Last Sunday, I posted a somewhat delayed Blog (because of illness) about the Mid-term Election and its aftermath. I noted some of the reasons cited for Democratic losses, and I also started a discussion of what may need to be addressed by the Democratic Party as we move forward. Since last week, I have come across two important thoughts and comments that need to be integrated into this piece about Goals and Strategies for the Democratic Party.
First, it seems important to put the Mid-term Election into a reasonable perspective. It is far too easy to broad-brush this result, to spread blame across the broad spectrum of the Party, but to forget both hard-wired demographics and the wide-spread support of voters for certain popular and progressive ideas. Let me explain:
In an article titled “The Disunited States of America”, Slate writer, Jamelle Bouie, makes a point not so prevalent in the mainstream (more conservative) press:
“The people who just elected a Republican majority in the Senate are a narrow, unrepresentative slice of voting-age Americans. They’re older, whiter, wealthier, and much more conservative than the public at large.” Put another way, the “midterm electorate that chose the Republican Congress is itself a Republican electorate drawn from a subset of Republican voters.” However, it’s just as likely, he contends, that “two years from now, we’ll have a Democratic electorate – voters that are younger, less affluent, and more diverse – choosing a democratic president.” It’s currently hardwired into the divide that exists between the young and the old, and is reflected in early exit polling: 37% of voters in this year’s election were 60 and older, compared to 12% who were under the age of 30.” Democrats won 54% of the youngest voters (not much help) while 57% of senior voters went to Republicans. In 2016, if the younger cohort turns out as in 2008 and 2012, and Democrats again capture 55-60% of that vote, Democrats could again win the Presidency.
Secondly, William Saletan of SLATE reminds us that although Republicans won big this year, it was not based entirely on Republican ideology and policy (although I must say that ‘dark money’ from their favorite super PACs didn’t hurt!).
In fact, many of the Republican candidates who needed desperately to win used liberal or progressive policies with clearly “populist” themes. These Republicans, who have voted against, or voiced opposition to, some of the issues they then touted, actually used such issues as upward mobility, income inequality, raise in the minimum wage, and even the injustice of cutting Medicare, to successfully steal the thunder of Democratic candidates. Saletan makes the important point for consideration that while Republicans may have won the Senate, the country is still concerned with traditional progressive populist ideas, and will vote Democratic if Democrats can find the right inspirational message. “Public Citizen” even claims that “NOW is Our Time!
It is my opinion that there are some things we need to do right away in response to the election and to the fact that Republicans hold the majority, both in the House and now in the Senate. I do not claim to have all the answers, nor will I attempt at this point to present a great many details, but I want to at least outline a Plan. Unfortunately, the Democrats of the lame duck Congress have not acted boldly to begin essential parts of such a Plan. One thing seems clear, there must be a unified Plan, and hopefully the Dems will get their act together between now and when Republicans take over in Jan. 2015 as the majority Party!
1) GO BIG & BOLD! The President is leading the way on this with the announcement of a pollution reduction agreement with China; temporary suspension of deportments for millions of undocumented immigrants; his continued opposition to the Keystone pipeline, now backed up by talk of a possible veto next time around. And, of course, we must mention his straightforward approach to the second major enrollment period for Obamacare! His leadership has proven to be inspirational, but where are the Democrats who should be praising his action. Some are making noise on MSNBC, but it’s limited.
2) FIGHT BACK! The Democratic Party must finally stand up and defend its policies. We must have a Speaker’s Group, Strategy Group, Answer Back group, and the Payback Group that gives Republicans a taste of their own medicine. Nothing offered by Republicans should be allowed a free pass, whether it is lies, unfounded accusations, or legislation! We must speak Truth & Facts to all of their fiction! No such thing as compromise; there is no compromise, only trade-offs that keep our side intact.
Here are some of the trade-offs we might offer to the Reps.:
=Leave Obamacare alone or lose options on healthcare for Congress; plus lose your special gym, free care at clinics on site, and free surgery at Walter Reed and Bethesda (and whatever goodies it takes to make the point!)
=Pass CIR or face loss of transportation; staff; furnishings
3) ORGANIZE Democrats in Congress who need to jump on-board to strongly support the President; and he them. Support the President loudly and forthrightly, but now it’s also time to put forward a crafted barrage of legislation to counteract and challenge a Republican plan to do this during the first 100 days of their majority rule in Congress. For instance, The Keystone XL pipeline: offer an alternate fuels bill in its place, and offer amendments to the Keystone pipeline bill to gut it (Repeal Keystone; not Obamacare!).
All of this must be part of a planned response, not simply the work of individual Congress members. We have to be unified in the presentation of a planned response to Republican rhetoric, false claims, and special interest pandering. But, we must also be unified in the New Deal we are trying to present to the American citizen. This legislative barrage must send the clear message that we are seeking to aid those very segments of our society who are being ignored and castigated by the Right-wing Republicans (which is 98-99% of us!).
