The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion
Reality-Based Chat. Speak!
Jimmy wrote: "Here's a comparison: Ralph Nader and Elizabeth Warren. Ralph Nader could have run for the Senate as a Democrat. If he won, he could have fought for consumer protection laws. He could have focused..."
All true, Jimmy -- and I'll never forgive Nader for having facilitated the Bush coup d'état (can't actually figure out whether he was impelled by spectacular egomania or CIA mind control, nor does it matter, ultimately) -- but the center does not hold, and nor does the analogy. Nobody is suggesting that Warren run on a third-party, spoiler ticket, and no one here would even begin to posit a false moral equivalency between the two parties, so there isn't anything from which we need to be spared. At most, I've suggested that everybody in the game is "beholden" (of logical necessity), but that isn't the same thing at all as asserting that the power elite is monolithic and that the two parties have indistinguishable agendas. That would be ludicrous, and whereas "equivalency" may be an effective meme the Republicans have been pushing, it is unimaginable to me that any member of this group remotely accepts it.
So there's no comparison: Warren isn't a prospective third-party spoiler, and whether or not Nader would have been effective in the Senate is immaterial. It's not a matter of whether Warren would be effective in the Senate (to whatever extent possible under Republican congressional hegemony), because I think (and I believe everybody who's been actively participating in this group, and all or nearly all its members think) that she would. And she's certainly entitled to self-determination in the matter.
The only real question is what our best prospect of averting the unimaginable cataclysm of a Republican win in 2016 might be, and if Warren actually did represent that best prospect (which it's not at all clear, but still arguable, that she does), then if she were to become persuaded of that, she might conceivably bear a certain geas to take that consideration into account. I'm personally agnostic on the issue of whether Warren would stand a better chance than Hillary -- though she'd indisputably arouse immeasurably greater enthusiasm within the Democratic base -- but it's still an argument to be considered. On balance, I'm with Mary that if O'Malley were more charismatic, he might be a better prospect merely in virtue of his immunity to the Great Misogyny Machine certain to be unleashed by the Republicans if either Hillary or Warren runs, but he's evidently not charismatic in a way that would inflame the passions of the base, so the situation remains murky... and lamentably very unpromising.
I don't think anyone here believes that both parties are the same, Jimmy. That's the lie the conservatives like to sell to discourage the clueless liberals from voting. I think Nader's ego got in the way in 2000; I suspect he had a problem with Gore or liberals in general not paying him enough attention.
There is another former Democratic governor who I think would be a much better candidate than O'Malley, Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts. He had a great record and he is a terrific speaker - maybe better than Obama.The problem is that he is black and I suspect the racist Republicans have intimidated many Democrats of influence into shying away from another black candidate. I think it would be absolutely delicious to hit them with another black President, especially one with an even stronger personality than Obama.
However, so far as I know, Patrick has shown no interest in running for President.
Cory Booker is a another black up-and-comer as well, but I am disturbed by his close ties to Wall Street. I don't think Patrick has that problem.
Among white males, in addition to Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who we have discussed previously, there is Gov. Mark Dayton of Minnesota. He has a tremendous record as governor, very progressive and very successful. Again, no sign yet of presidential ambitions there.
Patrick definitely has to wait, Dan. We cannot have another black candidate for President (or Vice President) in this cycle. The Tea Partiers will lose what little minds they have left. And I like what Booker is doing, keeping quiet and learning how to be a Senator, kind of the way Al Franken, another celebrity Senator, behaved during his first term. O'Malley got some more national coverage yesterday. He was profiled as a populist in the Friday edition of USA Today. I don't know anything about Mark Dayton, but I'd be happy to see a few more progressive white males join the race.
Sorry to have been out of commission for a while, guys. Concerning Dayton, what's concerning is his putative inarticulacy (which may be misrepresented, and may also be remediable, if it even exists). But in every other respect, Dayton seems an ideal candidate -- at least, according to Mother Jones (to which he happens, unbelievably, to have been an original donor). The full profile from MJ (contrasting him with the unspeakably heinous Walker) is here:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...
But I think this is a good and interesting "money quote:" (and Dayton's money has been put to good use):
"'To whom so much has been given, to him so much be required,' Dayton recalls as his father's favorite Bible saying, and at first Dayton studied to be a doctor before engaging with '60s politics in college. Dayton became a campus radical during college at Yale, and protested Honeywell's role in making bombs for use in Vietnam even as his father sat on the company's board. After he graduated in 1969, Dayton taught at a school on the Lower East Side of Manhattan and then transitioned to social work at Project Place, a South Boston-based organization that works with homeless young people. Dayton's annual $30,000 donations covered a tenth of his employer's budget. After four years in Boston, Dayton turned to politics, breaking from his Republican parents to fight for liberal causes. He worked as an aide in Minnesota Sen. Walter Mondale's office, then moved to Atlanta to work on Mondale's vice presidential campaign. He was an original donor to Mother Jones in the 1970s. He even managed to earn a spot as the lone Minnesotan on Nixon's so-called "enemies list"—a fact he would cite during his early political campaigns."
