The 2020 Democratic pre-primary debates are about to begin, and I think they are a terrible idea. Democrats have an amazing, deep bench of highly qualified, intelligent candidates for President. We should celebrate them—all of them, and their ideas—not turn them against one another in a prime-time circular firing squad.

Debates are designed to be confrontational. There’s score keeping. There’s grandstanding. There are winners and losers. With a field this qualified—this early in the game—that’s not a smart approach. Rather than rushing to winnow down the crowd, the Democratic party should be showcasing the range of smart, progressive, practical, and beneficial policies and programs that these candidates stand behind.

So, here’s an idea. Instead of a dozen or more candidates standing stiffly behind podiums, trying to think up snappy comebacks or memorable bumper-sticker lines in the 30-seconds they have to speak, let’s do something completely different. Let’s ditch the network correspondents and their gotcha questions, the timers, the flashing lights, the podiums, the audience woo-woo, and the win/lose format. Instead, sit them down at a roundtable and let them brainstorm—collaboratively—the big issues facing this country. Give everyone at the table a chance to offer constructive input. Show the country that discussion—rather than debate—and mutual respect—rather than competition—can create the solutions that we desperately need. Maybe offer a series of these roundtable brainstorming sessions, each focused on one or two issues. I’d like to hear what each of these candidates would say, especially if the idea is to be collaborative, not self-promoting.  What a way to underscore the differences between the Republican Party’s obstructive, confrontational and downright nasty way of “governing,” and a Democratic [capital and small d], cooperative, good-of-the-country attitude. Publicly brainstorming the big issues could show the country–dare I say inspire us?–to see what could be done when people think big, think smart and think together.

We are at a dangerous moment in the run-up to the 2020 Presidential election. We’ve hardly even met some of the Democratic contenders, and the party “leadership” is already trying to narrow the field to a few favorites. Sure, culling the field could focus the almighty fundraising efforts and possibly create the non-diluted groundswell for a single candidate that would make things go more smoothly for the Democratic party apparatus. But in my opinion, that’s a mistake.

We know who the conventional “front runners” are (based on the destructive fundraising race and on far-too-early-to-be-credible polling). But things can change, and the lesser-known candidates have barely had a chance to introduce themselves. Let’s slow this thing down, and think beyond the way it’s always been done. The person currently occupying the White House has built his presidency on breaking all the rules. Maybe the Democrats could think about shaking things up a bit, too. But in a good way.

The post Democratic debates? How about something completely different this time appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The 2020 Democratic Iowa caucuses could become more [small-d] democratic, if changes proposed by the state party are approved—and if they work—which is a big if. Overall, it’s a hopeful sign, for at long last, someone is trying to do something about the crazy system Democrats use for choosing their presidential nominee.

As is well known, the Iowa caucuses are among the [unfortunate] critical first contests in the nomination process. The Democratic caucuses in 2016 were a huge political mess for the party: At the end of the night, the party awarded a razor-thin victory to Hillary Clinton, enraging supporters of Bernie Sanders, who cried foul. [Republicans had a similar—perhaps even worse—fiasco in 2012, when the Iowa party declared Mitt Romney the winner of its straw poll [not a caucus]—but later—after Romney had seized the momentum generated by the first win—figured out that Rick Santorum had actually won.]

In the wake of those problems, the Democratic National Committee recently issued new guidelines for caucuses. The goals include two key points aimed at boosting turnout:

• Same-day registration—allowing caucus-day registration to any voter willing to join the party
• Remote participation—eliminating the requirement of actually being in one of Iowa’s 1,679 caucus locations.

But the DNC doesn’t specify how to accomplish these goals, leaving the nitty gritty to state parties.

According to Steven Rosenfeld at Common Dreams, the changes under consideration would be…

“…the most sweeping and radical changes to [Iowa’s] first-in-the-nation caucuses in 50 years, including potentially adopting online elements that could increase participation by upward of 100,000 voters, according to party leaders.  The mix of offering same-day registration to any voter willing to join the party and an ability to remotely caucus will pose unprecedented outreach, organizing and turnout possibilities for Democratic candidates.”

But…

Obstacles abound. The Iowa Democratic party is still debating how to implement the goals, which add complexity to an already complex caucus set-up. Rosenfeld explains it like this:

“The biggest challenge is not what will likely draw the early headlines: that Iowa likely will be conducting online voting in 2020’s caucuses. Nor will it concern what online technology, vendor, security and authentication would be used. Instead, the party will have to create a counting process where the votes coming into its 1,679 caucus sites are electronically tabulated in an open and coordinated fashion with each round of voting in the caucus sites—where participants break off into groups for each candidate.

