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.

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.

Bush, Clinton, Trump, and Sanders: The Battle of Conventional v Unconventional Politics

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players
—As You Like It, William Shakespeare

If the world is a stage, presidential campaigns are Broadway.  The 2016 election so far is pure theater, yet not one that is going according to script. Were that the case, the drama of Bush v Clinton, the sequel (sort of), would be the main plot.  Yet four months prior to the Iowa caucuses and 14 months out from the general election, the story is still being written, with Trump and to a lesser extent Sanders and Clinton’s overstated inevitability the stories being told and covered. The story that was supposed to be told was that of Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton.  Both were the establishment party candidates, assumed inevitable and unassailable by now.  In some ways they are still strong candidates by conventional wisdom.  Bush and his SuperPAC have raised the most money, has the best organization and he has secured more endorsements than any other Republican.  Clinton is in the same place as Bush, but she additionally still leads in all national and most state polls among Democrats in her quest for the party nomination.  She also has the experience of running president once, experience that should not be overlooked.  But Both Bush and Clinton have problems, the former more than the latter, and their problems are both self-inflicted and about a changing political landscape they neither seem to understand.
Bush’s problem is partly that the Republican brand has changed.  Yes the Bush name has been a major part of the Republican presidential brand since 1980 but the brand has worn thin.  People are tired of it.  Moreover, Bush has inherited a problem that his father had–the wimp factor.  If in 1980 his father looked helpless and limp in a New Hampshire debate against Reagan, Bush looks the same next to Trump.  Jeb simply looks weak and inarticulate.  Now some say he is just sitting back waiting for Trump to implode.  Maybe.  But that assumes implosion; it assumes that Trump does not actually represent what the Republican Party is now and that he has captured it.  Trump’s outspoken views on women, immigrants, and almost everyone else he offends speaks to anger and frustration white males–especially without a college degree–feel.  This appeal to white male anger and macho has been building in the party for years, and Bush just does seem to understand the degree to which the rhetoric has galloped beyond where he is.  He sort of wants to be the big kid in the room, the one sounding mature when it comes to all the positions that Trump espouses.  Much in the same way the GOP has never understood how the Tea Party took them over, they do not see how Trump is doing the same.
Trump’s politainer strength is acting like he is not a real politician, using his brand and image to stoke his campaign.  He does well in polls and gets way more media coverage than he should, in part because he sell soap and that is what the media needs to do.  He fulfills theirs needs and vice versa.  But Trump coverage is also a death watch, waiting for the inevitable train wreck and demise.  It might come.  But it might not.  Trump may be a new politician for the ages.  He may be redefining political categories, thus the confusion by the Huffington Post whether to cover him in the politics or entertainment section.  Trump scares the GOP not only because of his honestly about where the party is moving but by his capacity to exit the party as run as an independent.  Yet for all the talk of where Trump is now, the question is whether he has a ground game and will all the folks who support him come out on a cold February 1, night in Iowa to caucus for him?
Clinton also struggles with a party that is indebted to her and one which has left her behind.  She too is old news like Bush, and she is trying to make herself relevant to a new generation of Democrats.  Yet for all of her strengths, her core weaknesses of 2008 remain.  A campaigner with powerful blind spots, an inability to relate to average voters, and now an inability to put to rest lingering and new doubts regarding her e-mails and personal ethics.  Whether she has acted illegally is really only a small part of the issue–the bigger problem is character and judgement.  She has broad support but polls suggest not deep enthusiastic support, less so than eight years ago.  But Clinton fatigue and how the party had moved beyond her too is reflected in rise of Bernie Sanders and constant talk of Joe Biden entering the race.
Sanders is fascinating.  He should be nothing more than a gnat to Clinton but he has steadily moved up the in polls.  In fact he has gained more in the polls than Trump but the media opts not to get him as much coverage.  The Trump v Sanders coverage difference to a large extent is about the former being the candidate who represents the least amount of change or threat to the political system (Trump’s message is restorative–“Make America Great Again) versus a candidate who indicts the system and wants to really change and not reform it, as Obama did.  Trump is safe and not a threat to the corporate media and America, Sanders challenges both.  Sanders is slowly building a campaign and rising gradually in the polls, not flashing, this is often a sign of real strength.  What he too offers in terms of a ground game is yet to be seen, but he has strengths in Iowa and New Hampshire that should not be ignored.
So where does all this lead in terms of how politics is like a stage?   First, politics is great drama but more often than not does not follow the story that everyone thinks.  Second, never assume inevitable, never assume campaigns are supposed to follow a predefined script, what once worked may not in the future.   Great political campaigns are ones that do not simply follow a script but write their own, and perhaps part of what is going on this election cycle so far is the degree to which the  new rules are being written for 2016.  If that is the case, what Bush and Clinton are doing is following the rules, while Trump and Sanders are writing them.

