Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Final Exam: Political Science 101, Introduction to Real World Politics
It’s May. I am a political science and law professor and it is final exam time. Here are the questions and suggested answers to the final exam in my class Introduction to Real World Politics. The final consists of three essay questions.
1. Independent and self-described democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has officially declared he is running for president as a Democrat. The media has declared that he cannot win. Are they correct?
Much in the same way after Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul declared they were running for president and the mainstream press declared they could not win either the general election or even secure the party nomination, they are saying the same about Bernie Sanders. The media says that Sanders cannot raise enough money to challenge Hilary Clinton and that she is such a frontrunner and he has positions so liberal that he cannot possibly win and that even the very idea of running seems Quixotic at best. However, the media and the establishment has been wrong in the past. Just seven years ago Clinton too was declared the front runner and had a lock on the Democratic nomination and then something happened–It was called Barack Obama. Both he and John Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa and the former went on to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency...twice.
Clinton has high name recognition and a strong media presence, but she also has huge negatives. She is well-known and will have a hard time redefining her image. She does not have a lot of room to recreate herself. Additionally she has yet to craft a narrative and rational for her campaign. In effect, she is repeating so many of the mistakes she made seven years ago when the arrogance of her campaign assumed she was inevitable.
True Sanders does not have a ton of money but he has a powerful narrative about economic justice and fairness. Sanders also appeals the disenchanted left of the Democratic party which does not like Clinton. He will not vulnerable to the criticism that he is a tool of Wall Street and instead will be able to make that argument against Clinton. Sanders is also good one-on-one talking to people, something really valuable in Iowa and he could pull off an upset there just like Obama did in 2008. Moreover, while Clinton then recovered and won New Hampshire, Sanders may enjoy terrific name recognition in the Granite state because he is from Vermont. Combine an Iowa win and a great New Hampshire showing, along with a good narrative and who knows. Yet again the media could be wrong. Remember, the media was not only wrong with Obama in 2008, it missed it with Bill Clinton in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1976, among many other examples.
2. The 2015 Minnesota Legislative session ends on May 18. Do you think they will reach an agreement on a budget by then?
There is barely two weeks left in the legislative session and it is looking less and less likely that there will be a budget by then. While in January few thought that either not passing the budget by May 18, or by July 1, to avert a government shutdown was likely, what has been most interesting to watch is how the Republicans have hardened their political and policy positions over the last few weeks. Kurt Daudt and the Republicans have learned how to move their agenda in a coherent fashion (they have learned how to be a majority), while the Senate Democrats and Governor Dayton still seem both unable to articulate a compelling narrative to support their agenda and unable to find the political ability to work together to counteract the GOP. The governor’s political interests are different from Senate DFLers in that he is not running for reelection while they are and potentially are vulnerable in 2016. Thus, their political interests are moving in different directions, thereby preventing them from uniting to oppose the House Republicans.
Many contend that the Republicans are operating in a fantasy world. They want to make $2 billion in tax cuts (give back all of the surplus) and also spend more on rural and greater Minnesota. That explains why their recent higher education budget hammered the UMN Twin Cities. One cannot give away $2 billion and also spend more on greater Minnesota at the same time if one is talking about using the surplus. That is why the GOP us also proposing other cuts to human services.
But remember that the Republicans are not the only ones living in a different dimension. The governor and the Senate Democrats too believe that we have a surplus. The reality again is that there is no real surplus and that between inflation and money that should be placed into contingency, that $2 is already spent.
Perhaps partisan ideology and contrasting constituencies account for many of the reasons regarding why Minnesota this year is perhaps hurling toward another budget impasse. Yet given all the recent problems with government shutdowns, special sessions, and botched unallotments, the bigger problem is that the budget process is broken. There are many changes that could be made to improve budgeting. One example of a good reform would be to adopt an idea from Wisconsin. In that state, if there is no budget adopted by the due date the current ones continues in effect. This automatic continuing resolution if adopted in Minnesota would prevent government shutdowns and would be a good first step in reforming the budget process. Another good reform would be eliminating the dumb idea that inflation is not calculated for the purposes of determining state budget obligations, even though inflation is considered for the purposes of determining revenue.
3. Will the screening out of bad racist police officers solve the shooting problems such as what we just saw in Baltimore? What are these killings occurring?
Police shootings such as in Ferguson and now most recently in Baltimore are not just the product of a good cop/bad cop dichotomy. By that, the assumption is that only bad cops shot unarmed civilians or racial minorities. Find a way to screen them out and the problem is solved. Alas, this is a simplistic solution.