Under Iowa’s caucus rules, presidential candidates with less than 15 percent of the votes are excluded from subsequent voting rounds. The caucus ends when all of the remaining contenders are above that threshold. In a typical caucus, supporters of the apparently marginal candidates realign with others, literally by moving across the room to join other groups as the voting continues. To keep this event’s spirit alive, which the Iowa party and DNC say is crucial, the participation and tabulation of voting has to be sequential, coordinated, transparent and verifiable.”

Got that? Me neither. And then, combining in-person caucusing with potential remote alternatives—such as on-line voting, mail-in voting [with ranked-choice ballots], tele-voting and/or proxy voting—could be a logistical and technological nightmare. In addition, the party needs to select technology vendors who can make it all work, and educate voters about the new procedures. It should also be noted that the state election authority, the office with the most experience in conducting elections, is not in charge of the caucuses. That’s the job of the state’s political parties, who do not have the same level of expertise or, presumably, credibility.

I congratulate the Democratic party and Iowa democrats for the impulse to improve the system. But I can’t help thinking that this stubborn insistence on holding caucuses—and being first—and allowing a rural state that doesn’t really represent the majority of Democrats to wield so much power—is the essential flaw in the system.

The post Hope for change in 2020 Iowa caucuses, but… appeared first on Occasional Planet.

At a rally in support of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams in Stockbridge, Georgia on October 7, 2018, former U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder said,

“It is time for us as Democrats to be as tough as they [Republicans] are, to be as dedicated as they are; to be as committed as they are.

Michelle says when they go low, we go high. No, when they go low, we kick them.”

Kudos to Holder for urging Democrats to work harder. Words of caution and concern to Holder for asking us to take the low road.

It may be true that in recent years the Democrats have been out-hustled by the Republicans. In the 2016 presidential race, apathy contributed to the Democrats’ defeat as much as anything. But when Eric Holder takes away the high ground from the Democrats and says that “we kick them,” he gives Republicans a line that they can run with, similar to Hillary’s “basket of deplorables.” Furthermore, he distracts Democrats from the direction in which they must move by only focusing on the intensity of the movement.

It’s somewhat similar to praising the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini for making the trains run on time, without any regard as to where they were going (often to war). If Democrats use dirty tactics, it is of little consequence what values they purport to hold.

It’s not just a question of “just makes right” for the Democrats. While most of us who are active progressives are more likely to get a good night’s sleep after working in an above-board fashion, there is even more than that to consider.

Democrats need to find new ways to distance themselves from Republicans. What they must do to distance themselves from Republicans needs to be:

1. Satisfactory to the Democratic base.
2. Meaningful to independents and others who infrequently vote for Democrats and whose votes are essential for Democratic wins.
3. Most importantly, what Democrats do differently has to be visible to independents and other infrequent Democratic voters.

For today, here’s one strategy that Democrats can take. Focus on voters and not dollars.

There are two obnoxious ways in which Democrats seek money for their campaigns. First is groveling for big money, often from sources that are “dark.” Second is by being like the out-of-town uncle at the Thanksgiving table who is constantly begging everyone else to give him money.

Yes, money is needed for campaigns, if even just to spread the message that Democrats are not acting like Republicans when it comes to money. Ideally, this seed money would be available through public financing, but we’re not there yet.

Democrats need to make the point that their policies are designed to protect consumers, workers and businesses that operate in an ethical fashion. They also advocate strengthening the safety net so those who are experiencing mis-fortune or are simply not skilled enough to function in today’s economy have the means to have a livable income.

Democrats need to advocate for those who live as close to honest and hard-working lives as possible and who value the common good as well as individual liberties.

Jettison the money crap; it’s not the way that the grass-roots base of the Democratic Party lives its lives. We have no control over whether the Republicans go low or high, although I wouldn’t go to Vegas to put money on Republican ethics. But Democrats need to go high. Money may or may not be the root of all evil, but it makes sense that the first place for Democrats to “go high” is to totally reform their relationship to money. To paraphrase the “Raging Cajun,” James Carville, “It’s the voters, stupid!”

The post Really, Eric Holder says we should kick them appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When 28-year-old, first-time, Latina candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pulled off a stunning primary upset against 10-term Democrat Joe Crowley in New York, it was cause for celebration. At least that’s how I saw it. But, apparently, I had a different reaction than that of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.

Pelosi downgraded Ocasio-Cortez’s surprise victory calling it a random outlier and saying, “It should not be viewed as something that stands for everything.” And McCaskill, asked what she had in common with Ocasio-Cortez, said, “Not much.”

I view these dismissals of Ocasio-Cortez as both offensive and counter-productive. I can’t understand why leaders of the Democratic party aren’t celebrating the success of a candidate who is doing precisely what the Democratic party should be encouraging: coming off the sidelines, getting engaged in politics, putting herself on the line for progressive ideas—and representing the exact demographic that the party needs to move forward and to regain its mojo.