Candidate Wealth and the Buying of Presidential Elections

Clinton 'Had No Choice' But To Come To My Wedding Because I Gave Her Donations
–Donald Trump

American’s say that like to identify with presidential candidates, that they could sit down and have a cup of coffee with them.  They also want candidates whom they think will understand them, that share their concerns.  If that is the case then most Americans must be millionaires, at least that would have to be the conclusion based on the personal wealth of many of the leading presidential candidates.
Personal Capital has produced a terrific chart of the personal wealth of the leading 2016 presidential candidates, pointing out that the Republican and Democrat frontrunners Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton are billionaires and millionaires, respectively.  At a time when according to CNN Money, the medium net wealth of Americans was $44,900 (down $77,300 in 2010), Trump is estimated to be worth $4.1 billion and Clinton $59 million.  One wonders both why Americans see these two candidates as capable of empathizing with their plight or serving as the champions of their causes.  In fact, in the case of Trump, his land speculation and penchant for telling others “You’re fired!” makes one wonder why his support is so strong, especially among those hardest hit by the types of behavior he engaged in.
Personal Capital has also pointed out the cost of elections, showing too that it is the game of millionaires and billionaires.  In 2012 $7 billion was spent on all US elections with $2.6 of that just on the presidential election.  And that may be a low ball estimate Alone in 2012 Obama raised $1.1 billion and Romney $1 billion.  My estimate is that Republican and GOP party nominees will each need to raise $1.5 billion for their presidential runs.  Throw in SuperPAC and third party spending, I easily see a presidential race costing $4-5 billion.  Most of this money will come from one to two percent of the population, meaning that the super rich will be contributing money to run a presidential election where the contest might be among the super rich.  An election by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich, especially when we consider the economic bias and class stratification in terms of who votes.
There are a lot of problems with this scenario; the cost of elections, the huge gap between the rich and poor, and the failure of public policy over the last 30 years to address the problems of how to build wealth for all, not just the rich.
Perhaps Donald Trump was correct about one thing–maybe contributions do buy elections and politicians and given who gives and runs, that might tell us something about the bias in our political system.

Acknowledgments: Graphic courtesy of  Personal Capital.

Politics, Drugs, and Sports: Thoughts on Clinton, Trump, Medical Marijuana, and the Vikings

The 2016 presidential race is effectively over already in 40 states.  In places such as New York and Texas, Republicans and Democrats respectively might as way stay home on election day because the chances of the voters in these states electing their party nominee are slim to none.  But it is small group of ten swing states (and Minnesota is not one of them) that will decide the election.  This is the conclusion and subject of my new book Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter.  Whomever wins in these states wins the presidency.  And if that is true then the Democratic and Republican frontrunners both are in trouble.
Both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton are leading the polls in their party. According to a new Quinnipiac University Poll Donald Trump has huge negatives in three critical swing states–Iowa, Virginia and Colorado.  The same poll has Clinton trailing Walker, Bush, and Rubio in these states, even though she still has a lead overall against Republican contenders according to other polls.  For Clinton, this is a significant turnout around where just a couple of months ago she enjoyed strong leads over all Republicans, and even was far outdistancing Bernie Sanders
But because the presidential race (and even the primaries and conventions) are a 50 state (plus DC) contest due to the Electoral College, national polls mean little–it is about what happens in individual states.  For Trump this suggests that he faces major problems should he get the nomination–he may be unelectable among swing voters in swing states, some of which, such as Colorado, have a significant Hispanic population.  Of course his other problems–his disconnect between his brain and mouth and the fact that his first place is really only about 15% in the party polls, suggests major problems for Trump and for the Republicans.  It is not clear which is worse–Trump as the party nominee who drags the entire party down across the country–or Trump  as a third party candidate who drags the Republicans down and costs them a presidential race.  Assume Clinton and Bush get the nominations, this might be a repeat of 1992 when another third party candidate by the name of Perot ran against a Bush and Clinton, leading to a Democratic victory.
But Hilary Clinton and the Democrats too face problems.  Clinton’s problem in swing states also raises questions about her prospects of winning in a two way race.    Her big negatives and high name recognition make it unlikely she can really change her image as she is trying to do.  She is who she is.  Yes much of her criticism is sexist and the product of a smear campaign, but that is the reality she must face and yelling foul does not change much.  Should she get the nomination she faces problems winning the swing states not only because many swing voters will not vote for her but because the Republicans will use her to activate all types of misogynists and Hilary-haters.  Karl rove penned a recent essay declaring Clinton has a likeability or relateability problem still and Republicans will exploit that.  As a politically savvy friend of mine pointed out, Clinton will be a terrible draw at the top of the ticket.  For example, Clinton nomination will probably hurt Democrat’s prospects to win back the Senate and in Minnesota she will not help in knocking off Congressman Kline.
Finally, the money is still on Clinton to win the nomination but she could be damaged.  Weeks ago on Esme Murphy’ radio show I discussed how  Clinton remains weak in caucus states just as she was in 2008.  Image a scenario where Sanders wins the Iowa caucus (not impossible) and then does really well in New Hampshire (next to his home state of Vermont).  Clinton is damaged much like McCarthy damaged Johnson in 1968.  By the time we get to Minnesota I can see it too going for Sanders–he has the passion of the grassroots, Clinton does not.

