What does it mean to be a Democratic Socialist? (And Why Bernie Sanders may not be one)

So what is democratic socialism?  Both the Washington Post and NY Times recently tried to answer that question. In the first Democratic presidential debate candidate Bernie Sanders described in part what it means for him to be a democratic socialist:

And what democratic socialism is about  is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost 90 percent - almost - own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.  That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.

That when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing health care to all people as a right, except the United States.  You see every other major country saying to moms that, when you have a baby, we're not gonna separate you from your newborn baby, because we are going to have - we are gonna have medical and family paid leave, like every other country on Earth.

For Sanders, economic justice and leveling the opportunity and income gap between the rich and poor is what part of what it means to be a democratic socialist.  Yet historically the term has meant  more that economic justice, it also included democratic control of the economy.

Democratic socialism emerges as a political movement in response to Karl Marx’s criticism of capitalism in the mid nineteenth century.  To simplify, Marx had argued that the core problem of capitalism was  a class exploitation and struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat where the latter sells labor power which is extracted as surplus value by the former.  The bourgeoisie own the means of production and over time in their race to maintain profits they increasingly replace human labor power with machines, they drive down wages placing more and more individuals into poverty.  This process creates an economic crisis, intensifying class struggle, and eventually creating conditions for a capitalist struggle.  As the theory was eventually amended by Engels, it suggested an economic inevitability for the revolution.  With Lenin, the communist party would serve as a vanguard movement to lead the revolution.  As further amended by Stalin, this party in practice was highly undemocratic.

Starting in the late nineteenth century individuals such as Eduard Bernstein in Evolutionary Socialism argued that the revolutionary tactics and economic inevitability of the revolution were not  practical or certain.  He and others agreed with much of the basic criticism of Marx but instead tied the future of a classless society to parliamentary democracy.  Specifically, the emphasis was upon linking universal franchise to socialist ideals with the hope that socialism could be brought about by elections.  For Bernstein, socialism was an ethical imperative, it was about treating everyone with respect, and it was grounded in the French Revolution ideas of promoting “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.”  It was taking the ideals of political liberalism and translating them into economic democracy.  In effect, workers would have democratic control not just of the government but of the economy.

There was serious debate over whether parliamentary socialism was possible, with writers such as Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky, and Leon Trotsky reaching various conclusions.  But the core argument about what constituted democratic socialism centered on democratic control of the marketplace–it was democratic control of capitalism.  It was about ensuring that workers and not capitalists made decisions about what to invest, not letting the choice simply remain in the boardrooms of corporate executives.

The dividing line between democratic socialism and what we might call enlightened capitalism or liberalism is significant.  John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy argued that social injustices could be addressed by simple redistribution of economic resources–the classic welfare state.  Here the government would tax the rich and redistribute economic resources, or use its power to improve the economy.  Eventually this would be the Keynesian economics of the New Deal and Great Society.  It is state capitalism for the benefit for middle class and poor, but it is still capitalism.  Yes, the government can act and manipulate the economy for the benefit of the people, but it can also do that for the benefit of the rich.  This is what the US government has essentially done for the last couple of generations, and this is the criticism that Sanders is leveling. 

In so many ways, Sanders is a left liberal following Mill and Keynes–we can use state capitalism to augment  economic redistributions–but he is not a democratic socialist in the classic meaning where the emphasis is upon democratizing both the political and economic systems.  It is about subordinating market choices and the free market to serving democratic imperatives.

Michael Harrington was perhaps America’s finest theoretician of democratic socialism.  He was one of the founders of the Democratic Socialists of America.  His book The Other America in the early  1960s is one of the clearest criticims of American capitalism and it inspired many.  But in his Socialism Past & Future he crisply defines democratic socialism as:

[D]emocraticization of decision making in the everyday economy, of micro as well as micro choices.  It looks primarily but not exclusively to the decentralized, face-to-face participation of the direct produces and their choices in determining the matters that shape their social lives.  It is not a formula  of a specific legal mode of ownership, but a principle of empowering people at the base...This project can inspire a series of structural reforms that introduce new modes of social ownership into a mixed economy.

Democratic socialism is not the central state planning of the economy where the government owns  all the businesses.  It is as Alec Nove describes in the Economics of Feasible Socialism a variety of business types, but all are connected by the idea that there is democratic control over basic economic choices.  What China has with its state-owned enterprises is not socialism, it is state capitalism, and mostly to the benefit of a few.  Few Chinese have much say over the economic choices being made in that country, one where there is a sharper and sharper class divide.