Well, actually, I think I do understand why Pelosi and McCaskill are distancing themselves from Ocasio-Cortez, but the reasons aren’t  pretty. It’s all about the internal politics of the Democratic establishment. Ocasio-Cortez knocked off a big name, a party insider who was on the short list to replace Pelosi as House Minority Leader [or possibly majority leader, if the blue wave actually hits in November]. The party elite had a succession plan—it was Crowley’s “turn”—and now Ocasio-Cortez has messed up the pre-determined order of things. That’s a no-no.

I’m afraid, too, that Ocasio-Cortez also carries with her—in the narrow view of the Democratic party apparatus—the “taint” of being an organizer in Bernie Sanders’ bid for the Democratic nomination in 2016. His candidacy was viewed by the party power elite as an insurgency, an assault on democratic centrist orthodoxy, and a threat to the prescribed order of things, in which the presidential nomination rightfully belonged to Hillary Clinton. They’re still mad about that, apparently, even though Sanders’ ideas remain popular–as demonstrated by Ocasio-Cortez, who describes herself as a Democratic Socialist, like Sanders. So, while America retreats into the 19^th Century on social and economic issues under Donald Trump, the Democratic party seems to be re-litigating its 2016 internal battle between Bernie-ites and Clinton-ites—and taking it out on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

As the party of Trump increasingly moves to the right, espousing radical, retrograde ideas that were once too extreme to talk about in public, it’s clear to me that the Democratic party must offer a choice as the party of the progressive ideas that have made life in America better for a wide range of people. They should be standing up for the New Deal ideas that Republicans, in their current orgy or power, are assiduously tearing down, day by day, one by one.

Democrats are not going to win by pandering to the right—as McCaskill did in her dismissive comment delivered on a conservative, St. Louis-based talk show. [Question: Would she have said the same thing on MSNBC?] Hasn’t the Democratic party learned that we can’t out-Republican the Republicans?  Democrats need to go left, as Ocasio-Cortez did—and won doing it. Instead of putting Ocasio-Cortez down and downgrading as a “fluke” a victory that should be seen as an energizing event, they should be asking her for advice.

Pelosi, McCaskill and other higher-ups in the party hierarchy are wishing for blue wave in November. They’re desperate to find strategies that will increase voter turnout, especially among younger voters. So, here’s a candidate who has the potential to do exactly that,  who may be a role model for others, and whose improbable victory could offer an object lesson in the perils of complacency. Dissing her is just plain dumb.

The post Pelosi, McCaskill dis Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after she beats entrenched NY Dem. WTF? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Democratic party’s rules for nominating presidential candidates are deeply flawed. Unfortunately, cycle after cycle, the party has failed to make changes that would make the process more…er,…democratic. Now, with less than two years to go until the 2020 primary season, the Democratic party is looking at some alterations.

A recent article in the New York Times spells out the problem and some possible solutions:

The most significant, and divisive, step would involve reducing the role and power of superdelegates — the unpledged party insiders who are free to back any candidate regardless of how the public votes — ahead of the 2020 election. Their influence caused substantial tension two years ago when supporters of [Bernie] Sanders zeroed in on superdelegates as “undemocratic” and said they created an unfair and even rigged system favoring [Hillary] Clinton.

Now, party officials, including loyalists held over from both the Sanders and Clinton camps, are inching toward a compromise that would not only minimize the role of superdelegates but change the party’s operational structure as well.

The ideas on the table range from eliminating superdelegates altogether to reducing their numbers significantly — from more than 700 currently to about 280. Some officials said they preferred a proposal in which only elected government officials, and not party leaders, retain their superdelegate status.

…Several D.N.C. officials familiar with the negotiations said the Democrats most averse to change were state party officials and elected members of Congress who would stand to lose their coveted superdelegate status and the exclusive level of candidate access that often accompanies it.

The superdelegate structure has been in place since 1982, when some Democratic party leaders—mostly state and national elected officials—felt that they were being sidelined in the voting.

In “A Brief History of Superdelegates,” Daily Kos blogger Poblano explains that one of the original intents of having superdelegates was:

“..as a mechanism to “break glass in case of emergency”.  Thus could run the gamut from providing some experienced, stabilizing voices in the event of a procedural fight on the convention floor, to potentially picking a different nominee in the event of an Eagleton-type crisis.

Party leaders will vote on the proposal to limit or eliminate superdelegates later this summer. [The Republican party does not have superdelegates.]

