contest ended in a train wreck, when the brainchild of Democratic Party operatives managed to turn the already chaotic Iowa Caucuses into a failed experiment in participatory democracy via digital technology. While it’s not clear exactly what went wrong with regard to the Shadow app, what is clear is the fact that the party officials and app developers did not adequately test their reporting system before the day of the caucuses. I’ve heard stories of technical problems, user errors, poor training, inadequate support, poorly staffed phone banks (which was, essentially, the traditional means by which results were reported in previous election years), etc. What I HAVEN’T heard is someone saying, “it was my damn fault.”

Trump's an asshole.

What was worse was that, days later, we still didn’t have the full results. When I looked Wednesday afternoon, only 75% of the results were in. That night it got up to 92%, the next morning, 97%. What the fuck is the matter with these people? And because of the screwed up precinct weighting algorithm they are using for whatever reason, even though Bernie Sanders over a thousand more votes in the final round, for two days Mayor Pete was still being described as the winner. Through Wednesday night and Thursday morning, Sanders gradually closed the gap in what they term “State Delegate Equivalents”, but if he doesn’t overtake Buttigieg, we all know what that means: More votes loses, fewer votes wins. What does that sound like? Is this the way all elections function in America now?

Of course, the timing was horrendous, as Trump’s great dictator-like State of the Union speech was Tuesday night, during which he staged a dramatic family reunion for an American soldier, decorated Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and spun insane tales of prosperity in the face of a continuing recovery that if anything has lost steam over the past three years. There’s a lot to criticize about this speech and about the reaction of Democratic senators and representatives to Trump’s triumphalism about Iran, Venezuela, and other points of bipartisan imperial consensus. The biggest problem with it, though, is that in the wake of a major Democratic party failure, the president gets a prime-time opportunity to brag about accomplishments both imagined and hideously real. Iowa revives the “gang that can’t shoot straight” trope about Democrats (see the ACA rollout), while the SOTU raises the faint specter of Reagan standing tall against the “doom and gloom” crowd.

Oh, and then there was the impeachment acquittal vote. No big surprise, but again …. timing. Only one thing to do – pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and start fighting again.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Week that was (5.0).

Leave a comment

It has been another one of those weeks, packed to the gills with news, mostly bad. Of course, this is not a bug but merely a feature of the times we live in, so I will make my usual lame effort at grappling with a small subset of what has been assailing us over the past few days in the final full week of the third year of Our Lord Trump, king of the chimps.

Debate #7. Not at all sure I see the point of these corporate exercises in superficial political sparring. The CNN questioners were clearly excited to dig in to their “breaking news” story about what Bernie said to Elizabeth a couple of years ago in a private conversation. The moderator who queried Sanders on this when straight to Warren with a question that assumed he was lying in his response. I am disappointed in Warren, frankly, for perpetuating this line of attack. It plays on the odious claim the Sanders and his followers were misogynistic in their race against Clinton in 2016 – something Clinton alumni cling to as one of the rationales for their loss. This is toxic, and I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to suggest that it could ultimately blow the election. WTF, people … time to put the movement above your personal fortunes. Knock. it. off.

When a billionaire has to intervene, you know there's a problem.

Impeachment. A historic week in terms of the delivery of articles of impeachment to the Senate for only the third time in American history, with respect to presidents, at least. It seems like a forgone conclusion that Trump will walk away from this, but not unscathed – impeachment without removal is a kind of accountability. If there is history after this presidency, this action will be indelibly recorded next to his grisly name. As for the trial, well … I expect a relative circus as compared to the already ridiculous Clinton impeachment. The G.O.P. has decayed considerably over the past 20 years, such that there’s some question as to whether all of them will keep their pants on for the entire proceeding. We shall see.

War lies. Bernie had it right Tuesday night: our two biggest foreign policy disasters in recent decades were spawned by lies – Vietnam and Iraq. Though with Vietnam, I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened, with the U.S.S. Maddox and Turner Joy. (There were a lot of lies that preceded that with regard to Indochina.) Of course Trump is lying about Iran … that’s the same as saying he’s speaking about Iran. We are in a similar boat with Iran as we were with Iraq back in 2001-03; elements within the the administration want to have a war for whatever reason, perhaps ideological, perhaps mercantile, likely some mixture of both. It appears that the general population is more against the idea than it was in the case of Iraq 2003, and that that opposition is broad-based enough to make Trump somewhat cautious. Ironic that this heightened tension is taking place in the immediate wake of the release of the Afghan papers, the DOD internal history of the Iraq conflict, and the big Intercept / NY Times scoop on the activities of Iran’s intelligence services in Iraq. (Of course, these were all one or two-day stories at best.)

Natural Disasters. Heartbreaking climate-fueled fires in Australia, earthquakes in Puerto Rico, volcanic eruptions in the Philippines. Jesus H. Christ, what next?

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Sharing the wealth.

Leave a comment

I should start this post with the standard disclaimer that I am not an economist. Inasmuch as this is a nominally free country, at present, I am going to opine on one of the central issues in the Democratic primary debate – the idea of instituting a wealth tax. Advocated in some form by both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, taxing wealth is not a new idea by any means. Chris Hayes’s recent conversation with Gabriel Zucman gives a really good overview of the question, so if you want to hear someone knowledgeable discuss the merits of instituting a wealth tax in the United States, by all means give that a listen. For now, here’s my once-over-lightly. right in time for the holiday season.

First, while this idea is remarkably popular, there is a lot of howling on the part of articulate opinion over it. If I were to guess, I would say that the reason may be simply that virtually everyone you see on television has some magnitude of wealth in the form of stocks, property, etc. in excess of what Warren or Sanders would deem taxable in their proposals. The reasons they typically give, though, are the standard capitalist tropes about stifling innovation, misdirecting funds to inefficient government programs, etc., etc. There is honestly no credible evidence to substantiate this claim, but even if some version of it were true, the revenue generated by such a tax would be more than worth the cost of inspiring some caution on the part of the billionaire class. Also, I think it’s important to fully understand what being a billionaire means. Having billions of dollars is not merely being wealthy; billions are about power, and I don’t mean purchasing power. I think there’s a strong argument to be made for putting a cap on wealth simply to constrain unaccountable power and influence on the part of billionaires, but that’s another conversation.

Bernie: just tell them they'll pay less property taxes. Piece of cake.

Zucman, a recognized authority on income and wealth inequality, points out that in America we already have a form of wealth tax, and it’s one that most potential readers of this blog (or any other blog, for that matter) are directly affected by: property taxes. For decades, home ownership has represented far and away the principal form of wealth held by ordinary (i.e. non-rich) people in the United States. I suspect it’s no accident that homes are taxed in a remarkably regressive way – specifically, not indexed to income in any way. Also, as Zucman points out, the property taxes we pay (either directly or indirectly as renters) are at the same level regardless of whether the owner holds a mortgage or not. So you may have less than 40% equity in your home, shell out half of your income on your mortgage, but still pay taxes on the full assessed value of that property. (I don’t know about other states, but here in New York, you can roll your taxes into your mortgage payment for added convenience. How thoughtful!)

A true wealth tax, on the other hand, would consider all forms of wealth, not just this narrow category that disproportionately impacts workers. It would be progressive – the less you own or earn, the less you pay – and a hell of a lot more fair than our current property tax system. So don’t buy the hype, people. As with our health care system, we are already doing it … we’re just doing it wrong.

luv u,

jp