Democratic socialism for Harrington, and Dorothy Day, as well as Norman Thomas, Eugene Debs, and Emma Goldman, is also as Bernstein argued, infused with ethical imperatives about respecting human dignity and the banner of individual rights as articulated by classical writers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Democratic socialism would assail  the power of the rich and of corporations in America, contending that is not enough just to tax them and redistribute wealth.  Instead, it is about saying they do not get to make the political and economic choices that govern the rest of society.  It is saying that the people get to own the economy and decide for themselves.  Capitalism does not dictate how democracy operates, it is vice-versa.

This is what democratic socialism has historically meant. Hillary Clinton is not a democratic socialist.  Nor is Obama.  Both are state capitalists. Sanders may or may not be one or he may be redefining what the term means.  But orthodox democratic socialism is something different than what Sanders described in the first Democratic Party debate.

A Tale of Two Parties: The Challenges Facing the Republican and Democratic Parties in 2016

            In contrasting ways both the national Republican and Democratic parties are divided and dysfunctional, facing terrific challenges as they enter the 2016 elections.  Their respective troubles speak to many issues, but among them is both a generational shift occurring in the US and the failure of the establishment in the parties to keep pace with these changes.  Political scientists like to speak of critical party realignments.  These are processes where parties redefine themselves, adopting new policies and coalitions to reflect the changing political landscape.  Realignments are necessary for political survival.  Yet in so many ways, what we are seeing with the Republicans and Democrats are realignments that are either going in the wrong direction or which are stalled, thereby contributing to the problems they face as they enter 2016.

The Republicans

            When Abraham Lincoln in 1858 gave his famous “A house divided against itself cannot stand” speech he was referring to a country torn by slavery not a House of Representatives and Republican Party divided against itself.  But that is exactly what we are witnessing now.  First it was the presidential race where the so-called establishment party candidates with governing experience (Jeb Bush for example) are losing to the outsiders (Trump, Carson, and Fiorina) or to the hard right (Cruz).  But now the House of Representatives is a mess: Boehner is out, McCarthy is out, and the Liberty Caucus of the House (aka the Tea Party members) is looking to weaken the Speaker’s position and pull the Republicans even farther to the right and into even a more confrontational mode against Obama, Democrats, and really government and the institution of the House itself.  One thought it was bad enough that the Republican House could not accomplish anything in the last four years, now it cannot even rule itself.  It is a party hugely divided against itself, and against its future.

            The Tea Party has won.  They have achieved a critical realignment of the Republican Party, remaking it in is conservative image.  It took five years but now they have enough clout to at stalemate the party, if not perhaps completely take it over.  Critical realignments of parties are good–they are ways to realign the base and policy preferences of the party so that it will be able to survive and reflect the changing and evolving political landscape.  Yet the critical alignment of the Republican party is retrogressive–it is a party taking it backwards in time. 

            The new Republican Party is one that seems to represent not a new emerging demographic of America–one that is more multicultural and racially diverse–but one that is a throwback to the aging base of its that will literally die off in the next few years.  Phrase otherwise, the future belongs to the Millennials but the Republicans are still locked into the politics of the Silent generation.  They are adopting views on immigration, abortion, GLBT rights, and taxes that are clearly at odds with those views held by the Millennials.  Moreover, they are hardly a populist party.  Their views on GLBT rights, guns, and money in politics are in clear opposition to where public opinion in America is headed, and also to where majorities of their own members are in some cases.  Throw in their views on taxes and it is clear that the new GOP is a plutocratic one, increasingly anachronistic and at odds where history is headed. Contrary to the claims of some that the Republicans are the party of no, they actually do have an agenda.  It may not be one that they can govern on, but they do seem to have an emerging an clear narrative, even if that narrative is one that is a throwback in time and to a set of views that is so many ways take them back to a world before the New Deal.

The Democrats

            The best thing the Democrats have going for them is the Republicans.  Yet the Democrats too are a divided party–just look at Clinton versus Sanders.  Clinton is still leading in the national polls and have a ton of party regulars and leaders supporting her, but polls show little enthusiasm for her among many of her supporters. She is the safe candidate, although one that the polls again suggest may not be able to win over critical swing voters in swing states.