Other rule changes under consideration

Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic party, is also planning to work on additional changes. He is quoted in the New York Times as saying that:

“…he will set a presidential primary debate schedule much earlier in the nomination process to minimize the perception of bias. The change is another nod to the factions created by the 2016 election, when Sanders protested vehemently that the debate schedule disproportionately benefited Clinton.

The New York Times reports that Perez also plans to decide the debate schedule in advance, instead of negotiating it after all of the candidates have entered the race.

Perez has also encouraged the D.N.C. commissions that are drafting reforms to recommend changes that would streamline the process of registering to vote in primaries.

Of particular interest to Democratic leaders are state caucuses, which may now be required to accommodate absentee voting, incorporate paper ballots and publicly report statewide voter counts. States that use the traditional primary system may soon be forced to allow same-day registration for voters to register as Democrats.

All of these proposed changes will be presented at a series of party meetings over the summer. It’s sure to be an interesting and lively debate, and the outcome is far from certain. One thing is for sure, though: The 2016 presidential primary season was a debacle—for both parties—and something’s gotta give.

These changes could be a good start. Keep in mind, though, that every time the party tweaks the rules—which is not very often—there can be unintended consequences. Also, one thing that the Democratic party seems not to be addressing is the primary schedule itself—the whole Iowa,  New Hampshire and South Carolina craziness and its disproportionate effect on the nominating process. But, alas, here we are, less than two years away from the next potential disaster, and not a peep from Democrats about this. Without a fundamental change in that schedule, we’re in for another out-of-whack primary season.

The post New rules for Democratic Party: Will they get it right this time? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There’s nothing particularly sexy about what’s happening above the radar in Democratic politics. Primaries for Congress and states don’t start until well after the calendar flips to 2018, so the bitterness and nastiness is only being planned rather than revealed. The campaign professionals remind all candidates of the motto of Emily’s List: Early Money Is Like Yeast.

So, t ’is the season to receive the invitation to all the fund-raisers. Somewhat akin to the way in which Republicans have flag-flation at public events, Democrats have diarrhea of the name-dropping at their semi-secret fund-raisers. I recently received an invitation to a fund-raiser for a state senate candidate which had over one-hundred co-hosts. Even though I ran for Congress twice in a district that includes that state senate district, I was extremely honored to not be on the list of the hosts, and in fact, to never have been asked.

You see, names are the currency that precede the dollars when it comes to fund-raising. Well, more accurately, they are the teasers to get big bucks. For those who are part of the Bernie donor base (average $27 a pop), they really don’t care who else is giving, or what their titles are, or where their kids go to school. They just want to support a candidate who will do their bidding for them and all they expect in return is that the candidate will honor their faith. They don’t care about getting their names or photos splashed all over the place.

Last time I checked, the winners of elections are normally determined by who gets the most votes, not who raises the most money. There are plenty of candidates who were successful in filling the coffers but not pleasing the voters.

I was very disappointed when I saw several months ago that California Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, a 2020 presidential hopeful, was making inroads with the Democratic Donor Base. My fear was that she would follow the footsteps of Hillary Clinton and remove herself from her natural base while spending her evenings and nights offering plastic smiles and insincere promises to the folks with big bucks.

While it is essentially true that all big donors come from the wealthy, the reverse is not true. It’s surprising how many wealthy people are not political donors. If a candidate wants to be inclusive and address the interests of the wealthy, he or she can do so without dialing for their dollars. It has been repeatedly shown that moving people out of poverty and improving the living standards of those in the middle class is beneficial to the wealthy – primarily because more money is in circulation.

So even while it is true that to achieve a more just and fair economy and society, the wealthy will have to sacrifice in the short-run, in the long-term it will probably help them.

It is essential to recognize that over 97% of households with income over $200,00 do not make donations of $2,700 or more to political candidates. When we’re talking about donations to Democrats, the number is closer to 99% of wealthy people who do not.

Ninety-four percent of the population of the United States lives in households with incomes less than $200,000. That’s where the votes are. That’s how Bernie Sanders did so well.

There are many wealthy Americans who are not ostentatious. Their political views are largely private, or at least devoid of large donations.

Democratic candidates can be inclusive of the wealthy if they are willing to be honest. It’s much easier to do that with someone from whom you are not asking for money.

Democrats who insist on sucking up to the donor class will always be at risk of the disconnect that befell Hillary Clinton. They can raise money and win if they have compelling arguments for the natural constituencies of the Democratic Party. It is time to diminish the role of the Democratic Donor Base in the groupism fabric of the Democratic Party. Candidates are more likely to win more and feel good about it.

The post Dems: Let’s try politics without the donor class appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Since the harrowing, soul-crushing Democratic defeat in the 2016 elections (and ever since), liberals have been desperately wracking their beleaguered brains trying to devise a strategy to reclaim any modicum of control before the 2018 election cycle. Triumphantly, they announced their new platform, “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future,” thinking they had seized upon a guaranteed win. I beg to differ.