Yes there is individual racism that might motivate some of these shootings, but the problem is far larger than that. The racism found here is rooted in something larger–the social injustices of American society. It is about the huge income and wealth gap between Black and White in America. It is about the educational achievement gap, and it is also about the gap in the demographics of the American population and who is actually elected to office. The core problem here really is a political economic one. African-Americans and Latinos, for example, have largely been excluded from the political structure in the United States and one can argue that the excessive use of political force against them is really the most direct symbol or sign of how the government and society use its power to oppress them.
But even beyond the institutional racism that may be at play here, one needs to consider other factors that may influence why so many people–and not just people of color–are shot. Unlike in England where there are no police shootings of civilians, this country has a lot of guns in private and personal possession. England does not. America is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world. We are the fantasy world of the NRA where they seem to think if everyone is armed like in the good old wild west of yesterdays then everyone will be able to protect oneself or others. Guns deter them seem to believe. They have forgotten though that the old days of the west were violent, and that is what happens when you have guns–people use them, or at least there is a fear that they will be used. I can appreciate the fear of police who approach people whom they do not know whether they are armed or not.
But yet another issue here is the nature of policing. Policing is not about roughing up people–it is about interpersonal skills, communications, and problem solving. Policing now requires skills more closely approximating negotiator and not a solder. Yet too often police are badly or ill-trained. Minnesota has some of the most stringent educational and training requirements for police in the country. Elsewhere across the USA a simple high school degree lets any Barney Fife put on a badge and carry a gun. The skill of policing is in learning how not to use force, yet that has been forgotten by politicians whose message and arming of police over the last 50 years has been one emphasizing a war mentality.
What all this means is that the political economic exclusion of people of color from the political process, along with a society with too many guns and often bad police training may better explain than individual racism why so many shootings occur.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Orthodox Republicanism after Eric Cantor
David Brat’s defeat of Eric Cantor should comfort neither establishment Republicans nor Democrats. His victory portends threats to both parties. For Republicans, it suggests a continued ideological divide, for Democrats, a vital threat in 2014 to the electoral prospects.
Until Brat’s victory, many declared dead the Tea Party insurgency within the Republican Party. But the Tea Party is more than simply a group of people or a fringe organization. It is an attitude and ideology. The Tea Party movement, with language describing some GOP members as RINOS (Republican in Name Only), questions the ideology and political views of party, raising the question: What is orthodox Republicanism today?
The contemporary battle for the Republican orthodoxy begins in 1964 when Barry Goldwater challenged the Rockefeller wing for dominance. Goldwater’s “Extremism in defense of liberty” speech was a repudiation of New Deal accommodation that Eisenhower, Jacob Javits, and the Nelson Rockefeller wing had reached. Goldwater may have lost the election but he propelled the GOP in a direction that first triumphed with Reagan’s victory in 1980 and his inaugural speech declaration that government is the problem, not the solution.
The Reagan coalition blended together often contradictory movements of economic liberty and social conservativism. The former requires a minimalist state protecting individual choice, the later an activist one second-guessing freedom. While ideological, it was still willing to compromise within its party and with Democrats, producing notable and important legislation such as the 1986 tax reform and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. From 1980 to 2008 the Reagan brand defined the party. But beginning with the presidency of George Bush in 2001, and clearly by its end the Reagan brand had worn thin and when McCain ran and lost in 2008 it was clear that Reaganism was dead. Obama’s victory, along with Democratic gains in 06-08, signaled that change, whatever it meant, was preferred to Reaganism.
But the seeds of Reagan’s demise in McCain’s 2008 loss produced the heir of a new Republicanism in Sarah Palin. Palinism seeks to balance the social conservatism and economic liberty of Reaganism, but it takes seriously the Goldwater extremism speech in its hyperactive purism and refusal to compromise.. Palinism takes aim at the New Deal, combining it with nativism and constitutionalism that came to a head in the formation of the Tea Party and its mantra “I want my country back.”