Unemployment in Minnesota is apparently 3.6%
The contrast between Minnesota and Wisconsin is remarkable and something progressives should make a big deal about. It is contemporary proof that progressive policies work. They always have but people don't know history and have short memories.
Another good article on Dayton, this one from Huffpost:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gi...
That said (and whereas there's still no indication he's inclined seriously to pursue the Democratic nomination), I'm very pleased to hear, Mary, of O'Malley's apparent increasing emergence from obscurity. You're certainly right that the Tea Partiers would "lose whatever minds they have left" (though, to all appearances, they've already been beaten in the race for cognitive dominance by parsnips and igneous rocks), if another target for their psychotic, venomous racism were presented for their inspection -- so it probably is imperative, at least for now, not to afford the Rethugs the opportunity to cast any candidate in the role of "Obama 2," though it's unspeakably odious that they've effectively traumatized the Democrats into practicing "candidate-selection self-censorship," if only on pragmatic grounds and for the purpose of averting Republigeddon in 2016.
Dan wrote: "The contrast between Minnesota and Wisconsin is remarkable and something progressives should make a big deal about. It is contemporary proof that progressive policies work. They always have but peo..."It's a contrast, Dan, that just begs for a political cartoon or animated video that could be used in campaign ads. Or just something sufficiently vivid in depicting the grotesqueness of Wisconsin's direction (relative to that of Minnesota) -- not to mention the grotesqueness of Walker, himself -- that it would simply go viral.
Wisconsin was the original progressive state. It was the "Wisconsin Idea" that drove progresivism in the first 25 years of the 20th Century. Out of the University of Wisconsin came the organization and structure of Social Security. Wisconsin was a prosperous state for generations. Now it isn't, and it is not because of progressives that it isn't. It is because of conservative Republicans. Dayton is too old and obviously not the right kind of personality to run for President. But his record should be used by progressive Democrats everywhere and in every race.
I don't get the enthusiasm for Rand Paul. I don't think it will hold through a general election. However, the Republican field of candidates is so bad that it might hold through their primaries, although Paul suffers from foot in mouth diseases so much that it is likely to be fatal.
I noticed that Paul, who had two blacks with him, used that racist "take our country back" line in his announcement speech. Maddow and O'Donnell had fun with it. Paul is too thin-skinned to do well in presidential politics. The way he handled the plagiarism scandal and the way he jumped up from eating lunch and rushed away once when someone was asking him a question on a controversial issue (I don't remember what the issue was) shows he's not ready for primetime.I think it's interesting how the two parties have changed tactics. In the past, the Republicans were the ones who went with the next-in-line candidate while the Democrats (unless a Vice President was running as happened in 2000 and 1984) had these candidates from nowhere (Clinton, Carter). I guess because we've been winning the presidential elections lately (Bush definitely lost in 2000 and barely won, if he did, in 2004), we have become the cautious party. I think playing it safe is a bad idea. In some ways, of course, Hillary isn't safe because she's a historical candidate, but she's the next-in-line establishment candidate while the Republicans are trotting out a Cuban-Canadian whom no one had heard of in 2008 and an optometrist-libertarian whose known only because of his anti-establishment father.
Mary wrote: "I noticed that Paul, who had two blacks with him, used that racist "take our country back" line in his announcement speech. Maddow and O'Donnell had fun with it. Paul is too thin-skinned to do we..."I hate to admit it, but I just can't get enthusiastic about Hillary. I find her too old fashioned and still hiding in the shadow of the DLC. My impression may change, however, if she sparks the all-out war on the female sex the Teapublicans will launch against her. In a way, she can't lose, as the Republicans will be bolstering her campaign from day 1. I guess I just wish we had a female candidate I could get more excited about, like Warren.
Bill Maher told Warren on his show last night that if she won the nomination he would give her a million dollars. She said "I'm not running for President."If you don't recall, he gave a million dollars to one of the PACs supporting Obama.
He's not planning to give Hillary a million dollars.
I think the enthusiasm for Hillary is way down from 2008. She just doesn't come across as either exciting or interesting. There is a great danger the Democratic vote turnout will be low unless the Republicans nominate someone who they really can't stand.
Yes, lack of liberal enthusiasm because she's not new, exciting, or interesting is the problem with Hillary, Darlene and Dan. I liked Bill's comment about going back to the nineties, although I don't think Jeb is as much of a shoo-in as Hillary appears to be. Warren is definitely not running, and Jennifer Granholm, the former Michigan governor, was born in Canada, I guess to two Canadian parents, so she can't make the case that Cruz can (the one American-born parent case that didn't seem to help "Kenyan" Obama with the birthers). The female Senators who are retiring are even older than Hillary, so who's left among Democratic women? Are there any dynamic female mayors on the Democratic side? How about the new governor of Washington or Oregon? I sometimes confuse those two states, but one of them recently lost a male Democratic governor, and he was replaced by a woman. Unfortunately, the two nonwhite female governors of South Carolina and New Mexico are Republicans.Bill asked Elizabeth what she was wearing for the announcement tomorrow. I might wear black or brown since those seem to be Hillary's favorite colors. I will definitely not be wearing red, white, and blue.