The new platform revolves around three principal aims: “(1) Raise the wages and incomes of American workers and create millions of good-paying jobs; (2) Lower the costs of living for families; (3) Build an economy that gives working Americans the tools to succeed in the 21st Century.” In short, their plan is to court white working class voters. The party appears to have assessed its electoral failures to be the result of focusing too much on “identity politics” and framing too many issues in terms of social justice, rather than concentrating on the economic woes of the middle class.

And so, they’ve removed references to race, religion, immigration, gender identity, sexual orientation, sex, even SES/class from the new platform. (Don’t worry, A Better Deal still explicitly promises to “make it a national priority to bring high-speed Internet to every corner of America” though. Y’know, the most urgent matters.)

Now, I’ll readily admit the Democratic establishment’s messaging on economic issues was perhaps subpar during the last election cycle, especially after they worked to push Bernie further and further off stage. But relegating “social justice” issues to some dark, dusty, forgotten corner of the attic until it’s a more convenient time to trot them out? That undermines the most fundamental values the Left purports to swear by.

The Democratic establishment is saying with A Better Deal, “people of color, religious minorities, women, LGBTQIA folk, immigrants, poor people, and other underprivileged communities: we value your vote and agree that you face some challenges in America today. But, please, for the sake of the greater good, we have to put your struggles on the back burner. It’s not that we don’t care, promise, it’s just that your struggles are… divisive. So we’ll focus on white working class concerns for now, and then once we win more elections, we’ll get back to you. Pinky swear, we will. Until then, remember to vote Democrat. K thx, bye.”

Not only does this egregiously belittle and denigrate the continued— and now intolerably heightened— threats to minority and underprivileged communities under the Trump administration, but it actively undermines social justice causes in the most duplicitous repudiation of the Left’s professed desire for a more egalitarian society.

“But wait!” you cry. “Economic justice is social justice! Once we fix growing income inequality, regulate Wall Street, and stop companies from outsourcing American jobs, it will naturally result in better conditions for minorities! And once we appease the white working class, even they will be more amicable to minority concerns!”

Now, I concede there are, for instance, some highly racialized aspects to many of our most pressing economic concerns. We can see it in the way that impoverished communities are disproportionately communities of color and the continuing wage gap. Economic and racial justice are, most certainly, inextricably tied. But economic justice is not enough for racial justice. As Senator Elizabeth Warren said in 2015, calling upon the doctrine of Dr. Martin Luther King, “Economic justice is not — and has never been — sufficient to ensure racial justice. Owning a home won’t stop someone from burning a cross on the front lawn.” Making the argument that just addressing the economy will also solve racism is much the same as claiming that a colorblind worldview will solve racial problems: “if we ignore race, then racial disparities will melt away of their own accord.” But the thing is impoverished people of color face different, unique challenges from impoverished white people (that’s the whole principle of intersectionality, y’all), and if you don’t address the very real effects of compounded inequality you simply cannot achieve a just, egalitarian society.

And that intersectional, inclusive, holistic understanding of egalitarian justice is now more necessary than ever in Trump’s America. Marginalized communities are under attack from all sides; no one’s been spared. From Trump’s deafening silence on hate crimes to his apparent endorsement of police brutality, and from his continued insistence on the Muslim ban to his newly found insistence on the Trans Military ban, one thing is indisputably clear: this is not the time for the Left to distance itself from social justice causes.

Many political scientists and pundits are speculating that the key questions of the 21st century are “who belongs?” and “who is an American?”, and Trump is making it increasingly clear that, for him, women, immigrants, religious minorities, people of color, the poor, and LGBTQIA folk, among others, have no place in his vision of America.

But the thing is, with this Better Deal platform, those communities don’t have much of a place in the Democrats’ vision of America either. Suggesting that the concerns of marginalized communities can wait for a later, more convenient date ignores the aforementioned threats to those communities. And in the meanwhile— while Democrats are focused on “more important things”—  people are literally dying. This whole idea of “waiting until a more convenient time” is antithetical to social progress. It’s not neutral, it’s actively harmful. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” MLK wrote:

“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was ‘well timed’ according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word ‘wait.’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This ‘wait’ has almost always meant ‘never.’ It has been a tranquilizing thalidomide, relieving the emotional stress for a moment, only to give birth to an ill-formed infant of frustration. We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”

And when the Left starts to actively hinder social justice causes like this, it has turned its back on those high and mighty principles of egalitarianism and progressive justice that it has long promised voters. Democrats love scorning the GOP for calling itself the party of “family values,” pointing out all the hypocritical ways the Right then turns its back on those same values. But with this erasure of so many social justice concerns from the Democratic platform, the Left is no better. It has abdicated any semblance of moral high ground it might have once held.