            Sanders speaks to a base of the Democratic Party fed up with its institutionalism and elitism.  Obama  disappointed, he helped the banks and Wall Street and never did much for workers, unions, and middle class America.  He now seems paralyzed in waning presidency.  Sanders offers something Obama, Clinton, and the Democrats have not had since 2008–a narrative for why they should govern.  “Change” was great in 2008 but since then what has been the narrative for the Democrats?  What is the message they offer for why they should stay in power and govern?  Simply saying the Republicans are nuts is not enough.  The lack of narrative cost Democrats power in 2010 and 2014 and it was only a weak Mitt Romney that saved them in 2012.  Clinton has no narrative in 2016, Sanders does. He has pulled near even with Clinton in fundraising, still leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, and draws enthusiastic large crowds.  Clinton for now has huge advantages further down the line, even if Biden enters the race. Clinton should be able to wipe out a Socialist running as a Democrat, yet her failure to do so speaks to her weaknesses and to the dangers facing a Democratic Party establishment that has too quickly endorsed a candidate who too may not be where the future of the party is.  Clinton, like Bush, is yesterday, not the future.

            Moreover, Democrats are counting too much on “demographics are destiny” in 2016.  The demographics are against Republicans and favor Democrats, but one still needs a reason to get people to vote, and they includes offering a good candidate with views that will motivate and mobilize.  Remember 2014 where we threw an election and no one voted?   Clinton lacks the buzz, Sanders may have that.  The Democratic party divide mirrors the Republican Party–establishment v outsiders, aging Boomers v Millennials.   The problem the Democrats face right now is that while demographics are destiny, the leadership is fighting this destiny both by embracing policies and candidates who might now reflect this destiny, and by a failure to construct a narrative to take advantage of that destiny.

              It is the best and worst of times for the Republicans and Democrats.  Both have the potential to change but they approach and they direction they are taking may not where history suggests they  should move.  What also may be occurring is that the divides between and within these parties reflects more powerful divides within the US across race, class, gender, region, and religion.  Lincoln may have been right in that a house divided against itself cannot stand.  The divisions that we see politically reflect broader divides found in America society, yet neither the Democrats nor Republicans seem capable at addressing  these divides.

Boehner and Dayton: A Tale of Two Politicians and Parties

In addition to the Pope’s visit, two end-of-week stories made headlines.  One was the resignation of Speaker Boehner, the other the miserable roll out of the medical marijuana program in Minnesota.  Both stories deserve comment because they illuminate broader problems for the Republicans at the national level and the DFL in Minnesota.

“The Crazies Have Taken Over The Party.”
Speaker Boehner’s resignation really should have shocked no one.  His entire tenure as speaker has been tense.  Made speaker when the Tea Party arose and which  lead to the Republicans capturing majority control of the US House during the 2010 elections, Boehner has always been pulled in several directions.  One is being leader of the House of Representatives, seeking to broker deals with the Senate and President Obama.  This is the pragmatic and institutional aspect of his role as speaker.  But many in the GOP (as was true with Nancy Pelosi when she led the Democrats and the House as Speaker) view the speaker as both their party and ideological leader, expecting that person to push their agenda.
While all speakers face this pull as institutional, party, and ideological leaders, some are better able than others to bridge the three.  Boehner did his best, but seldom pleased his most conservative members.  On several occasions he negotiated deals to keep the government open or avert a debt crisis, but he also failed on occasion too.  For the ideological purists in his party, he too failed.  He failed on abortion, failed to cut taxes enough, failed to challenge Obama and the Democrats enough.  There were constant rumors and signs of ideological battles and tests of his leadership, but finally it became too much.  Boehner said that he was stepping down to protect the House and not let the constant leadership battles threaten the institution.
The issue that finally seemed to do it is the one now linking the defunding of Planned Parenthood to funding to keep the government open.  The purists are willing to shut the government down to defund PP and expected Boehner to be both their ideological and party leader to help them here.  But Boehner as part leader knew that past government shutdowns have hurt the Republicans in the past and would probably again do so this year, risking electoral problems in 2016.  Finally, as an institutionalist he knew shutting the government down was not good.  Thus, his tri-lemma–represent the ideologists who have taken control of the party, protect the GOP from self-destruction in the house, and protect the House and the government as an institution.
In the end, the ideologies have won.  They have won not simply in knocking off Boehner (a person they did not ever really trust), but they have taken control of the institution and of the party.  Peter King, Republican from NY, describes what just happened as “the crazies have taken over the party.”   Mainstream media says this move makes it less likely that there will be a government shutdown soon.  Maybe.  Or maybe a weakened Boehner or future speaker will be able to control the ideologies even less, perhaps increasing the chances of a shutdown or more confrontations as we getting closer to the 2016 elections.  Stay tuned.
But there is also something else the mainstream media is missing.  One has to view the resignation of Boehner in conjunction with the Republican presidential polls showing that the three outsides–Trump, Carson, and Fiorina–are leading over the institutionalists or more mainstream GOP.  Consider also polls showing a Republican base entrenched on issues over hostility to immigration  reform, proposals to address climate change, abortion, taxes, and just about everything else, and it  is easy to see why Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are leading.  It is looking to be the year that the Tea Party revolution started in 2009 has finally won.  The Republican party has been made over–if not by Tea Party followers, definitely by the ideologists.    The Party is being pulled ideologically further and further to the right at the congressional and presidential level, representing a demographics and ideology perhaps far from the ideological center of American politics.  Whether this means in the short or long term their demise is a matter of debate.  How Democrats respond will be interesting to see.