It was our Democratic Governor Kitzhaber, who had just won another term, who was forced to resign because of conflicts of interest and possibly criminal misbehavior involving his fiance and government work. There is no lieutenant governor here so he was replaced by Secretary of State Kate Brown. She seems very good, but will not be a candidate for national office in the foreseeable future because she is bi-sexual. No one seems to care about that here in libertarian Oregon, but there is no way the Democrats would put her on a national ticket.
Dan wrote: " There is a great danger the Democratic vote turnout will be low unless the Republicans nominate someone who they really can't stand. ..."I think you're right, Dan, but if there's a single one of the Republican candidates to whom any sentient Democrat wouldn't instantaneously react by reaching for an emesis bowl or going into anaphylactic shock, then I can't think who it is. I'm not sure extreme aversion is going to be enough. I think the Democrats need to find an enthusiasm-arousing alternative to Hillary.
Mary, the current governor of Oregon is Kate Brown, who is very charismatic and unimpeachably liberal, having also implemented on-line voter registration in Oregon. She is openly bisexual, which would probably not alienate most Democrats (and might mobilize LGBT support), but it would also certainly render the Rethugs apoplectic and they'd try to use it as a weapon against her -- but the idiots who'd be receptive to that would never vote Democratic, anyway. At 54, she certainly projects a younger and more vigorous image than Hillary. As far as I know, she's evinced no interest in running, though.
The Governor of Washington is Jay Inslee, who is very strong on environmental issues and is a member of the "Bill Clinton New Democrat Coalition." He's also a solid liberal, and his congressional record reflects that, though I don't think he's particularly well-known outside of Washington. He's 64, so also younger than Hillary (though less conspicuously so), but like Brown, as far as I know, has shown no interest in challenging her for the 2016 nomination.
I think Hillary will defeat any Republican, but I worry about whether she will have coat tails. There is no Republican candidate I can think of who will attract a majority vote. It is quite possible we could have a 1964 again if the Republicans go with one of the extreme right-wing candidates. I hope that is the case because then were would be coat tails and the Democrats might regain control of Congress.
However, Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney will not generate enormous opposition, but I don't think either can win. They would reduce Hillary's coat tails and probably leave at least the House in Republican hands.
Unless Hillary makes a very serious mistake, and that is unlikely, she has the nomination locked up as of Monday. The best we can do is try to push her further towards progressive positions. That would help her and help other Democrats.
2nd line of 2nd pgh above should read x x x then there would be coat tails x x x
Dan wrote: "I think Hillary will defeat any Republican, but I worry about whether she will have coat tails. There is no Republican candidate I can think of who will attract a majority vote. It is quite possi..."
Dan, I would very much like to believe that you're right -- that Hillary would defeat any Republican -- but even if, in an ideal theoretical scenario of exactly equal percentage turnout for Democrats and Republicans (and independents, pari passu, by ideological leaning), Hillary would garner the most votes, I am concerned about the following:
1) The Republicans (demonstrably, by past actions) will steal the election if they possibly can, so there will be fraud, voter suppression, dirty tricks, computer tampering and other forms of electoral nullification on an unimaginable scale. The Republicans stole the 2000 and 2004 elections when they actually wielded less power to achieve that end. I want to hear one (believable) reason why they won't do it again. (Especially if Democratic turnout is low in virtue of lack of voter enthusiasm.)
2) The Republicans have access to effectively unlimited campaign funds, which the Democrats don't. There is no number of billion dollars they cannot come up with, if they perceive the need -- and altogether anonymously. Citizens v. United ended this country as a functioning democracy. There is the fact, moreover, that all the major media are now consolidated under the control of six, ultra-conservative corporations. Journalism is not what it was when you worked for UPI, Dan. I would contend that, the internet and fringe publications like MOJO aside, it has practically ceased to exist. MSNBC, having been taken over by Comcast, is in the midst of a purge of its remaining liberal commentators. Maddow may end up the last one standing. What reason -- one reason -- is there to believe that election coverage will not be massively slanted against Hillary? Even leaving aside illimitably large expenditures on toxic ads by Republicans, that cannot begin to be matched by Democrats?
3) Leaving aside that, in every state under Republican control, they will not cavil to employ a Katherine Harris, and that we still have the paleolithic anachronism of the Electoral College to ensure that the actual popular vote won't count, why would they not even go to the extreme of employing their sock puppets on the Supreme Court to effect another coup d'état? In short, for the third time, I want to hear one good reason why they will not steal the election -- no matter what the actual popular preference.
Dan wrote: "Unless Hillary makes a very serious mistake, and that is unlikely, she has the nomination locked up as of Monday. The best we can do is try to push her further towards progressive positions. That would help her and help other Democrats. "This is where I'm at, as well. My hope is that to the extent there is a primary, candidates like Sanders and O'Malley can get her on the record in support of broadly popular positions like guaranteed family and medical leave, increasing the minimum wage, etc.