Palin is toast, but her spirit lives on. The Palin makeover of the GOP combines Goldwaterism and Reaganism with a cult of personality a multi-media advertising campaign, and a dose of Ayn Rand libertarianism. But Palinism is also built on what historian Richard Hofstadter labeled the paranoid style in American politics. It is a anti-intellectual world view nurtured in fear–a fear that outside forces are threatening a way of life that includes faith in Christianity, capitalism, and the Constitutionalism. This paranoid style, incubated in the Puritan theology of the seventeenth century as described by Perry Miller in his classic 1956 Errand into the Wilderness, was premised upon a theory of uncertainty of salvation, fear of evil, and the omnipresent threat of outsiders who were not part of the church and community. For Hofstadter and Miller, the paranoid style of fear and prejudice produced notable events such as the Salem Witch Hunts and McCarthyism.
Puritanism and the paranoid ethos both contain an orthodoxy and powerful internal contradictions. Both believe in the righteous and absolute certainty of their truths and in a demonification of challengers. Both eschew reason for fear, and both necessitate a strong state to suppress evil and preserve God and American values, even at the expense of freedom for some. Facts are not important–they stand in the way of truth. Liberals and MSNBC commentators fail to understand the Tea Party world view. It is a new orthodoxy that goes right to the heart of politics, asking and questioning the most basic question, “Why government?”
This new orthodoxy draws its roots from this Puritanism and paranoid style . But it is driven less so from the pulpit than by Fox news, conservative talk radio, and blogs in search of profits and ratings. Tea Partyism is less a coherent ideology or world view than it has yielded a paranoid attitude mixed in with a branding effort to make money. It is a brand built on populist anger, anti-government feelings, opposition to immigration, gays, abortion, Democrats, and anything else that inspires fear, so long as it sells.
The new orthodoxy has two wings–The libertarianism of Rand Paul committed to some type of libertarianism, and the Ted Cruz populist politics. While both revolve around less government and less taxes, they differ on civil liberties and the role of the US in the world. Whatever their anti-governmentism is, their views and that of many Tea Party members are hypocritical. Yes less government and taxes, but still I deserve my Social Security check and Medicare because I deserve it, others do not. There is also a hypocrisy in that the areas of the country that most strongly espouse anti-government views are the ones with the greatest poverty, uninsured, lower per capita incomes, and the greatest percentage of money coming to their states from the federal government. Less government for thee, not me.
So what orthodox Republicanism now? Tea Party GOP rebranding is a multi-media cult of personality that draws upon the anger and fear of many that their way of life is threatened and that someone else is to blame for it. If only government, gays, immigrants, abortionists, Democrats, and RINOS did not exist, we could take back our country and prosper again. This is what orthodox Republicanism is, the marketing of a politics of fear.
For all of the contradictions within the new Republican orthodoxy, Democrats should not take comfort. Yes such a new orthodoxy threats to split the Republican Party, sending them further to the right, putting them out of sync with the median voter, and thereby making it more difficult for them to win elections. But this might only matter with national presidential elections. As Democrats saw in 2010, turnout is lower in non-presidential elections years, benefitting Republicans. What the Tea Party brings to the Republicans is passion–passion is essential to electoral success. Passionate candidates and voter win. Democrats have little passion going for them in local races in non-presidential election years. Moreover, today as it was back in 2010, Democrats lack a narrative to counteract the Tea Party. Four years the Democrats ether lacked a narrative, or simply said the Tea Party was nuts, or they simply expected them to self-implode. They are taking the same road again this year, perhaps with equally disastrous results.
The new Republican orthodoxy is the child of Obama–has taken up the banner of “change” and it is using their narrative, also with fear, to advance an agenda that challenges the mainstream of both the Republican and Democratic parties
Until Brat’s victory, many declared dead the Tea Party insurgency within the Republican Party. But the Tea Party is more than simply a group of people or a fringe organization. It is an attitude and ideology. The Tea Party movement, with language describing some GOP members as RINOS (Republican in Name Only), questions the ideology and political views of party, raising the question: What is orthodox Republicanism today?
The contemporary battle for the Republican orthodoxy begins in 1964 when Barry Goldwater challenged the Rockefeller wing for dominance. Goldwater’s “Extremism in defense of liberty” speech was a repudiation of New Deal accommodation that Eisenhower, Jacob Javits, and the Nelson Rockefeller wing had reached. Goldwater may have lost the election but he propelled the GOP in a direction that first triumphed with Reagan’s victory in 1980 and his inaugural speech declaration that government is the problem, not the solution.