Dayton’s Dilemma
The roll out of medical marijuana is effectively a disaster on all fronts.  Yes the legislation was terrible and misconceived from the start.  Instead of just legalizing marijuana or allowing for a deregulated medical use, Minnesota chose to over-regulate its medical use.  Few people would be allowed to use to, but only in an expensive processed form that would not be covered by insurance.  Doctors would be expected to write prescriptions for its use even though they had no financial incentive to do so and risked their medical license to do so because marijuana is still illegal federally and doctors could potentially be sued or prosecuted for suggesting its use.  There was a costly process to select vendors to sell medical marijuana and they would have start up and operating costs  that far exceeded our friendly neighborhood dope dealer.  Bad policy design leads to bad implementation and that is what we are finding out now.
In the last week stories have emerged that the rollout of the medical marijuana is going poorly.  The prices are too high, too few people qualify, stories to buy the product are few, and the vendors are losing money.  There is talk now of qualifying more people for medical marijuana, perhaps giving the program financial solvency.  This will ultimately fail.  The basic policy design  is flawed and tinkering around the edges probably will not fix it.  In too many ways the policy was  captured by too many special interests who all wanted a piece of the pie, and by flawed assumptions about who wanted medical marijuana and why.
On one level one cannot fully blame the Dayton administration for the faulty policy design.  Dayton originally did not want medical marijuana.  But there is a troubling pattern here.   Consider perhaps the three most significant initiatives of the Dayton administration–the Vikings Stadium, MNSure, and now medical marijuana.  All three have had major policy design failures and all three have had terrible roll outs.  With the Vikings stadium MN has one of the worst stadium deals in the country.  MNSure’s rollout was so bad even Dayton was willing to put on the table this last session killing the Minnesota health care exchange and opting into the federal one.  Now medical marijuana and the concession it needs a major fix.  This is not a good implementation history for Dayton and the Democrats, and it is a certainty that such a pattern will be an issue in the 2016 state legislative elections.

The next battle for LGBT rights in Minnesota

Note:  This blog also appeared in Politics in Minnesota on September 21, 2015.

Kim Davis’s Kentucky grandstanding is not the last word when it comes to same-sex marriage.

While the issue of whether same-sex couples can marry is constitutionally over, looming on the horizon, including in Minnesota, are other battles regarding discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals including questions about employment, public accommodation, and housing discrimination. What will be fascinating to watch is how the Minnesota Human Rights Act could be deployed in this next stage of the fight over the legal protections for same-sex couples.

First, consider what the U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges. The court held that state laws that banned same-sex marriage either by refusing to perform them or recognize their validity when performed in another state violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause.
Writing for the court, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy indicated that marriage is a fundamental right that had long been held to be protected for opposite-sex couples. In his opinion he gave several reasons for why this right should also apply to same-sex couples, or at least not be denied to them. While the opinion suggested some basis in the Equal Protection Clause, the core was a due process argument because it was arbitrary and capricious to recognize opposite-sex but not same-sex marriages. At no point did the court declare that members of the LGBT community or opposite sex couples were “suspect” classes in the way that people of color were, or that laws targeting these individuals deserved some form of heightened legal scrutiny.