I thought this article was good: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum.... The upshot is that while we might not like a focus on the middle class instead of the poor (which is basically a focus on the pretty wealthy over the people who are actually in need of the most help), increasing breathing room for the middle class will increase their political support for an expanded social safety net.
Paul wrote: "My hope is that to the extent there is a primary, candidates like Sanders and O'Malley can get her on the record in support of broadly popular positions like guaranteed family and medical leave, increasing the minimum, etc."Well, Hillary has just announced her candidacy.
My impassioned ranting on the subject of the seeming inevitability of an election stolen by the Republicans notwithstanding -- and especially in the face of a Democratic candidate who inspires just about zero passion, herself -- I'll certainly support Hillary to the mat if (as I concede seems absolutely unavoidable) she becomes that candidate.
I would prefer O'Malley, but stipulating that he has less chance than a snowflake crossing the Acheron, and that Sanders (my real preference) has less chance than Edward Snowden, I am interested, Paul, in the question you raise of the feasibility, in principle, that a nominal primary including at least those two additional candidates might move Hillary at all to the left, or induce her to go on record in support of the things we all desire. My general feeling is that, in order so to be motivated, Hillary would have to perceive an opposing candidate as an actual threat, with greater than a .01% chance of prevailing. Sanders, a socialist, a priori poses no credible threat whatever in this or any imaginable universe. Whether O'Malley or some other candidate could be elevated to the status of a "credible threat" seems extremely unlikely, but he could require her to answer questions in a debate (which she would infallibly sidestep with some anodyne irrelevancies -- if she even consented to a debate). From her perspective, I think, since she's not about to acknowledge that she's failing to engage the rapturous enthusiasm of her base, the calculus would be not to enhance the turnout of progressives (which she'd take for granted), but rather to appeal to moderates and independents... so I think she'd see no advantage in endorsing more progressive positions (or positions that are more progressive). I'm sure she's taking the nomination for granted and will be crafting her message for the general election.
What I noticed, liberals, in the discussion of how Hillary can win this time is the focus on campaign strategy and not issues. Chuck Todd said on Rachel's show that Hillary has to do what she did in the 2000 campaign, a kind of grassroots campaign instead of the inevitable frontrunner campaign that she ran in 2008. My thought was, "Oh, Lord, we're going back to 2000." Donna Brazille seemed to be making a similar point on "This Week." Hillary needs to do retail politics, she said. I agree with Todd that Hillary seems to be better as the underdog than as the frontrunner, but we have the issues on our side, so shouldn't she focus on those? I think Brazille made that point eventually. I'm still hoping that Hillary will serve as the blocker for O'Malley or someone else the way she did for Obama in 2008, but I'm no longer convinced that our candidate has to be a white man. We can make history with a white or even brown woman, but we definitely can not have another black candidate. I'm sick of the racism toward my people and do not want to deal with any more of it. If Kate Brown is out, is there a female mayor somewhere that might consider running?
Speaking of Brown, there is one old white man who might make one more presidential run, our governor Jerry Brown. He makes Hillary look like a spring chick, but Brown is in his fourth (very successful) term as governor of California, and he won without spending any money the last two times. Now, if one old white man gets in, well, why wouldn't Joe Biden join him? I say the more the merrier. I dream of never-gonna-happen candidate Barney Frank the way some of you other liberals dream of that other never-gonna-happen candidate from Massachusetts, Warren.
In case anyone is interested, I'm doing a giveaway of my other published book, Seneca Point, a Brandon Webster Mystery. https://www.goodreads.com/giveaway/sh...The character's use of elaborate disguises (in one of the major scenes he looks just like Tom Cruise) is based on the CIA's actual use of disguises, with the help of Hollywood makeup experts (true!). I got the idea from the book, The Master of Disguise, written by the CIA's real master of disguise.
I had a remarkable experience with Jerry Brown once. I covered a speech of his near my home in Columbia MD for UPI and something happened at the end that appeared at first to be dangerous. It wasn't but I couldn't get it out of my mind. I went home and told my wife and a friend who was visiting that George Wallace, who was scheduled to speak in Maryland the next week, was going to get shot. On the day of his speech I sent my youngest and newest reporter, Dean Reynolds, out to cover him. I told Dean to take a tape recorder because something was going to happen. He wouldn't do it. He was standing next to Wallace when he was shot. Dean, who was the son of ABC's Frank Reynolds, later was covering Ronald Reagan when he was shot and Olaf Palme of Sweden when he was killed. Dean now is a correspondent for CBS in Chicago and hasn't had any more such experiences.
Dan, what happened that made you think George Wallace would be killed? I've also predicted events or perhaps made them happen, which is why I call myself a witch. Dean's experiences remind me of a former student who has twice been with people who died suddenly. I told him to stay away from me.Brenda, if I were living outside the U.S., I would be more concerned with the American President's foreign policies, even though their domestic economic policies will also affect the world. Unless there are two messy wars going on or one (or more) of the candidates can scare us with talks of Communism (in the past) or terrorism (today), we Americans are more likely to focus on domestic policies.