The Reagan coalition blended together often contradictory movements of economic liberty and social conservativism. The former requires a minimalist state protecting individual choice, the later an activist one second-guessing freedom. While ideological, it was still willing to compromise within its party and with Democrats, producing notable and important legislation such as the 1986 tax reform and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. From 1980 to 2008 the Reagan brand defined the party. But beginning with the presidency of George Bush in 2001, and clearly by its end the Reagan brand had worn thin and when McCain ran and lost in 2008 it was clear that Reaganism was dead. Obama’s victory, along with Democratic gains in 06-08, signaled that change, whatever it meant, was preferred to Reaganism.
But the seeds of Reagan’s demise in McCain’s 2008 loss produced the heir of a new Republicanism in Sarah Palin. Palinism seeks to balance the social conservatism and economic liberty of Reaganism, but it takes seriously the Goldwater extremism speech in its hyperactive purism and refusal to compromise.. Palinism takes aim at the New Deal, combining it with nativism and constitutionalism that came to a head in the formation of the Tea Party and its mantra “I want my country back.”
Palin is toast, but her spirit lives on. The Palin makeover of the GOP combines Goldwaterism and Reaganism with a cult of personality a multi-media advertising campaign, and a dose of Ayn Rand libertarianism. But Palinism is also built on what historian Richard Hofstadter labeled the paranoid style in American politics. It is a anti-intellectual world view nurtured in fear–a fear that outside forces are threatening a way of life that includes faith in Christianity, capitalism, and the Constitutionalism. This paranoid style, incubated in the Puritan theology of the seventeenth century as described by Perry Miller in his classic 1956 Errand into the Wilderness, was premised upon a theory of uncertainty of salvation, fear of evil, and the omnipresent threat of outsiders who were not part of the church and community. For Hofstadter and Miller, the paranoid style of fear and prejudice produced notable events such as the Salem Witch Hunts and McCarthyism.
Puritanism and the paranoid ethos both contain an orthodoxy and powerful internal contradictions. Both believe in the righteous and absolute certainty of their truths and in a demonification of challengers. Both eschew reason for fear, and both necessitate a strong state to suppress evil and preserve God and American values, even at the expense of freedom for some. Facts are not important–they stand in the way of truth. Liberals and MSNBC commentators fail to understand the Tea Party world view. It is a new orthodoxy that goes right to the heart of politics, asking and questioning the most basic question, “Why government?”
This new orthodoxy draws its roots from this Puritanism and paranoid style . But it is driven less so from the pulpit than by Fox news, conservative talk radio, and blogs in search of profits and ratings. Tea Partyism is less a coherent ideology or world view than it has yielded a paranoid attitude mixed in with a branding effort to make money. It is a brand built on populist anger, anti-government feelings, opposition to immigration, gays, abortion, Democrats, and anything else that inspires fear, so long as it sells.
The new orthodoxy has two wings–The libertarianism of Rand Paul committed to some type of libertarianism, and the Ted Cruz populist politics. While both revolve around less government and less taxes, they differ on civil liberties and the role of the US in the world. Whatever their anti-governmentism is, their views and that of many Tea Party members are hypocritical. Yes less government and taxes, but still I deserve my Social Security check and Medicare because I deserve it, others do not. There is also a hypocrisy in that the areas of the country that most strongly espouse anti-government views are the ones with the greatest poverty, uninsured, lower per capita incomes, and the greatest percentage of money coming to their states from the federal government. Less government for thee, not me.
So what orthodox Republicanism now? Tea Party GOP rebranding is a multi-media cult of personality that draws upon the anger and fear of many that their way of life is threatened and that someone else is to blame for it. If only government, gays, immigrants, abortionists, Democrats, and RINOS did not exist, we could take back our country and prosper again. This is what orthodox Republicanism is, the marketing of a politics of fear.
For all of the contradictions within the new Republican orthodoxy, Democrats should not take comfort. Yes such a new orthodoxy threats to split the Republican Party, sending them further to the right, putting them out of sync with the median voter, and thereby making it more difficult for them to win elections. But this might only matter with national presidential elections. As Democrats saw in 2010, turnout is lower in non-presidential elections years, benefitting Republicans. What the Tea Party brings to the Republicans is passion–passion is essential to electoral success. Passionate candidates and voter win. Democrats have little passion going for them in local races in non-presidential election years. Moreover, today as it was back in 2010, Democrats lack a narrative to counteract the Tea Party. Four years the Democrats ether lacked a narrative, or simply said the Tea Party was nuts, or they simply expected them to self-implode. They are taking the same road again this year, perhaps with equally disastrous results.