Although the Obergefell decision is a victory for same-sex marriage, it fell far short of being a decision that was a comprehensive civil rights victory. By not grounding the decision firmly in the Equal Protection Clause, it left open issues about discrimination and possible religious defenses.
Specifically, could a person invoke religious objections in refusing to employ someone who is a member of the LGBT community or is in a same-sex marriage or relationship? Could a business establishment refuse to serve such individuals? Could a landlord refuse to rent to such individuals? None of this was answered by Obergefell.

The Kim Davis matter was easy – she was a public official sworn to uphold the Constitution and her duty was to perform marriages. Refusal to do this was illegal and the federal judge and Kentucky were more than accommodating to her. But rooting out state discrimination is different from private discrimination, and this is the next battle.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act along with the Fair Housing Act of 1968 addressed many of these issues across the nation. The former makes it illegal for private parties to refuse to hire, promote, or serve individuals based on their race, color, religion, and sex, among other reasons. The Fair Housing Act bans the discrimination against the same group of people when it comes to leasing of apartments and mortgage financing, but it also extends the protection to family status. Not included in either act is discrimination against same-sex couples and members of the LGBT community.

Despite Obergefell, left open is the question of whether private Minnesota businesses or private landlords could refuse to hire, serve or lease or sell apartments, condos, or homes to same-sex couples, whether married or not. Enter the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The act (Minnesota Statutes 363A.02) makes it illegal in employment, housing and real property, public accommodations, public services, and education to discriminate because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, and age.

The MHRA declares as public policy that the state should be free from discrimination because “it threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state and menaces the institutions and foundations of democracy.” This act is potentially a powerful piece of legislation yet its legacy has been underwhelming at best, and its usefulness against sexual orientation discrimination effectively null. For reasons that remain perplexing it was not invoked to challenge any LGBT discrimination in Minnesota, or at least there are no cases of notable record when it comes to its use.

In addition, the Minnesota courts have not done a very good job using the act to combat marital status discrimination. For example, in State v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 1990), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the act did not protect an unmarried opposite-sex couple when private landlords  refused to rent to them based on their religious views.

While an administrative law judge ruled that the refusal to rent to them was discrimination based on marital status, the court indicated that the MHRA did not intend to protect unmarried couples from housing discrimination on the basis of marital status. Moreover, the court also pointed to the protection of religion (conscience) in the Minnesota Constitution (Article I, Section 16) as well as the anti-fornication law (for unmarried couples), which was still on the books at the time, as the basis for its decision.

In effect, landlords could invoke religious objections and a state law banning sex among unmarried individuals as a defense to why they did not have to rent to an unmarried opposite sex couple, even if the MHRA had intended to bar discrimination based on marital status (which it did not).
French is a strange decision, serving as a potential impediment when it comes to LGBT and same-sex discrimination issues looming. Yes, the state anti-fornication statute is gone, but how does one deal with the state constitutional protection for religious conscience, where the Minnesota Supreme Court has said that this clause gives more protection for religious liberty than the First Amendment, and the French claim that MHRA does not protect unmarried couples? Interesting questions abound.

Assume a landlord on religious grounds refuses to rent to a same-sex married couple. Will the Minnesota Supreme Court use the MHRA to force the landlord to rent to them by arguing it is discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation? Or, will the court side with the landlord by arguing it is religious discrimination or a violation of the Minnesota Constitution?

Similar questions could be asked about employers who refuse to hire or serve individuals in same-sex marriages. Would the court say there is no indication that the Legislature meant to protect same-sex couples when it banned marital status discrimination in the MHRA? All of these are possible arguments and outcomes.

It is only a matter of time before these issues are litigated. They are the next step in the battle to end discrimination against members of the LGBT community. It will be interesting to see how the Minnesota courts handle these questions.