Look, I can understand the desperation behind this new approach. The Left is scrambling to try to present a unified front in the face of its crippling 2016 defeat. I get that. But the Left has also repeatedly turned away every effort to embrace a more progressive agenda in favor of the same establishment views that led to that defeat in the first place. When Hillary beat Bernie in the primaries but then tried to pick up some of his more radical positions to court his voters, the Democratic party should have realized, right then and there, that rather than trying to become a moderate party, it needed to move further left. And yet, when the Democrats had the option of taking that step by selecting Keith Ellison to be party chair, they doubled down on the centrist wishy-washiness and went with Tom Perez. And this Better Deal is more of the same. But the Democrats for whatever reason expect different results. So my sympathy is wearing thin.

Even if we set aside the moral principles that cause me to be viscerally repulsed by this Better Deal, from a purely pragmatic standpoint this platform is not going to hand Democrats electoral victories by winning over white working class voters. It’s not that easy. The Left screwed up in the 2016 cycle when it basically handed that demographic over to the GOP by not opposing Trump’s populist messaging; and creating this milktoast, watered-down version of populist economics after the fact isn’t going to suddenly change that. And, quite frankly, white working class voters aren’t likely to choose this populist vision of economics when the GOP’s is still so potent. As Michelle Cottle wrote in The Atlantic, Trump’s “cruel fantasy, scapegoating certain groups to fuel false hope in others [is] such a soothing, satisfying bedtime story for many Americans that it’s almost irresistible.” Thomas Mann, a senior fellow in governance studies with the Brookings Institution, told Cottle, “the Democrats’ Better Deal can’t compete at a rhetorical level with Trump’s Make America Great Again.” Simply put, A Better Deal isn’t compelling messaging. Without concurrently advocating for things like an end to for-profit private prisons, reproductive health rights, and more grants to help people of color and the poor go to school that would set the Left’s populism apart, the Democratic Better Deal simply can’t compete.

And there’s another reason A Better Deal is very pragmatically setting up the Left to fail: it’s taking minority voters for granted. Under this new platform, voters from marginalized communities feel invisible. Democrats are so sure that the GOP vision of the US is so off-putting that they don’t feel the need to court minority votes at all. Basically, the Democrats are so sure that I won’t risk the ability to see my family overseas again by voting Republican, that they don’t think they need to appeal to me at all. Again, I’ll ask, did the Democrats learn anything from 2016? Remember how Hillary was so sure she would carry Blue states that she didn’t bother visiting a bunch of them? And remember how they went to Trump after that? Just saying the other guy’s worse and then resting on your laurels isn’t guaranteeing victory. I want to vote for something I believe in; I don’t want to vote for the Left just because the other side wants to kill me. Democrats— instead of taking minority votes as a given— need to fear the very real threat that if voters feel like the best they can do is choose the slightly lesser of two evils, then they won’t show up to the ballot box at all. Or they’ll risk it on a third party candidate. The Left has to present a convincing image of a more egalitarian society that will protect the rights of its base and continuously demonstrate its commitment to justice if it wants to retain minority votes.

If Democrats really want to learn from 2016, move forward, and wrest control from Trump and his cronies, they have to do better than A Better Deal. Ignoring social justice concerns in a hypocritical betrayal of their promise for egalitarian justice, offering a pale vision of populist economics, and taking the votes of their base for granted isn’t going to win Democrats more elections. It’s handing the election over to the GOP on a silver platter.

The post Dems’ Better Deal: Courting white voters, abandoning social justice appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This past Monday, Hillary Clinton formally announced her post-2016 election plans. She will be establishing a political organization aimed at funding “resistance groups” that are standing up to President Donald Trump.

On the one hand, we can have empathy for Clinton because of the pain of losing 2016 presidential election. But among the reasons why she lost was the fact that she was virtually inseparable from big money and the people who have it. Unlike her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, she did not raise the bulk of her money from individuals. Rather she consistently went to wherever the big money was, whether it was on the west coast with George Clooney or on the east coast on Wall Street.

When it comes to money for political purposes, Democrats are going to have to move beyond Hillary Clinton. For that matter, they are going to have to also move beyond Barack Obama. If you’re talking about “resistance,” what could you be resisting more than the entrenchment of big money?

Bernie Sanders showed that you can fund a campaign “by the people.” Barack Obama might have been able to do it in 2008 but he chose to forgo public financing and went where the big dollars were.

Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party is the party of yesteryear, or at least we should hope that it is. If she were to turn her personal clock back fifty years and be the student she was at Wellesley, she would probably agree. Somehow, in her evolution, both as an individual and as a Clinton, she became enamored with money and the accouterments that surround it. For the base of the Democratic Party – the working poor, the non-working poor, the middle class, professionals, progressives, it is time to move on. The kind of communication that is necessary in political movements and campaigns is relatively inexpensive. There is no need to rely on mass mailings and television advertising is become less effective.

One of the reasons that Barack Obama’s Organizing for America was such as failure is that what was supposed to be a political movement to support his policies became just another fund-raising enterprise. Asking for money is a pain in the ass for everyone. It promotes false bragging and unseemly begging.

Democrats need to walk the walk along with talking the talk. That means acting in a fashion that is commensurate with the way in which its primary constituencies live. It need not be elitist. It is essential that it is real and honest.

Most of the money that Hillary Clinton would raise for resistance groups would be tainted, and if the organizations are really grassroots, that money would not be needed. Hillary Clinton has done a great deal for the country, particularly in her younger and less varnished years. While she has a clear understanding of what was done to her in the 2016 election, she is very unenlightened about what she did to herself. Until she can reach that level of understanding and acceptance, she is of very little value to the Democratic Party and the country. Let’s hope that she takes time away from secluded circles and can reconnect with her roots. Then it will be time to listen.

The post Please, Hillary, spare us appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There was no way that Donald Trump could shame John Lewis, no matter how much Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC tried to goad him to do. But leave it the Democratic Party. You’ve probably seen this appeal from democraticparty@democrats.org before:

Arthur —

Today, Donald Trump attacked me on Twitter. He said that I’m “all talk” and “no action.”

Arthur, I’ve been beaten bloody, tear-gassed, fighting for what’s right for America. I’ve marched at Selma with Dr. King. Sometimes that’s what it takes to move our country in the right direction.

We refuse to stop now. We’re not done fighting for progress. We’re ready for the next four years.

Are you with us? Join me and chip in whatever you can today to help Democrats stand up to injustice.

If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately and be divided evenly between the DNC and John Lewis for Congress.

QUICK DONATE: $3

QUICK DONATE: $10

QUICK DONATE: $25

QUICK DONATE: $50

QUICK DONATE: $100

If John Lewis did not buy into the Groucho Marx aphorism, “I’d never belong to a group that would have me as a member,” he must now. Let no good deed go unpunished. That’s what the Democratic Party has done to John Lewis.

John Lewis was just being himself, honest and forthright as he spoke to Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He said that in his mind Donald Trump will not be a legitimate president:

(you’ll have to wade through a 15-second NBC commercial before seeing the one minute, 22-second clip)

The clip above was released several days before Meet the Press actually aired, and many Democrats cheered Lewis for standing up to Trump. But Democratic arty officials have most candidates on a leash when it comes to finances. They are all at the beck and call of the Party to shill for money.

I find it particularly disgraceful of the party to do this to an icon like John Lewis, but they’ve done it to Barack and Michelle Obama as well. Is there a time when the Party could just hold the commentary and let those few decent statespersons act in a dignified way to advance “the principles that Democrats hold dear?”

If the Democratic Party, or any other organization presumably associated with progressives, thinks that it’s all about money, then they will appear to be like every other expedient and unprincipled political organization. Shame on you, DNC.

The post Democratic Party does to John Lewis what Trump couldn’t appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The single biggest question before Democrats is not how to overturn the results of the 2016 election or dissecting what went wrong in the Clinton campaign. It is, how do we proceed? That is a complicated question.

The President-Elect, is a racist, sexist, xenophobic, Muslim-hating, white supremacist enabler. He is totally unqualified to be on a school board, let alone be the leader of the free world. His cabinet appointments include the esteemed senator from Alabama, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, who is literally named after two separate confederate icons (President of the CSA Jefferson Davis, and General P.G.T Beauregard), and was too racist even by 1986 standards to be confirmed for a federal judgeship) There’s also Former Governor Rick Perry who was nominated for Energy Secretary, one of the departments that he said he’d dismantle if elected President in 2012. There’s of course Ben Carson for HUD, even though he believed that he wasn’t qualified to run a government agency. Then perhaps the most troubling pick, Rex Tillerson for State, who has been awarded the friendship medal by a man responsible for undermining our democracy by interfering in our electoral process.

The Democrats will remain the minority party in the Senate until at least 2020, and it is unlikely that they will recapture the House. Liberal stalwarts like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer could be replaced by nominees of President Trump, creating a right wing court for the foreseeable future. State legislatures are dominated by Republicans, as well are the governorships. It appears that the Democratic strategy of multiculturalism and promoting tolerance, succeeds in winning the popular vote, but has failed yet again to secure the Presidency. Suffice it to say that over the next 4 years, much of the progress that has been accomplished under progressive leadership will be rolled back. As progressives, there is not much to be optimistic about.