Internationals should not assume that Hillary the President will have the same foreign policies as Hillary the Secretary of State. As Secretary of State, she reflected Obama's policies. She will probably be more hawkish and confrontational as President.
Mary, I didn't predict he would be killed, but that he would be shot. That's even more remarkable. It isn't the only time when I have had premonitions of events that then happened, and usually, fairly specific. I've never learned to control this, and sometimes I ignore the feeling either because I am occupied intensely with something else, or I am trying to prevent that event from happening.As to Hillary, I would not assume she would be more confrontational. Remember, she was the one who came under enormous pressure and criticism when she tried to prevent us from getting involved in Syria.
I was in the shower this morning, trying to somehow wake up after staying up until 4 a.m. finishing up What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (amazing book, everyone should read it), and it struck me that what Clinton should do for a campaign theme is the simple word: "Together."To me, that sums up liberalism and contrasts it with the dominant conservative ethos of the day. We're in this fight together. As Americans, as humans, as the 99.9 percent, as taxpayers, as people who interact with each other and our world. It can encompass pretty much every policy platform, from minimum wage to expanded leave to reducing carbon emissions to expanding access to health care. We do this because we're all in this together, not as separate islands in a sea of libertarianism, but as people who have joined a social compact to care for each other and govern each other in a democratic republic.
I don't know. It just struck me out of the blue, but I don't think it sucks.
Mark wrote: "Dan wrote: " There is a great danger the Democratic vote turnout will be low unless the Republicans nominate someone who they really can't stand. ..."I think you're right, Dan, but if there's a s..."
And to think that we have almost two years to discuss this and hear the ads for all the candidates. Ugghh. I wish we could do it more like Canada where their campaign time is much more abbreviated - I think it's either three or six weeks.
I think short campaigns work fine for small, or smaller, countries where the candidates generally are well-known. The U.S. is so big, both in size and population (we often seem to forget that we are the third largest country in population) that candidates are not well-known. A long campaign cycle generally exposes the weaknesses of most candidates. A short campaign cycle in the U.S. would work to the advantage of the plutocrats and demogogues.
Dan wrote: "I think short campaigns work fine for small, or smaller, countries where the candidates generally are well-known ..."Countries in which political (and general) ignorance is less comprehensive and overwhelming, as well. You're absolutely right that we need more time to educate the electorate, but unless and until we forbid corporations and the wealthy to purchase campaign commercials, reinstate the "fairness doctrine," diversify the media out of the hands of rapacious plutocrats, and perhaps (as is done in more rational countries*) publicly fund all political campaign advertising and prohibit expenditures in excess of that funding (with no "opt-out" provision)... I'm afraid most of the "education" will come from the bottomless toxic well of disinformation of the kakistocracy.
Of course, this affects the Democratic primary arguably less than the general election, but it still discourages potential alternative candidates who lack the corporatocratic backing of the more advantaged, "pre-approved credit" variety, like Hillary.
* per Wikipedia: "in the United Kingdom, television advertising is provided to campaigning parties for free and limited by law."
Maybe we need more time for elections than Canada does. Nevertheless, I don't think it has to be this long either. It feels like an anachronism to the days when the candidates had to go from whistle stop to whistle stop to get their ideas across. Now they can go on TV and everyone in the USA hears it. Websites bring immediate news 24/7 and the newspapers all use the same main wire services. I think we could shorten the whole process drastically.
Paul wrote: " It just struck me out of the blue, but I don't think it sucks. ..."Thanks, Paul. I think it exerts a positively phenomenal absence of "suckitude." :)
By the way, all, today is "National Library Workers Day," which we really ought to celebrate in honor of the Connecticut Four* and others who've fought the Fasci... er, Patriot Act's egregious authorization of NSL's to spy on library patrons' reading habits and to gag librarians from disclosing this to victimized targets.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecti...
Your idea doesn't suck, Paul, and it fits Hillary's grassroots campaign. She's trying to say that this campaign is about us, not her, but of course it's hard for her to make that case since she's been a celebrity for so long. Her approach also looks like what it is, a campaign strategy, not a long-term belief or philosophy. I also wonder if we (or any people) really want to "be in this together." Don't we really just want a leader to take care of everything for us, kind of like those characters in THE WIZARD OF OZ, who were looking for a new master as soon as the old one was dead? That's partly why some of us are disappointed with Obama. He always said he couldn't do it alone, but people didn't really hear that message; they heard that messianic Iowa victory speech where he talked about how people would say this (the night he won) was the moment when the waters started to be clean or whatever he said. He wasn't saying he would clean the waters, end racism, and bring the country together by himself, but that's what many people heard, and that's what they wanted. I know this is our mentality because I saw it on my job, and I'm seeing it now in my community. I'm trying to rally this community to take out a shady, racist home association board, but my neighbors (while angry at the board) just want me to take care of it. When I was complaining about my neighbors to some of my former Cal Poly colleagues at a recent lunch, one of them reminded me of a time when the lecturers were under attack in our department, and I was the only one speaking up to defend them; they weren't even defending themselves. Too many of us are sheep, looking for a shepherd (or a collie). We'll vote and send money; we'll even sign petitions, but we don't really want to get involved, to do anything that will rock our boats.