The new Republican orthodoxy is the child of Obama–has taken up the banner of “change” and it is using their narrative, also with fear, to advance an agenda that challenges the mainstream of both the Republican and Democratic parties
Sunday, March 23, 2014
What does it mean to be a progressive Democrat today?
What does it mean to be a Democrat let alone a progressive one these days? The question was prompted by my recent op-ed in Minnpost where in response to an argument against the State of Minnesota granting the NFL tax exemptions to host the Super Bowl, one reader wrote that he supported public funding for the stadium along with the tax breaks, and that he was a Democrat and a “fairly far to the left one too.”
Since when does a progressive Democrat support tax subsidies and breaks for billionaires and hugely profitable private companies that generate few jobs for working people and provide entertainment (in person) that only a few can afford? I thought that was what the Republican Party did? With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans.
But the debate over tax breaks for the Vikings stadium and the NFL does prompt a broader debate about what it means to be a Democrat or a progressive these days? It is certainly not good old-fashioned economic liberalism. This is not Bill Clinton liberalism that supported NAFTA and welfare reform and which Mitt Romney once warmly embraced as the kind of Democratic Party politics he liked.
Instead, the progressive politics that appears dead is that of Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Teddy Roosevelt. It is about a 21st century version of the Great Society and the New Deal. It is about redistributive politics that seek to raise those at the economic bottom, narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and wrestle control of political power in the United States from corporations and plutocrats. It is about the spirit of John Rawls, Michael Harrington, and Dorothy Day and a commitment to believing that the government has an important role in make sure we are a nation that is not one-third ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed, that kids should not go off to school hungry, and that corporations should not have the same rights as people. It is the idea that we help out the least advantaged and most vulnerable first and that the rich have an obligation to help the poor.
What has taken over for Democrat Party politics is warmed over Republicanism–the centrist sort of corporate politics that some GOP once represented but now have abandoned as it races further and further to the right, embracing xenophobia, homophobia, and a market fundamentalism that Social Darwinists would embrace. Oh, and vaccines cause mental retardation and global warming does not exist, at least this is what many current Republicans believe. Even the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln supported civil rights, but not this party–instead it is committed to fine vision that a nineteenth century politician would weep over. But now consider the Democrats.
Start at the top. Obama ran promising change. The reason why so many are disappointed in him is not that he was too far left but that instead he failed to deliver on his lofty promises. At inauguration Obama had a window to change America but he flinched. Carpe diem was not his motto. But in reality, Obama was never a progressive. He ran for president opposing a single payer health insurance plan and instead embraced the Republican plan that Mitt Romney adopted in Massachusetts. Obama was not originally in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and he did not embrace same-sex marriage until public opinion and political necessity dictated he do so.
Obama has deported more individuals than any other president, he supports coal and nuclear power, and his big victory in repealing the Bush era tax cuts came with a reinstating of the payroll tax, imposing on Americans a more regressive and costly tax system than before. Obama also defends the use of drones to kill Americans abroad, and he refuses to make any serious changes in an NSA surveillance program that runs roughshod on the civil liberties of Americans. And in 2008 he took more money in from Wall Street than any presidential candidate in history.
Across the board many Democrats seem confused to their identity. They support public subsidies for downtown ball park stadiums and convention centers ahead of neighborhoods. They defend NSA spying on Americans except when they are spied on. They take little action to address the impact of money in politics and instead beg for money from big donors and PACs. They offer few real substantive ideas regarding how to tackle issues such as the achievement gap and the economic discrimination against women (who still make only 77% of what men make).
Worst of all Democrats lack the guts to fight. Why? Democrats (and one should not confuse the current party with progressivism) believe that they are the caretakers for government. They believe that they need to be responsible and not run the risk of shutting the government down for fear of how it would ruin the economy or hurt people. But conservatives know this and take advantage of the Democrats willingness to blink. But guess what? By blinking the Democrats are screwing over poor people and the economy slowly by giving ground one inch at a time and they seem unable to recapture it. Until Democrats are willing to fight and show conservatives they are willing to shut the government down and hold conservatives responsible they will never win.
What passes for progressive Democratic Party politics seems so bland. Same-sex marriage? Supporting it a decade ago was progressive but now that is mainstream. Opposing NSA spying on Americans? Even Rand Paul does that. No one should be against strengthening anti-bully legislation. This is not progressive politics but just common sense. Yes, raising the minimum wage to an adequate level is good progressive politics, but few talk of living wages these days.
