Centrists are fond of quoting Yates’ line about how “the center cannot hold”, implying that left and right have both become unhinged. I’ve always had my doubts about this: David Adler’s 2018 piece in the New York Times indicates that centrists, not extremists, may have the most negative feelings about democracy. So, we should be aware of a troubling trend of realignment: Some liberals are increasingly taking up a pro-corporate line, while a faction of conservatives have been hinting at criticism of capitalism. The center is reforming, and it may not be good for freedom.

In reaction to the Sanders campaign of 2016 and the increasing popularity of organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America, centrist liberals have been shoring up their defenses. Since the Clinton era, the Democratic Party has been increasingly reliant on white-collar professionals who may be progressive on social issues but are uncomfortable with “big government” and wealth redistribution. Note that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has been exploring a presidential run. But CNBC names Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain’s 2008 campaign, as a “key player in Schultz’s growing team”. Meanwhile, a Democratic strategist expressed their contempt of Schultz to The Atlantic: “What’s his value proposition for America? Make America like a corporate chain?” It’s difficult to imagine Schultz as a progressive champion.

Which leads us to another thorny problem: The fantasy of “woke” capitalism and the liberal corporation. Parts of corporate America have woven social commentary into their advertisements, most famously Gillette’s controversial ad calling out toxic masculinity. The ad itself has provoked a familiar controversy, with Fox News’ Tammy Bruce calling for Americans to “stand up and stop this pathological frenzy to marginalize boys and men”, and any number of Twitter liberals congratulating Gillette on their progressive position. Some people bought Gillette product in order to destroy them.

I watched the ad and found its sentiment noble, though the marketing behind it is insanely cynical: capital largely does not care why you buy something, as long as you do. Gillette knew it could make money on this principle, and did so. If the prevailing winds of culture were blowing the other way, and Gillette could make money on promoting far-right ideas, I’m sure it would do so, and we’d be watching a razor commercial that promoted phrenology or anti-Semitism. In this context we are faced with the possibility of a future where our political choices are between corporations with competing – and largely superficial – ideologies.

Here’s another grim potential vision of things to come: While liberals rally to corporate America’s side for being “woke”, some conservatives are attempting to make the right a little less pro-capitalism. On January 2, Tucker Carlson gave a monologue on his program that broke from Republican orthodoxy in a variety of ways. “For generations,” he said, “Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars”. The ruling elite is composed of “mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule”. He’s right, of course, but for the wrong reasons. He, like European conservatives, finds capitalism to be useful only in so far as it promotes traditional values. When market forces run up against those values (see Gillette above), capitalism is to be fought, not supported. But this kind of right-wing populism is largely hollow, and dangerous in its own right.

And here’s where our two stories – That of Schultz and Gillette and that of Carlson – collide: I posit that when liberals teamed up with capital and essentially ceded the idea of widespread economic prosperity, they allowed the rise of a faux “anti-establishment” right that helped give us Donald Trump.

In twentieth-century Europe, this manifested in the rise of fascism, a right-wing futurist ideology that claimed to serve the nation, not corrupt, Jewish capitalism. In practice, of course, this was a hollow promise: Mussolini’s claim that his corporatist system benefited both capital and labor was false, as Italian wealth inequality increased during the 1920s and 30s; Franco’s Spain experimented with “vertical trade unions” that only helped employers. Perhaps this ultra-nationalism isn’t what Carlson has in mind with his brand of European social conservatism. But his hatred for immigrants and ethnic minorities combined with a (theoretical) opposition to economic inequality could spawn a new and odious reactionism.

Benjamin Barber’s hypothesized in Jihad vs. McWorld that the world community would be beset by the inequities of a cosmopolitan global capitalism (“McWorld”), and the reactionary nationalist/religious movements (“Jihad”) that would rise to challenge it. Barber doesn’t see either as healthy for democracy. We’re faced with a similar dilemma today: Right-leaning liberals could come into conflict with “social” conservatives, and neither would restore economic welfare or political freedom.