Two options for Democrats

The first strategy proposes that progressives band together and unite themselves against not just President Trump, but against any Republican or Democrat who attempts to work with the President. We didn’t lose this election, a foreign power, as well as a corrupt FBI, interrupted our democratic process with the goal of electing Donald Trump. Democrats won the popular vote, and we increased our numbers in both houses of congress, the Republicans do not have a mandate. If the Republicans want to change this country, they can do it on their own, and we shouldn’t make it easy for them. We must obstruct their agenda, and be for Trump what the Tea Party was for Obama. Democratic lawmakers must always vote the party line and be uncompromising, forsaking bipartisanship and never supporting any legislation proposed by Republicans.

If there is one lesson that should’ve been learned over the last 8 years, it’s that bipartisanship is dead, and the minority party doesn’t benefit from compromise. So rather than compromise our principles, why not make our positions clear and force the Republican’s hands into enacting their destructive right-wing agenda? Democrats warned voters what would happen if they gave Republicans control of government, therefore Democrats should allow voters to see what happens when we aren’t there to be the adults. Democrats also should try to delegitimize the Trump presidency in the same way Republicans did for Obama.

We cannot normalize Trump. Donald Trump will be our President, but we cannot act like things are politics as usual. Trump is a demagogue with no clear policy other than ginning up hatred. If we pretend that his is a practical way to lead, then his brand will spread like wildfire.

Most importantly, we must write laws that are explicitly progressive, further left than anything that would’ve been passed under the Obama administration. These bills can’t be without purpose, it must be made clear that their passage would directly benefit the working class and middle class. This would include eliminating the social security cap, a $15 minimum wage, a truly universal healthcare system, and a constitutional amendment that would invalidate Citizens United, among other things.

Finally, Democrats have to force the Republicans’ hands in passing extreme legislation. They want to defund Planned Parenthood, privatize Social Security, bomb Iran and destroy the safety net? We have to make the case against that, while antagonizing them into actually doing it. After those affected see how we never stopped fighting for them, while Republicans were just preying on their fears, then we can get to work rebuilding in 2020. I call this the burn it down strategy.

Damage control

The opposing argument is that Democrats have a responsibility to do damage control. For whatever reason, Democrats and progressive ideals lost in this election, and it was in an environment where we should’ve had the upper hand.

The failure of Democrats to succeed in 2016, in what might arguably have been the most consequential election in a generation, is a burden that will affect us all in unseen ways for decades to come. Not only were we defeated by Republicans, we were defeated by the ugliest strain of populism that has put forward ideas that are antithetical to the America that liberals have been cultivating since the days of LBJ.

Donald Trump wants to burn down the government, and he has no qualms about taking millions of Americans with him. Those white nationalists who cloak themselves in the media-concocted phrase “alt-right” have been waiting for years to bring their neo-fascist world view to the mainstream. If allowed to shape policy for the next four years, unchecked by the old conservatives who have been cowed into accepting the Trump worldview out of fear of primary challenges, we will not be able to imagine the turmoil that will be wrought on this country.

Democrats have to act in the interest of bipartisanship, and sometimes that means voting for a bad bill to avoid passing an awful one. Bad and awful are usually synonyms, but in this case they are superlatives (the argument of accepting a lesser of two evils was especially present this election, and it will not disappear during this administration). A bill proposed by some swing state republican to raise the minimum wage to $8 an hour is not ideal, in fact it does almost nothing to deal with the problem of income inequality. However, when other Republicans are proposing a total elimination of the minimum wage, an idea that Trump is not explicitly opposed to, Democrats have to make a judgement call. This will also occur with appointments. Given the choice of John Bolton or Richard Haass for Deputy Secretary of State, the small differences in ideology matter.

Democrats are going to have to swallow their pride, or whatever remains of it, in order to save this country from itself. Then in 2020, hopefully the voters will reward us for ending the gridlock. I call this the good shepherd strategy.

Now what’s the right strategy? Frankly, I don’t know, and I seriously doubt that the party knows. Democrats are lost in the wilderness, they’re recovering from an election that literally nobody (not even the President-Elect) thought they could lose.

There was never a contingency strategy, there was never a plan to be in the minority. After hearing the party leaders reflect on their loss, and having discussions with members of my own county party, there is only one consensus. We have to try something new, because we are losing state legislatures and governorships and local offices in addition to national races.

Democrats are the party of the people, we have the right policies, and we govern based on facts. Yet somehow we are still perceived as the party of East Coast elitists who are out of touch with reality. In this post-factual America, it will be difficult to overcome that perception, but if we cannot, America may be lost.

The post Should Democrats obstruct Trump or try to minimize the damage? appeared first on Occasional Planet.