The two President approach is an interesting idea, Brenda, because often American Presidents are effective in one area but not the other. LBJ, for instance, was really good with domestic policy, but he handled the Vietnam War badly. George H. W. Bush, on the other hand, was much better with foreign than with domestic policy. Of course, a few Presidents (like FDR) might be good in both areas. And George W. Bush was horrible in both. In fact, he ended the Republicans are better with foreign policy, and Democrats are better with domestic policy narrative. Anyone paying attention now knows that the Republicans are bad in both areas.
Lisa, I agree that our elections are endless. In fact, I stopped watching CSPAN after 2008 because I knew they were about to start their Road to the White House 2012 series a week or so after Obama was elected. Still, we're starting slower this year than we did in 2007-8, the last time the Democrats were competing. Edwards announced at the end of December, 2006, Hillary announced in January, 2007, and Obama in February. I think the Republicans announced earlier for 2012 last time, but they are going to reduce the number of debates this time so that voters won't have as many opportunities to see how crazy they are. Of course, I never watch the Republican debates; I already know they are crazy.
Mary wrote: " think the Republicans announced earlier for 2012 last time, but they are going to reduce the number of debates this time so that voters won't have as many opportunities to see how crazy they are. Of course, I never watch the Republican debates; I already know they are crazy."Of course, it goes without saying, Mary, that I agree with you that the Republicans are flagrantly, clinically insane (virtually all exhibiting severe NPD), though I would not cavil also to say, "evil" (because I see them as consumed with avarice, racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, violent bellicosity and -- most of all -- intense Schadenfreude). All that said, your observation about their logical desire to minimize the number of their own internecine clown shows set me to wondering: If we could somehow devise a strategy to induce them to have more debates (I have some ideas), would that actually accrue to our advantage? I, naturally, instinctively feel, as you do, that it would -- because, to both of us, they're manifestly deranged (and several of them, mentally incompetent). For us, they're laughable and pathetic (when they're not terrifying) to watch, but I have to wonder if the general public (progressives aside) would be able to see it. I am always agape in wonderment, for example, that anyone could take one look at Ted Cruz and not recoil from palpable malignancy -- as though staring into the abyss (which stares right back). But they clearly don't see it. Are they blinded by their own hatred, by ignorance, by mental deficiency? I really don't know. But I think, for the Tea Partiers, virtually all other conservatives, and perhaps even most soi-disant "independants," it really might not be so evident. It actually does frighten me: not merely to contemplate the Republican slate, but to contemplate the electorate, itself (in its current state).
I'm not sure that the crazy things said by the Republicans cost them the 2012 election, Mark. I think Sandy helped us and hurt Romney as did his 47% comment, but they thought so. One thing that is clear, though, is the Republican clowns couldn't handle the intense spotlight last time, so Romney won nomination by default. Each time a new anybody-but-Romney candidate took the lead (Perry, Gingrich, Cain, finally Santorum), and the media started to investigate him, he quickly dropped in the polls. I noticed Scott Walker already seems to be fading after briefly looking like a frontrunner. I don't think we can trick them into debating more, but let's hope the media does its job and shows us just how crazy and out-of-step with this century they are.Dan, Doyle McManus' L.A. Times article (in today's paper), "Alternatives to Clintonland," supports my view of Clinton as more hawkish than Obama. I'll quote the relevant passage: "On foreign policy, Clinton faces a different set of challenges. She's long been more hawkish than Obama; she initially supported the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, only to acknowledge later that it was a mistake, and she urged the president to intervene more forcefully in Syria." Whatever happened with the Syria policy, Hillary is generally portrayed in the media (and thus perceived by voters) as more hawkish than Obama.
Mary wrote: " I don't think we can trick them into debating more, but let's hope the media does its job and shows us just how crazy and out-of-step with this century they are."You know, Mary, even if (as I haven't absolutely precluded from the realm of possibility), the Republicans didn't actually compel Nader to run in some fashion, I'm absolutely certain (and I do recall reports to this effect) that they covertly funnelled money into his campaign, so that it does occur to me that, if the campaign of any one of the cavalcade of clowns were flagging (since probably it's already been predetermined that Jeb is going to be the Rethug candidate, in any case), then since it's now legal for anyone or any entity to contribute funds anonymously to any campaign, the campaign of the clown in question could be made to last just a little longer with an anonymous contribution. That would have the effect of prolonging the Republican circus -- and necessitating more debates -- to the detriment of the ultimate nominee. That's what I meant by "a strategy" (not that I'm advocating it, because that would be wrong and Machiavellian and so... well, quintessentially Republican). Just a stray thought, though... :)
Brenda wrote: "Good point, Mary. It would be interesting if there were two elected top officials--one for domestic, one for foreign. This notion came to me again when I recently watched the UK's leaders debate, w..."It's a really intriguing suggestion, Brenda -- and I've always felt we'd do better with a parliamentary system (so I don't personally like the current arrangement, either -- especially since it's become largely a façade for naked plutocratic control)... but unfortunately, there's no actual prospect the system will ever be modified. It would be a step forward if we even managed to restore the semblance of a functioning democracy.