The only way out of this trap would be the coalescence of an international left along the lines articulated by Yanis Varoufakis. One can see beginnings of such a movement in the popularity aroused by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I hope a widespread democratic left does arise to fight capitalism and nationalism. Because if we leave the future up to the likes of Howard Schultz or Tucker Carlson, our prospects are bleak indeed.

The post Gillette Vs. Tucker Carlson – by Adam Levin appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Democrats / liberals have good reason to want to jump all over Howard Schultz. The Starbucks owner and potential independent presidential nominee in 2020 could totally turn over the apple cart as Democrats work hard to oust Donald Trump from the White House, or whomever else that Republicans might run in his place.

Ralph Nader ran as a third-party candidate in 2000. Had he not, in all likelihood, Al Gore would have defeated George W. Bush. Imagine if on September 11, 2001 the United States had a president who wanted to avoid war and who could bring reason to the American response to the terrorists who hijacked those planes and killed nearly 3,000 people. Further, imagine that when Al Gore was elected, he would have paid proper attention to the intelligence warnings, as Bush did not, and the whole debacle could have been avoided.

We often hear terms like “facts matter” and “words matter.” There is no arguing this wisdom, but we can also add “judgment matters.” When we think of 9-11 and its aftermath, there are two key decisions that allowed dysfunction to occur. First, Bush was “elected” (not by the popular vote) and Gore was not. Second, Ralph Nader set the table for all of this to happen.

As brilliant as Nader may have been, his hubris exceeded it. He talked about there not being a dime’s worth of difference between Bush and Gore, and even after 9-11 when it was crystal-clear, he did not acknowledge the deficiencies of his actions.

So, if Howard Schultz wants to run as an independent in 2020, I will beg to differ with other progressives and say that it’s okay, but with a major caveat. That condition is that if he should reach a level of viability that he would pose an electoral threat to the Democratic nominee, he will have to withdraw. And, in fact, he has indicated that he would do that as has possible campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, someone of enormous political acumen (particularly when he is operating as a journalist).

But that’s not all. Schultz could have an opportunity to educate the American people about ways to permit non-Republican and non-Democrat candidates to run for president, without posing a fatal threat to one of the two-party candidates. The key to this is opening the eyes of Americans to two structural changes in the way in which we elect or leaders:

1. Abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a direct popular vote. According to PRRI, by roughly a two-to-one margin, Americans say they would prefer if presidential elections were decided by the national popular vote as opposed to the Electoral College. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Americans believe that presidential elections should be decided based on the national popular vote, while about one-third (32%) believe they should be decided through the Electoral College. The entrenched politicians in each party don’t like abolishing the Electoral College because they have become experts in gaming the undemocratic system that we call the Electoral College.

The way that the system works now, if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes (270 or more), the election is thrown into the House or Representatives. This happened in 1824 and 1876 and the results were not pretty. So, the question would be, what do we do with a direct popular vote in which no candidate receives a majority.

2. Adopt a very viable alternate system called 1-2-3 voting. This is where each voter gives his or her first, second and third choice for president / vice-president. If a voter’s first preference does not win, then the second choice of the voter is added to that candidate’s tally. The same would be true for third choice, and so on. This system is frequently called ranked choice voting (or instant run-off voting), but those terms are harder to remember than 1-2-3 voting.

Here is an animation of less than two minutes that show how 1-2-3 voting works:

Now we can see how Howard Schultz could play a remarkable role in American politics. His popularity could be potentially high enough so that he could put a scare in a lot of Democrats and Republicans (particularly Democrats). But unlike Ralph Nader and others, Schultz could use his standing to point out how the problems that he created require solutions others than despising the messenger. What is needed is for the Electoral College to be abolished and for a 1-2-3 system of voting to replace it.

Schultz is 65-years old, so this would probably be his final chance to become president. But he would have to be truly out of touch with reality to think that he could win in 2020 as an independent. He has already had a remarkably successful life. He won’t become president, but he could be the person who brings the kind of reform to American politics that have been needed for centuries. That would be a crowning achievement.

The post Let’s not demonize Howard Schultz, rather help him do no damage appeared first on Occasional Planet.