Drugs and Sports
Two local stories deserve comment.
First, the roll out of medical marijuana so far is horrible.  Beyond the stories of Leaf Line  hiring three former or present states officials or representatives to work for them (raising tons of questions about ethics, perhaps illegal behavior, and whether the original bidding process for distribution rights was fair), there is the issue of so far only 340 individuals certified for usage for the medical marijuana.  There are few doctors registered to prescribe, fearful both of their licenses (pot is still illegal under federal law) and because there is still no scientific evidence of the value of pot.  While the State of Minnesota may not be interested in whether medical marijuana makes money, the private companies have to think about that.  With such a restrictive program and too few customers one wonders about the economic viability of the program.
Also, Leaf Line appears to be selling medical marijuana for about $350 per ounce.  Because  it is an experimental drug I am not sure insurance will cover it.  Because of this individuals may have to pay out of their own pockets to purchase it.  It probably will be cheaper to buy a dime bag from your friendly neighborhood dope dealer instead.
Finally, the Vikings stadium deserves comment.  One is the story points out that the Vikings stadium was one of the five worst sports deals negotiated with a government.  Minnesota tax payers got fleeced–Dayton and the legislature did a horrible job in negotiating the deal and we still have no idea regarding all that was promised since so much was dealt behind closed doors.  Second, the 12 person state legislative panel meant to oversee the Vikings project has not met in a year.  Effectively, there is little oversight here.  Finally, as Jay Kolls has pointed out in a channel 5 television segment I did with them, the development around the site in Minneapolis is a saga in back door deals.  The Vikings already has exclusive rights for 80 days on the public park being built next to the new stadium and Minneapolis is looking for more corporate sponsors for it.    One wonders what deals they will get on exclusive use and also I wonder whether I can show up to this public park and protest public funding for sports stadiums!

Tinker, Tailor, President, Spy: American Politics at the End of 2014

The November 2014 elections already seem ancient history.  Yet in barely seven weeks a host of major events have transpired, raising interesting questions about Barack Obama and the future of American politics, both short and long term.  Let’s review some of them and see what they potentially mean.

The End of the Cold War...Finally?

 The Cold War is over. Long live the Cold War!  These are the sentiments best captured by two events this past week–Obama moves to normalize relations with Cuba and the president threatens action against North Korea for hacking SONY.  Both events

Cuba and North Korea are perhaps the two last iconic symbols of the Cold War.  They conjure up images of the Bay of Pigs, the Missile Crisis, and a divided peninsula and war that would never end.  The two countries were supposedly the last two communist countries standing, and they both were surrogate grounds for the conflict between the US and USSR.  But at least in the case of Cuba and  Castro, it also represented a host of other rumors and conspiracies about the assassination of JFK, the FBI, CIA, and spying.

We embargoed Cuba for 50 years with no avail. No real good came of it and in fact one could argue that the embargo and US politics toward Cuba did more to hurt America’s relations with South America than help it.  It also meant that we had little leverage with Cuba when the inevitable day came when the Castros were no long around.  Obama’s move was smart–it represented or reflected the new realities of the world.  The generation that wanted to maintain the embargo is largely dead or gone (keep that in mind Senator Rubio) and Cuba is no longer a front line for the Cold War.