The Second Republican Debate: Truth and Democracy Lost

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the states of facts and evidence.”
—John Adams, 1770

‘Facts are stupid things – stubborn things, should I say.”
—Ronald Reagan

“Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I’m saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can’t run from science”
—John Huntsmann

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
—Mark Twain

By most accounts Carly Fiorina won the second presidential debate while Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee clearly lost.  Others had mixed performances at best.  But the real losers were truth and American democracy.  Across the board the Republican candidates lied, fabricated, or spewed out stereotypes in ways that reinforced the prejudices of the voters.
The distortions were on different levels.  All of them exaggerated their resumes.  Rubio again told the story of his grandfather fleeing Castro–even though he left well before he came to power. Trump describes himself as a self-made billionaire (even though he inherited his start in life from his multi-millionaire father) and denies his four bankruptcies.  Fiorina is in denial about her horrible business record at Lucent and HP, and Scott Walter and Chris Christie simply inflate what they have accomplished as governors of Wisconsin and New Jersey (and no Christie was not named a federal prosecutor on September 10, 2001).   Resume fraud should not be a surprise among politicians, such lying is unfortunately common in the general popular.
Moreover, there are lies or distortions that are not so much based on a contravening of facts as being groundless or highly suspect.  Bush saying his brother kept us safe–safe after the largest terrorist attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor?  And then there was the general tone of the debate–long on assertions but shy in terms of actual documentation about how dangerous the Iran nuclear deal is or what Obama did or did not do as president.
But there are deeper lies.  Lies about public policy, about factual states of affairs in the world which are just not true.  I have written about many of them in American Politics in the Age of Ignorance.  American politics is dominated by political myths and failed public policies: These are ideas or policies of which we have overwhelming evidence of their failure or falsehood but which nonetheless are constantly repeated and fail.  Perhaps the voters can be blamed for their ignorance, but it is deplorable that elected officials and policy makers drool out and constantly return to these myths, pandering to the prejudice and ignorance of, in this case, the Republican voter.
Consider a second level of lies.  Fiorina lied about the Planned Parenthood video.  First, the videos have been proven to be doctored and several state investigations have validated that Planned Parenthood is not selling baby parts.  She also lied about claiming that one fetus had a beating heart as it brain was ready to be harvested.  Rubio lied in his assertion that North Korea had a nuclear missile that it could launch to hit the US.  It could not even hit South Korea on a good day.  Cruz lied in many ways about the Iran nuclear agreement.  There are no sites off limits to inspectors.  Huckabee lied when he said Hilary Clinton is being investigated by the FBI for destroying government files.
But the deepest lies are policy based, those where the evidence and data is overwhelming.  The biggest lie again was the vaccination-autism connection.  The original study asserting this claim has been widely and repeatedly refuted yet Trump trotted it out again.  Even worse, Ben Carson–a medical doctor–failed to clearly challenge Trump on this.  Ditto goes to the other doctor Paul too for failing to challenge Trump.
Then there is immigration.  Trump throws out a statistic that says illegal immigration costs the US $200 billion per year.  There is no verification or support for that figure and it also fails to account for how much more money undocumented aliens put back into the economy.  As I point out in my book and as overwhelming studies show, immigrants have lower crime rates than the general  population and put more into the economy than they take out.    Rubio’s claim about 40% of those here illegally are because of overstaying visas is unproven, and contrary to what all the non-lawyers  said, the Fourteenth Amendment’s granting of citizenship to all who are born here is well-established  constitutional law and the US is not alone in granting birth-right citizenship.  And by the way, there is little evidence that such birthright citizenship is the incentive for those emigrating from Mexico to the US.
While in this debate no one outright denied global warming, when the topic came up non candidate was willing to acknowledge it was occurring, that it was a problem, or that they should do anything to address it, even just in case it was happening.
But one truth was revealed in the exchange between Trump and Bush over the former’s denial that her tried to get a casino in Florida.  Or consider Trump here and in his assertions about being too rich to be bought or previously asserting giving money to Clinton and making her feel obliged to attend his wedding, or listen to Christie’s rants on teacher unions. There is a consensus  that money and special interests rule America.  But instead of proposing to do something about it the Republican field simply accepts it as given.
The truth that emerged from the second debate is that truth and democracy lost.  We saw candidates simply lie about themselves or the state of the world.  We saw them accept as given that the democratic process is broken.  And we saw them repeat their lies to an American public on yet another media event that was less news than entertainment.  Real leadership is about telling the truth, not pandering to ignorance and prejudice.  It is looking reality in the eye and leading based on what the world is like and not on what we hope it would be.  On this score the 11 candidates in the main  GOP debate failed on Wednesday.

