July 12, 2019--AOC & Company

It is no secret that Nancy Pelosi is having more than a spat with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

They are fighting for the very soul of the Democratic Party: Speaker Pelosi is concerned about two things: retaining the Democratic majority in the House and defeating Trump in 2020.

AOC and her colleagues believe it is time to pass the leadership torch to a new generation of the Democratic base, largely women and people of color; Pelosi, as she thinks about the big political picture, believes it is about the center holding so that the Democrats can be a party that is broadly inclusive and therefore they must be careful not to overreach in their policy agenda.

I confess, as I obsess about deposing Trump, to being closer to the Pelosi point of view, acknowledging this may be as much generational thinking as we are both old!

My friend Dan La Noue also thinks about these sweeping realities and again, in part for generational reasons (he is young), is also thinking big but in ways quite different than Pelosi.

Here is a sample of his thinking taken from his response to my recent White Male Privilege blog--

Dan wrote--

A lot of great insights in the WMP posting. But I disagree with the characterization of AOC and company. Nancy Pelosi wasn't pushing for a Green Deal, nor was she willing to speak so bluntly and truthfully about the horrors of the dentention camps on the border. AOC and her friends did that, and they've reframed the debate about these critical issues in way that captures much-needed attention. Conservatives are brilliant about pushing the Overton Window to get people to think about things differently, and these new Dems are taking a page out of their book and putting it to good use. Gutless politicking isn't going to defeat Trump and/or mobilize voters. That's how Hillary bricked a layup election.

I responded--

To me until after Election Day it's all about defeating Trump. In my view, though I am attracted to some of their policy positions, the AOC Four politically are only helping Trump. 

Dan responded--

Remember when the GOP claimed Obama, a mild-mannered center-left guy, was a blood-gargling Kenyan islamo-socialist? My point is that Trump and company will demonize Democrats no matter what. So if you're a Democrat, why not be bold and say/do things that actually give your side something to vote for? This is why I don't worry about AOC and Co. the way some others do. And frankly, I think deep down the Right's hatred of them has more to do with race than any one policy they propose. Call me crazy.

I then said--

Not so crazy! You make a good case. But I still fear that AOC's Squad (as they refer to themselves), if they become the face of the Democratic Party, no matter how that happens, will help Trump get reelected. If that occurs than all the inspiring policies in the world will go for nought.

March 15, 2018--Trumpian Sans Trump

I've been arguing for some time that if Democrats want to recapture Congress, much less the White House, we have to erect a big tent that in fact is widely welcoming. Not just a tent for appearances sake.

This means we need to select and support candidates who in addition to sharing our social justice concerns are likely to believe in some things that are Trumpian. Especially in congressional districts in the vital middle of the country where Electoral votes are in play and incumbents can be flipped.

Case in point this week was the election in southwestern Pennsylvania of Democrat Conor Lamb.

He won in a squeaker but astonishingly in a district that went for Trump in 2016 by 20 percentage points. A district where in the previous two congressional elections a Republican was elected unopposed. It's that Republican, that red.

Lamb in his first TV commercial was pictured handling and firing an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. It was not just to remind us that he had been a Marine but also to signal to his gun-oriented potential constituents that he not only believes in the "right" to bear arms but is comfortable with them. More specifically that he's not a Democrat who if elected will descend in a black helicopter to take away people's guns.

To most of my Manhattan friends this would be enough to lead to disdain for him and doom for his candidacy.

If my friends could somehow manage to get by his comfort with guns what would they think about the fact that as a practicing Catholic he does not believe in abortions?

For pretty much everyone I know in New York City failing these two litmus tests (pro guns and pro "life") would make it impossible to vote for him. And so Rick Saccone (Lamb's opponent) would easily have won and there would be one more Republican in Congress lending enthusiastic support to Donald Trump's regressive agenda. (Saccone Tuesday night claimed that Democrats "hate America and hate God.")

On the other hand, Lamb is dovish and a strong supporter of strengthening and protecting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various other social safety nets. He also is a fervent friend to organized labor and was endorsed by virtually all the unions that have a large presence in his district.