North Korea is different.  It is no longer the surrogate struggle between the US and USSR.  It represents a new type of battle–cyber-terrorism.  There is an old adage that says the most countries  are militarily prepared to fight the last war. The same is true with the US.  We still think of war and terrorism as the use of bombs and bullets or of physical invasion of one country by another with troops, planes, or even drones.  Think of terrorism and we think of 9/11.  But that is old thinking according to Richard Clarke who in Cyber War points out how vulnerable the US is to cyber terrorism and also how badly prepared we are to fight it.

The US may be one of the most wired and computer connected societies in the world.  Such sophistication means there is a lot to hack–anywhere from official government defense sites to power plants, trains, planes, financial institutions, and private companies such as SONY.   Clarke argues we are hackable, that are defenses are poor, and that the US is overall ill-prepared to fight back.  The terrorism is what happened to SONY and that it what the future 9/11s will look like.

Obama has vowed action against North Korea but options are limited.  Very little of Korea is computerized so points of vulnerability are fewer.  We have little trade with that country and few think that the president is prepared to deploy old-fashioned arms against it.  For now there is a standoff.

This is the new Cold War.  But this is not the only part of it.  The new Cold War is the on-going battle against ISIS.  And the new Cold War is how the Ukraine has become a symbol for what looks like a lingering or rekindling of the old Cold War between Russia and the United States.

The Lost Soul of American Politics

The on-going stories of race and policing in America and the Senate CIA torture report together raise troubling images about America, especially when one considers the reactions to both.  They paint a partisan and racially divided picture about the use of force against citizens and non-citizens around the world.   Collectively, they also question the moral legitimacy of the US.

One of the defining characteristics of America–or at least Americans like to believe–is that we are different and that we embody a set of moral principles that distinguish us from the rest of the world.  This exceptionalism–America as the shining city on the hill-gave us moral authority over the rest of the world.  Yet police violence and torture of prisoners destroy any credence in that exceptionalism.

There is also something wrong with the law that sanctions repeated police use of excessive force. I used to teach a class on police criminal and civil liability under state and federal law, including what is called §1983 violations. It is not easy to win these claims. The law and the public favor the police. Maybe once that was appropriate, but knowing that we have scores if not hundreds of police shooting Michael Browns per year leads one to question whether the law has tipped too far in favor of the former.  Conversely, I remember once doing a WCCO radio show years ago when news of torture fist hit the news.  I explained the Geneva Accords on treatment of prisoners and then took calls.  Repeatedly military vets called in to condemn torture declaring that they learned that if we tortured they (the enemy) would do the same to us or that we would be no better than them.  No surprise that John McCain was one of the few Republicans to condemn the CIA.

My point here is that the Senate report itself was not a surprise.  We have long since known that torture does not yield good information.  Nor should we have been surprised that the torture existed.  We have known that for years.  The real surprise is how some such as Dick Cheney seem completely morally tone-deaf and, to a large extent, how Barack Obama seemed to distance himself from the report.

A New Obama Presidency?

For a president who was supposedly rendered irrelevant by the 2014 elections, Obama is perhaps finally showing that there is still life to his presidency.  Yes he blew it on the Senate torture report, and ISIS, and on Syria.  But increasingly his moves on immigration and Cuba look bold.  While too much of his first six years has been marked by timidly, there is a glimmer of hope for progressives that his final two years will not be marked by constant capitulation to the Republicans.

However, there are still nagging doubts about his presidency for many on the left.  What will he give away to protect Obamacare or make it look like he is a compromiser?  The mistake the progressive  made in 2008 was to think he was progressive.  He was compared to George Bush but not compared to many other Democrats.  Obamacare was a Republican idea he embraced.  Obama was or became  a Wall Street candidate who took more money from the too big to fails than any other candidate in history.   Obama has done more to kill off campaign finance reform and limit in politics than any candidate in history.  Yes he protested Citizens United but he has raised more money than any other presidential candidate in history.  He was the first to opt out of the presidential voluntary public financing system, and he just signed a bill dramatically raising contribution limits to political parties.  His tenure a president will be footnoted as the one where money took over politics.