Counted in or Counted Out Before the Counting Begins: The Curious Case of Hilary Clinton and 2016 Presidential Race

Remember–Not one primary vote has been cast nor one caucus delegate stood up to show support for a candidate.  No primaries have been held and no caucuses have begun.  Yet despite the fact that the official presidential race has yet to begin, winners and losers are already being declared, often no more than based on polls, pundits, and the game of perception which is at the heart of American presidential politics.  More so than any other candidate, this is the fate of Hilary Clinton.  Yet we should be skeptical of what all this pre-primary noise tell us in terms of assessing the presidential candidates, including Clinton.

 One presidential candidate (Rick Perry) has already dropped out.  Others will no doubt do the same before the real start of the presidential race on February 1, when the Iowa caucuses take place.  Expect this week’s CNN  Republican presidential debate to winnow out the fortunes of a few more candidates.  It could be Pataki, Christie, Graham, Walker, Jindal, or someone else. But one or more of them will have another bad debate performance, their money will dry up, the media will declare them dead, and their campaigns will fade away.  But for others, such as Trump, Fiorina,  and Carson, who have never received a single political vote for them in their entire life, they seem to be riding tall, with poll numbers that almost seem ephemeral. The test for them will be delivery in Iowa and  New Hampshire, the ability to attract donors, volunteers, and voters who will actually turn out for them when they need to be counted.  Can they translate name recognition and personal brands into  a real campaign?  This is really the only thing that should matter.  For now, it is all about perception.  Look to see the Wednesday debate to be pugnacious, no one can afford to let Trump steal the show again.

 Perception in many ways is the fate of Hilary Clinton.  I know of no candidate subject to more speculation and expectations than her.  Some of it is self-inflicted.  Her resume as Senator and Secretary of State are impressive, although her real record of accomplishment is thin.  First in 08 and now in 16 she seems to be building an impressive political machine, raising money, securing endorsements, capturing super-delegates.  She also started months ago with the best name recognition among Democrats, high approvals from her Secretary of State days, and great poll numbers and a lead that towered over her rivals.  This year as in 2008 she has created an air of inevitability and invincibility.

 Yet as with 2008 her political campaign seems to be floundering.  Yes she is still in the lead in terms of endorsements, money, and many polls, but in the last two months much has changed.  Polls show Sanders beating her in New Hampshire, a new poll this week shows Sanders tied with her in Iowa among likely causes attendees.  Her enormous popularity from her Secretary of State days has lapsed and her negatives have gone up.  Head to head polls show a tight race with her and Republicans in the swing states or over all, and some polls show Biden (so far a non-candidate) and Sanders doing better than her in the presidential race.  In so many ways, Clinton looks better as a candidate when she in not one.

 Clinton’s problems are multiple.  She is the target of enormous sexism.  Republicans hate her, and she is the subject of many false claims.  Seriously, does anyone really think she ordered troops to effectively surrender in Benghazi?  Her private e-mail server while Secretary of State smacks of aloofness and privilege, but at the end of the day she was not selling secrets to the enemy.  She is neither a socialist (Sanders is) nor a closest one.  She is a mainstream Democrat, self-proclaimed.

 But Clinton has created her own problems.  She never appreciated the political baggage of the private e-mails.  She thinks that the proper response to criticism that she is not authentic is to send out a press release saying she will be more authentic.  She has build a campaign strong on her personality, but more importantly, one based on expectations.  Specifically, her greatest strength is her perception of her great strength–it is the impression she has created that she is inevitable and unbeatable that is the source of both her power and her ultimate weakness.

 If one runs as inevitable everyone wants to beat you. Everyone looks for dints in the armor, for signs of weaknesses.  This is where Clinton is again in 2016.    She ran as a bully in 2008 and lost and she seems to be doing that again.  People want to beat the bully, to take down the front runner, to beat the person everyone declares will win.

 Yet remember, as well as Sanders is doing and as badly as Clinton seems to be doing now,  no caucuses or primaries have taken place.  Polls are flawed, especially in predicting caucus and primary attendees.  They have margins of error and sampling problems.  Polls are merely snapshots in time that can change rapidly.  They fail to capture ground games or other intangibles that make for good candidates and campaigns.

 The point is that one should never declare a candidate a winner or a loser until the votes are counted.  This is true with Clinton.  She has both many assets and liabilities as a candidate and judging her now as in trouble or fine months before the first votes are cast is risky.  But if politics is often about perceptions, and you are a candidate like Clinton who has played politics your entire career based on it, be ready to be judged by these standards and not simply by actual votes.