And, I almost forgot, though he personally does not support abortions, he unequivocally opposes any efforts to limit them.

In some ways he is Trumpian but his version does not include the actual Trump. Just a congruence of views on a few social issues. Important ones, to be sure, but ones we have to get comfortable with tolerating if we want to win in much of America.

There are 435 congressional districts in the United States, each with a member in the House of Representatives. To take control of the House, Democrats need to flip at least 24 seats. Tuesday night Keystone Staters flipped one. To win the others, and perhaps a dozen more, will require that our tent welcomes and we vote for candidates such as Conor Lamb. 

Like Lamb most middle-of-the-road Democrats will fail some of our traditional litmus tests. But if we want to again became the majority party, we need to attract similar candidates who appeal to their local constituencies and thereby have a chance of winning.

We claim we embrace diversity. If that is more than just words, it is imperative that we put our votes where our mouths are.

May 1, 2017--The Perfect, The Good

I had quiet an argument with a friend the other day about just how big a tent Democrats should pitch and who should and shouldn't be be welcome in it.

It was provoked by something Tom Perez, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, said about so-called right-to-life Democrats. Specifically, by clear implication he criticized Heath Mello, who is running to become mayor of Omaha, as being insufficiently pro-choice because back in 2009, as a member of the Nebraska legislature, he supported a bill that would require women to be informed that they could use ultrasound before getting an abortion.

Chairman Perez said--

Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state. At a time when women's rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country, we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.

After a few days of awkward silence, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren finally said it is all right for people who are pro-choice to be Democrats and that, if they run for office, Democrats should support them.

My friend disagreed.

"If we allow people who don't believe in a woman's right to have an abortion to be Democrats, what does it mean to be a Democrat?"

"Is that the only litmus test?" I asked.

"What do you mean?"

"I mean if someone believes in school vouchers can they be a Democrat?"

"I have no problem with that," my friend said.

"OK, how about someone who feels we should have American troops on the ground in Syria and that they should be actively supporting the Syrian rebels?"

"I'm OK with that too."

"So, is one's views on abortion the only litmus test that matters?"

"To me, yes. If you're antiabortion you can't be a Democrat."

"But what would be the fate of the Democratic Party if others had their own version of litmus tests about education or health policy? Of, for that matter, the environment or same sex marriage?"

"For me the issue that counts above all others is the right to choose."

"You're avoiding my question."

"Try me again."

"If we made a list of all the issues people could potentially turn into litmus tests for membership in the Democratic Party, I'm afraid we would doom ourselves to minority status and political irrelevance forever. I'm very concerned about that since I feel liberals have been acting in exclusionary ways for a long time and Republicans, as a result, are ascendant at every level of government, from small towns to cities to states and now most dramatically at the congressional and presidential levels. You can't possible see this as a good thing."

"I don't, but to me abortion is different."

"As to someone else are charter schools or healthcare exchanges."

"None of your examples are as important nor do they generate the same level of conflict. About everything else there can be compromises. You can agree to having some charters schools in the mix or allow states to set up various versions of the way people can acquire healthcare coverage. You can't be sort of for or against abortions. Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant."

"That's not how many people see things. To them you're either for or against fracking. No compromises. Or for or against charter schools. No compromising. Just ask Randi Weingarten the head of the teachers union. For all I know, from her perspective, if you're in favor of school vouchers you can't be a Democrat. No compromises."

"Republicans do the same thing. Look at the Freedom Caucus members of Congress. They won't compromise."

"Though Republicans also have 'moderates.' But, we're getting distracted. I don't care what they do. I care what we do. And I am totally opposed to any litmus tests. We need every vote we can muster. I want to win some elections. We're getting wiped out, especially at the state level. For example, Bernie Sanders raised questions about supporting Jon Osseff in Georgia who has a good chance to win a seat in the House for the Democrats. Bernie raised questions about whether he was progressive enough. He walked it back quickly but his initial position exposed what he really thought--that there needs to be a doctrinal purity test to receive his endorsement. That's crazy."

"But I want us to stand for something."

"How about inclusiveness and tolerance? Those feel like Democratic values to me."