Progressive politics is dead so long as it is married to the current Democrat Party. Progressives need their own TEA Party revolution on the left–one that engineers a new rhetoric and take over of the party. One that is not willing to play it safe and worry that if a few Democrats lose that means the Republicans win. It means a willingness to fight for what you believe in. It also means believing in something worth fighting for.
Since when does a progressive Democrat support tax subsidies and breaks for billionaires and hugely profitable private companies that generate few jobs for working people and provide entertainment (in person) that only a few can afford? I thought that was what the Republican Party did? With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans.
But the debate over tax breaks for the Vikings stadium and the NFL does prompt a broader debate about what it means to be a Democrat or a progressive these days? It is certainly not good old-fashioned economic liberalism. This is not Bill Clinton liberalism that supported NAFTA and welfare reform and which Mitt Romney once warmly embraced as the kind of Democratic Party politics he liked.
Instead, the progressive politics that appears dead is that of Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Teddy Roosevelt. It is about a 21st century version of the Great Society and the New Deal. It is about redistributive politics that seek to raise those at the economic bottom, narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and wrestle control of political power in the United States from corporations and plutocrats. It is about the spirit of John Rawls, Michael Harrington, and Dorothy Day and a commitment to believing that the government has an important role in make sure we are a nation that is not one-third ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed, that kids should not go off to school hungry, and that corporations should not have the same rights as people. It is the idea that we help out the least advantaged and most vulnerable first and that the rich have an obligation to help the poor.
What has taken over for Democrat Party politics is warmed over Republicanism–the centrist sort of corporate politics that some GOP once represented but now have abandoned as it races further and further to the right, embracing xenophobia, homophobia, and a market fundamentalism that Social Darwinists would embrace. Oh, and vaccines cause mental retardation and global warming does not exist, at least this is what many current Republicans believe. Even the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln supported civil rights, but not this party–instead it is committed to fine vision that a nineteenth century politician would weep over. But now consider the Democrats.
Start at the top. Obama ran promising change. The reason why so many are disappointed in him is not that he was too far left but that instead he failed to deliver on his lofty promises. At inauguration Obama had a window to change America but he flinched. Carpe diem was not his motto. But in reality, Obama was never a progressive. He ran for president opposing a single payer health insurance plan and instead embraced the Republican plan that Mitt Romney adopted in Massachusetts. Obama was not originally in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and he did not embrace same-sex marriage until public opinion and political necessity dictated he do so.
Obama has deported more individuals than any other president, he supports coal and nuclear power, and his big victory in repealing the Bush era tax cuts came with a reinstating of the payroll tax, imposing on Americans a more regressive and costly tax system than before. Obama also defends the use of drones to kill Americans abroad, and he refuses to make any serious changes in an NSA surveillance program that runs roughshod on the civil liberties of Americans. And in 2008 he took more money in from Wall Street than any presidential candidate in history.
Across the board many Democrats seem confused to their identity. They support public subsidies for downtown ball park stadiums and convention centers ahead of neighborhoods. They defend NSA spying on Americans except when they are spied on. They take little action to address the impact of money in politics and instead beg for money from big donors and PACs. They offer few real substantive ideas regarding how to tackle issues such as the achievement gap and the economic discrimination against women (who still make only 77% of what men make).
Worst of all Democrats lack the guts to fight. Why? Democrats (and one should not confuse the current party with progressivism) believe that they are the caretakers for government. They believe that they need to be responsible and not run the risk of shutting the government down for fear of how it would ruin the economy or hurt people. But conservatives know this and take advantage of the Democrats willingness to blink. But guess what? By blinking the Democrats are screwing over poor people and the economy slowly by giving ground one inch at a time and they seem unable to recapture it. Until Democrats are willing to fight and show conservatives they are willing to shut the government down and hold conservatives responsible they will never win.
What passes for progressive Democratic Party politics seems so bland. Same-sex marriage? Supporting it a decade ago was progressive but now that is mainstream. Opposing NSA spying on Americans? Even Rand Paul does that. No one should be against strengthening anti-bully legislation. This is not progressive politics but just common sense. Yes, raising the minimum wage to an adequate level is good progressive politics, but few talk of living wages these days.
Progressive politics is dead so long as it is married to the current Democrat Party. Progressives need their own TEA Party revolution on the left–one that engineers a new rhetoric and take over of the party. One that is not willing to play it safe and worry that if a few Democrats lose that means the Republicans win. It means a willingness to fight for what you believe in. It also means believing in something worth fighting for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)