Final Note: This week I had a wonderful time speaking to the South Metro Senior Caucus in Apple Valley.  Thank you for hosting me.  It was also great to meet so many wonderful people including Senator Carlson, Angie Craig, and Mary Lawrence.

Political Nooky and the Art of Word: Great Quotes by Politicians or their Partners Caught in Sex Scandals

“We were just exchanging documents.”
—Minnesota Representatives Tim Kelly and Tara Mack 

Minnesota Representatives Kelly and Mack just put themselves into the political nooky hall of fame with one of the greatest quotes denying their  alleged sexual activity.  Otherwise two non-descript pro-life family values type of Republican candidates, married to other individuals, the two were caught with the pants down–literally–by a police officer observing their tryst in the park.  While I still wonder how the police officer knew the two were semi-pantless, whether necking in the park is illegal, or if it should be considered probable cause to search, nonetheless the two deny their affair by explaining their presence at the park as one of simply “exchanging documents.”
No doubt one of the lamest excuses any of us have ever heard.  One would have thought  that seasoned politicians like them could have come up with a smarter retort or excuse.  Having sex in a car should not be  reason to exclude them for future office, offering such a dumb answer should as it questions their intelligence.
However, their quote made me think of other great denials involving political nooky. The sad part is that there are so many pathetic sex scandals in American history that reducing good quotes just down to a handful is a chore.  But here are my favorites.
“She's better than Gypsy Rose Lee.”  This was a quote by Congressman Wilbur Mills, in reference to a stripper Fanne Fox whom he was seeing.  What is great here is that there was no denial; instead simply a wonderful justification for why he chased her and watched her shows during the day.

"I can't type, I can't file, I can't even answer the phone."  Thus said Elizabeth Ray, secretary to

Representative Wayne Hays of Ohio.  The Washington Post reported that Ray had been on the payroll of a committee run by Hays for two years, serving as a secretary.  The reality as Ray admitted was that her real job was providing Congressman Hays sexual favors.

“We made love on the marble steps that overlook the monuments and the city below.” Rita Jenrette uttered this famous line in Playboy when discussing her husband Congressman John Jenrette.  John was under investigation for taking bribes during ABSCAM and upon his denial he wife then asked how he would explain all that money in the freezer.

 "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored.”  This is what Senator Hart declared in response to allegations he was fooling around.  The media took him up on his dare, only to find a great picture of the senator with Donna Rice sitting on his lap by the good ship Monkey Business.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."  President’s Bill Clinton’s famous denial about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Equally famous are assertions that his denial of having sex with Lewinsky hinged on whether oral sex constituted sex.
“I was hiking the Appalachian Trail.”  South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford disappeared for several days, telling his staff and the public he was off taking a hike.  Instead he was visiting whom he described his “Argentine soul mate,” a woman with whom he was having an affair.
"Positioned them, I don't know. I don’t know at the time. I'm a fairly wide guy."  Often misquoted as “I have a wide stance,” this is what Senator Larry Craig said in his defense to charges that he sought to solicit sex in a men’s room at the Minneapolis Airport.
“The answer is I did not send that tweet. My system was hacked, I was pranked. It was a fairly common one. People make fun of my name all the time. When you're named Weiner, you kind of get that. I've asked a firm to take a look at this. They're an internet security operation. We want to make sure that it doesn't happen again.”  Congress Anthony Weiner was not so much caught with his pants down (at least all the way down) but instead of repeatedly sextexting (unwelcome) crotch shots of himself to women, some of whom were constituents.  He blamed his ill-fated name and computer hacking as the cause of these problems.

But denial is not always the case when it comes to political sex scandals.  Sometimes elected officials provide a breath of fresh air and honestly.
Representative Eric Massa:   "not only did I grope [a staffer], I tickled him until he couldn't breathe.”  If you are going to be accused go big or go home.
Then of course once Clinton did admit to an affair with Lewinsky and was asked why he did it, he offered as justification: "the worst possible reason, because I could."
Finally sometimes politicians are understated in their honesty.  When asked about the allegations that he hand an extramarital affair and that he and his middle-aged friends went skinny dipping with his daughter’s teenage female friends, Minnesota gubernatorial candidate  John Grunseth stated: “I always haven’t been a perfect person.  I think I ‘m a pretty decent guy.”

That just about says it all.  Congratulations Tim and Tara, you just entered political nooky immortality.