In any case, a great many (conservative) Americans are actually enthusiastic about fighting wars, and so it's not clear that, if they could vote for a "foreign policy czar," say, separately from the president (there'll never be two presidents*), that they wouldn't actually choose a jingoistic one. Americans are extraordinarily ignorant of world affairs, so they don't generally even understand what's going on, but many of them like even wars they don't understand. It's evident, too, on the domestic side, that they're quite willing, as I've said before, to vote for their own economic evisceration.
The country is schizophrenically polarized. You see the sane and educated half (or less than half) of it on this group. And there are many progressives. But the Repubs have completely appropriated the "minds" (I use the word ironically) and sympathies of the other half -- the ignorant, belligerent, zombie half -- to vote for them. That half would vote for a "foreign (and domestic) policy president" who would be vastly to the right of Hillary, whom I think everyone here finds too "hawkish," even so.
I always like novel suggestions, though, so please do continue to post your ideas!
* There are people who will cavil that we actually did have "two presidents" under George W., but I would contend that we had only one: Cheney.
Mark, I agree (as would he) that Cheney was the real President at least until 2006 when the loss of Congress turned Bush against him. Some might argue that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State act as the foreign czars when they act together. Obviously, Rumsfeld and Powell were not acting together.Keeping the clowns in the race is a good idea, but I'm not sure we need to funnel any money into their campaigns. Jeb can't do what his brother did because now billionaires can adopt a candidate and pour millions into their campaign. That's how Gingrich and Santorum were able to stay in the race the last time.
Dan wrote: "The contrast between Minnesota and Wisconsin is remarkable and something progressives should make a big deal about. It is contemporary proof that progressive policies work. They always have but peo..."The contrast is not only striking, but sad. I grew up in Wisconsin when Gaylord Nelson and Wm Proxmire were Senators. Then Russ Feingold became a congressman. Those days are long gone. Wisconsin was a progressive state (McCarthy excepting... and a dark period for all Americans) for a long time. Those days appear to be gone.
Now I'm trying to endure life in Kansas, another poster child for a f*%^d up governing project. It is hard to be optimistic about anything these days.
Kansas once had a populist government. I think they all moved to California. What is going on with your state government defies reason. What is wrong with the majority of the voters in Kansas? How much evidence do they need that the Republicans cannot govern? It already is beyond the beyond the "any reasonable doubt" standard for conviction in a criminal case.
Mary, re: your sense that people really don't want to "be in this together", I tend to agree with you. We spout the line but don't live the sentiment. I'm very active in an environmental group and I see this lived out almost daily. In our case, we want people to be involved/committed to "our" particular passion or project but we won't invest in theirs. We operate in silos defined by parochial interests and rarely step outside narrow areas of expertise to work on someone else's team. There is a lack of holistic thinking among my generation (Boomers) which makes it difficult to mobilize people around the Big Picture. I think the Democratic Party suffers from the same thing. We are a big tent but we don't blend well with one another to work on behalf of some unifying principle. Or maybe it's just that we don't *have* a unifying principle.
As an environmentalist, my unifying idea is stopping climate change. If we don't do that, nothing else we do will amount to anything at all. Yet the wildlife people only want to save a wolf, the fracking people want to stop natural gas, the river people only care about preserving the river ...on and on it goes. And almost no one wants to open their eyes to see how the economic system we live within frames all of it (see: Naomi Klein, "This Changes Everything"). That is just too challenging and scary.
I think that perhaps we older adults are under the misconception that we fixed everything in the 60s and 70s with all kinds of great legislation. So now we should be able to sit back and enjoy the spoils of our labor, however meager they might be. We fought once, or twice, or even three times. Now, we're done. We want someone else to do the fighting. And they are all staring into their phones. It doesn't help that the corporate oligarchy has taken charge. Legislation is unwinding and court battles are lost. Honestly, until we begin to show up in large numbers, in the streets, I'm not sure we will accomplish much. And getting people into the streets? Darn near futile. If 40-60 show, it's a celebration. The one exception was the Climate March, and the MSM pretty much ignored it.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything. : ) [end of rant]
Dan wrote: "Kansas once had a populist government. I think they all moved to California. What is going on with your state government defies reason. What is wrong with the majority of the voters in Kansas? How ..."Yes it did, Dan. It hasn't been ascendant in longer than I've been here, which is 46 years. The electorate here is extremely conservative and it seems, deaf and blind to boot. All our polls said Davis, the Democrat, would win the governorship. He was creamed. First, the western part of the state turned out big-time over the fear they'd get an Obama liberal. They believed all the kool-aid that the Republicans poured into their empty heads. And the Democratic party didn't have a compelling narrative, to be honest. Many people didn't turn out to vote who were moderates or liberals. I think they thought Davis had a lock on it, which was very false thinking. And in our appeal to Hispanics? We never printed anything in Spanish! WTF?