"The next thing you're going to do is say that we shouldn't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good."

"In fact, that's just what I was going to say."

"Isn't that what Ronald Reagan said?"

"A version of that. I think he said get 60 percent of the loaf the first time and then come back for the rest."

"So," my friend said, "It's come to that--Liberals quoting Ronald Reagan. The next thing we'll be doing is quoting Donald Trump. When that  happens, I won't need a litmus test to stop being a Democrat."

February 9, 2017--Mitch's Candidate

While she was speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday evening, by telling Elizabeth Warren to sit down and shut up, not only did Mitch McConnell commit a gendered offense, he also arranged that she would become the instant leader of the Democratic Party and also her party's front runner for the 2020 presidential election.

Does this suggest that the 74-year-old Mitch is starting to lose it?

Quite the contrary.

Sly dog that he is, he is helping to propel the Democarts' weakest candidate to the nomination.

If anything will assure McConnell's continued leadership of the Senate after the 2018 midterms, this is it and while he was at it he made it more likely that Donald Trump will be reelected in four years.

If Hillary had problems winning midwestern states, how will Harvard professor Warren fare among working-class voters? I can just see those coal miners standing in line in the rain to vote for her. I can just imagine displaced Ohio factory workers resonating to her message. I can just see how her becoming a darling of the coastal elites will excite Pennsylvania voters.

What McConnell did was outrageous and should be condemned. Among other offenses he never would have done this to a male colleagues. But politically, in this conflicted time, I hate it, it was pure genius.

Or then again, maybe he doesn't have a clue.

December 22, 2016--Liberals Need to Fess Up

If we progressives are to rescue our political souls we need to begin by doing some fessing up.

I'll begin and then maybe you will consider doing the same.

Since 1981, Ronald Reagan's first year as president, most liberals have been big beneficiaries of conservative fiscal policy. Especially tax policy.

Though publicly rueing the dramatic cuts he and Congress pushed through, privately and unconfessedly we have done very well.

The Reagan tax cuts followed years later by the Bush tax cuts (re-upped by Barack Obama) were of benefit primality to upper-middle-income people. Not just the top 1-percent but most who were just upper-middle-class. Millions and millions of Americans with advanced education comfortably slotted into the professional, knowledge-working sectors of the economy.

People like me.

These are approximate numbers that reveal how I have fared thanks to Reagan, Bush, and even Obama--

Since 2001 when the Bush cuts took effect, Rona and I have paid at least $5,000 less a year in taxes. Over the course of these 15 years this totals $75,000.

Not bad, not bad at all.

This savings funds a lot of our lifestyle since it is discretionary income.

And the good times for us in this regard, with Donald Trump about to become president, look as if they will continue to roll. Maybe even accelerate. The stock market is so happy that the Dow is about to top 20,000 and our portfolio of stocks in only six weeks, thanks to the Trump Rally, has gone up more than 6-percent.

No bad, not bad at all.

All the time this has been happening, I have moaned and ranted here and among equally-privledged friends about the unfairness of the economic system, focusing my outrage primarily on how, as the result of right-wing fiscal policy, inequality has grown worse.

While all the time I and we have been thriving, millions are being left behind.

This looks and feels like hypocrisy to me.

And among the hypocrites you will find me.

Then, what else has been going on?

Again, since Reagan's time, white working-class and lower-middle-class Democrats have been drifting rightward. When the media noticed this phenomenon, they called these voters "Reagan Democrats," and a few weeks ago these same Democrats became "Trump Democrats," and their votes are propelling him to the White House.

All the while, what have many of us liberals been up to? Trying to enjoy ourselves, leaving the social policy agenda to Republican conservatives who have delivered more to us than the people whom they claim they represent.

I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed myself sending an additional $5,000 "equity" check to the IRS every April 15th with my tax returns.

Instead, at that time, I'm typically planning my next vacation in Maine and trip to Italy.

If we don't begin by taking an honest look at our own lives we will have no chance of overtaking the political forces at work. We used to be the party of "the working man." Now we are the party of self-indulgence and condescension.

More about that tomorrow.