Start Your Engines

The Iowa straw poll is eight months away and the Iowa caucuses are barely 12 months out.  The 2016 presidential race is upon us.  All speculation is on Clinton v Bush, but not so fast.  But are running with a sense of inevitability but both are candidates with tired old names who may no longer  represent where the parties are.  At this point it is equally probable that either or both of them get their party’s nomination, but it is equally probable they do not.  Clinton has a better chance given a weak Democratic field, but a serious challenge from the left (almost anyone for the Democrats will be from the left) could change the equation for her.  For Bush, there are many other potential rivals such as Rand Paul who excite the base more than him.  Finally, both Clinton and Bush have many liabilities that could be exploited.  Long records in office give opponents lots to attack.

Why the DFL will lose the Minnesota House

The DFL are going to lose the Minnesota House.  There are many reasons for this but the main one is arrogance–both a refusal to recognize a bad strategy and an unwillingness to admit mistakes.
    On the face of it, the DFL has much to cheer about come November.  It will sweep the constitutional offices with Dayton especially winning by a wide margin.  Franken too will win, probably big, as there is no sign that the election is tightening, contrary to what reporters any my colleagues rotefully declare.  The coattails of these statewide victories plus the large cash advantage that the DFL enjoy should in theory be enough to keep them in power in the House.  But it won’t be enough.
    Yes, there are obvious reasons why the DFL will lose.  Obama is unpopular and dragging down the party.  It is a mid-year election and DFL voters are less likely to vote.  Both of these factors explain why big-name Democrats such as the Clintons and Michelle Obama have visited the state with the hope of rousing the base and instilling passion into DFL voters.  But still that will not be enough to overcome other major problems of the DFL.
    Consider first that the DFL won many seats in 2012 by close margins in Republican areas.  They did so in part because if was a presidential election year and also because they benefited from Republican legislative overreach in the 2011-2012 session.  This means the DFL are defending many seats that are in Republican areas, or at the least, seriously lean GOP or are at best swing. 
    The second problem is the lack of a Democrat or DFL narrative.  Obama had a great narrative  in 2008 but since then at the national level there has been no narrative for reelection.  That is why Democrats were trounced in 2010.  Obama held on in 2012 because Romney was such a horrible candidate.  Dayton won in 2010 because Emmer was a weak candidate, and in 2012 the DFL won less on their narrative and more on GOP failures.  This year, there is still no national Democrat narrative and at the state level, the narrative too is missing.  Yes Dayton and Democrats can run on  their record of accomplishments and on a good state economy, but neither play well in swing districts.  Moreover, the DFL do not have a good narrative to counter MNSure, Obamacare, the new Senate Office Building, and many of their other legislative acts.  Yes all of these play well to the base, but not to swing voters. There is a nagging yet silent sense of DFL over-reach here, but when you put it all together, what is the narrative?   “Four more years?”  “If you liked the past you will love the future?”  The narrative is cloudy at best, thereby explaining in part the lethargy of the DFL voter.
    But perhaps the main reason why the DFL will lose the House has to do with arrogance.  It is arrogance on several scores.  Over the last few months I have given more talks across the state than I can count.  Repeatedly I hear that th DFL is using a cookie-cutter approach to running a state legislative campaign.  They are using the same messaging, GOTV, and tactics in all of their campaigns.  Such an approach is a recipe for failure, ignoring the special issues and needs of different districts.  While we may live in a era where elections are often nationalized, Tip O’Neill is still correct that all politics is local. 
    Almost 30 years ago I moved to Minnesota and saw a party still fixated on the past. I saw a  DFL bureaucratic and dominated by a small core of activists who in many ways still dominate the state and think the way you win is the way they used to win.  Say what you might about the GOP, but the TEA has brought in a new crop of activists into the Republican Party, willing at times to challenge it with new ideology and tactics.
    But what I have heard about and see this year is that the DFL leadership has refused to acknowledge that their strategy and campaign projections are flawed.   It is a urban-based approach that might work well in cities with lots of Democrats, but it is still not well suited for many suburbs  and especially rural Minnesota. I have heard several DFLers over-confidently say there are only about 8 swing races in the state, self-assured that there are some seats they really do not need to defend. Too many individuals have told me that they have been refused support or volunteers because the DFL thinks their race is unwinnable.  Or that the DFL has not supported a race because of petty jealousies. 
    There is a lot of ego on the line here.  Many in the DFL leadership have a stake in being considered wise gurus–they have decided who can win or lose and how–and they do not want to prove themselves wrong less they lose their stature within the party.  This insularity and making it all about them is a sure downfall for the DFL this November.