We are literally going bankrupt. And all those arch-conservative, Western Kansas voters are seeing their schools close weeks before they were supposed to because they don't have enough money to stay open. And their farms are drying up (thank you Climate Change) but they don't believe in man-made climate change OR evolution. Guess they figure God is in charge and will fix it all. They can home school I suppose. That's a big movement here. My own state representative, in a major metropolitan area, is a strict Tea Party girl, home schools her gazillion kids, and won't support public schools. She doesn't believe in evolution either. Even worse, she can sound articulate and rationale, which is mind-blowing.
I can't even bear to tell you what the legislature has done to Medicaid and environmental protection. It is nothing short of terrifying. The voter registration rules and barriers to voting are guaranteed to make it difficult for people of color to vote, as well as the elderly.
Oh, and I don't think we can legally recall Brownback without the Sec of State signing off, and Kris Kobach will never do it. (just to remind you, the Koch's are in Wichita and own the legislature almost 100%).
Your state is the poster child for what the Kochs want the country to be. The Democrats have done a poor job at the state level across the country for the last ten years and the Republicans have steadily gained power over state governments. It is very dangerous. There is now a new effort to focus on electing Democrats at the local level but it is going to take several cycles to restore some balance.
Dan wrote: "Your state is the poster child for what the Kochs want the country to be. The Democrats have done a poor job at the state level across the country for the last ten years and the Republicans have ..."
Absolutely agree. We have no depth and aren't developing new talent. The Tea Party is starting to infiltrate our County Commission and cut budgets for wastewater and such. They are an extremely dangerous, regressive bunch of characters who know how to wield power.
That's another thing that Democrats lack: a thirst for power and skill to use it. Power isn't a bad thing, in and of itself. Without it you're .. well, powerless. You get nothing you desire if you passively wait for someone else to advocate on your behalf. I wish either LBJ or one of the Roosevelts was around. They had no qualms about such things. Actually, neither does Hillary, which is one of the traits I admire about her.
This what I have written in my as yet unpublished book, Do What Works and Call it Capitalism, about what kinds of leaders we need"These successful leaders, including the best Presidents, almost always have been eloquent, self-confident and optimistic, with strong, fearless, personalities that both commanded respect and showed respect for others. They surrounded themselves with other people of talent, knowledge and judgment. They had strong political instincts and could be ruthless in dealing with opponents, as well as with the enemies of the nation. They never were considered “wimps.” They had a clear sense of what they wanted to accomplish, a powerful will to accomplish their goals, and a remarkable ability to communicate their vision, and inspire others. They didn't wait for polls to decide what to do.
"For a new progressive era to become a reality, more leaders of this type must step forward to formulate and communicate the vision, and take charge of its implementation. They must be able to draw others together into a national movement that transcends individuals.
"There are progressive leaders in Congress and in the state houses, but more need to be encouraged and developed. A major reason why progressives failed to keep control of the national government in the past was because each era was too dependent on one leader. The new progressive movement must have many leaders, and it must be independent of the President, even if the President is a progressive."
Dan wrote: "This what I have written in my as yet unpublished book, Do What Works and Call it Capitalism, about what kinds of leaders we need"These successful leaders, including the best Presidents, almost a..."
Outstanding! I couldn't agree more. A strong political instinct and yes, a love of rough and tumble political maneuvering, is essential. Obama hates politics. He likes policy. He had very unrealistic ideas about how to make policy a reality. We have all suffered for it.
Hillary has good instincts I think but it remains to be seen if (should she be elected) she can maneuver as well as President as she did in the Senate. Unfortunately, she is not inspirational most of the time. She is most able to do that when she talks about women, girls, and the Middle Class. That may be all we need for now but not enough to get us through.
The frayed Democratic Party structure throughout the country is going to be a tough nut to crack. We absolutely need many strong leaders.
At a minimum Hillary right now seems to have the best chance of keeping the White House in Democratic hands, which is critical. If nothing more, she may be just a bridge to a stronger progressive leader in a few years. It is going to take time for a progressive grass roots movement to get going. I think Bernie Sanders could do more for the country by helping to organize that than he would by trying to run for President.
Dan wrote: "At a minimum Hillary right now seems to have the best chance of keeping the White House in Democratic hands, which is critical. If nothing more, she may be just a bridge to a stronger progressive l..."Totally agree! We underestimate the importance of strong Democratic legislators like Warren and Sanders. They need to stay where they are as well as hold a (hopefully) Democratic President's feet to the first.
Most of us of Hillary's age (and I'm one) are a bridge at this point in our lives. But that isn't a bad thing. May the younger generations use our work and our backs to climb up to a better future!
The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Gift Upon the Shore (other topics)Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815 - 1848 (other topics)
More...
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...