3) CREATE A POPULIST NEW DEAL FOR AMERICA! Establish a Command Center to communicate New Deal unified message; blunt GOP criticism; blame GOP for everything, and develop our own populist word and action symbols and rhetoric. A New Deal must include at least: increase Social Security benefits; expand Medicare and Medicaid; raising the minimum wage beyond the poverty level as an annual salary total; voting rights expanded, not restricted; women’s equality, health care and rights enhanced; investment in a world-class public education system; tax reform; and restrictions on Wall Street excesses.
4) PROMOTE CITIZEN GRASS-ROOTS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT! See former Blogs for an explanation: 8/5/14; 7/21/14; 1/18/12. Support and increase leadership of local college students – their activism is imperative.
5) RE-FORM PARTY STRUCTURES to exemplify a populist agenda and bottom-up organization. We need right now an Eleanor Roosevelt-type who can meet with different groups, hear their concerns and then communicate them forcefully to Democratic leaders, Progressive groups and organizations. That woman appears right now to be Senator Elizabeth Warren. Her recent appointment to the Senate Leadership group enables her to be the catalyst for Party re-structure and message rejuvenation.
6) TURN REPUBLICAN STRATEGIES BACK UPON THEM: introduce legislation that makes voter registration and voting the most liberal it can possibly be; send AG civil rights personnel to every voter suppression state to audit their voter rolls and procedures; in fact, increase audits of all kinds in Republican states; use all means at disposal of the federal government to protect citizens. As to the ACA, if the SCOTUS rules that federal subsidies cannot be applied to states who operated their own healthcare phone lines, determine if such a ruling can be applied to any other federal subsidies and threaten to withdraw them from all states who joined the lawsuit or any lawsuit against ACA, or that refused to extend Medicaid eligibility or acted in any way to limit health care to their citizens. This is WAR – so find ways to blunt the enemy’s strength. We can no longer be passive – we must threaten the Republican Party wherever it has gained control.
Beat Charles Krauthammer to the punch – a bill a week; allow “amnesty” with restrictions for repatriating untaxed profits earned by international corporations: if they don’t pay within a set deadline, issue charges against CEOs and Board members for non-payment of taxes; introduce sweeping reform of the tax code and wipe out all breaks, loopholes and subsidies for corporations (use as a threat against those who pay no taxes and those who escape taxes by moving overseas – remind them Republicans will not always be there to save their “corporate welfare”); set a minimum corporate tax that must be paid.
7) EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AS TO THE DEMOCRAT & REPUBLICAN ‘BRANDS’. Begin at the local level running candidates for local offices. Use every possible opportunity and method to put forth the ‘differences” in philosophy, attitude and legislative initiatives toward people and governance.
8) BECOME LITIGIOUS (even a NUISANCE!). Where federal laws are being ignored or disobeyed, investigate, publicize and punish violations; bring charges, impose fines or sue for wrongs whenever possible; empower departments, offices & commissions to carry out such examinations and lawsuits; empower FEC to enforce election laws, and limit money in political campaigns; make giving transparent; fill all judicial vacancies during lame duck session; stop all sales and gifts of military hardware to local police forces; unmercifully use the filibuster; make 60 votes to pass major legislation the norm; initiate legal proceedings against every major piece of flawed Republican; call out every Republican who denigrates the poor, working poor, women, gays, or minorities – get them in court on hate speech if possible; find children & families directly affected by Republican cuts in social programs and bring Republican leadership (state and federal) up on child abuse charges; withdraw every special privilege and budgetary extravagance possible from Congresspersons to help them understand austerity.
Again, this is not definitive, it’s not even agreeable to every Democrat or Progressive. What it is meant to be is one set of suggestions for proceeding to advance a progressive Democratic agenda. It is clear that not all of those with a liberal bent would buy into this, or any other set of suggestions. However, that does not mean we must eschew a unified message and proceed with individual Democrats constructing their own agendas and campaigns in their own areas of the country. We have to find a basic “platform” that presents the Democrat brand in a way that most of our citizenry will find compelling for themselves. To not attempt such a program, plan or platform is to admit we cannot compete, that we have an inadequate approach to presenting solutions to major problems or we are failing as a Party to mobilize our forces in the battle for our form of governance and freedoms. Why then, have we not heard from the Democratic Party about this significant movement? Why is there such silence from the DNC or the DCCC, or the DSCC? Is the Party incapable of polling its members to determine their thoughts, opinions, and policy suggestions? Perhaps we are so concentrated on organizing from the top down that we have forgotten HOW to solicit grassroots input.
Putting that assessment aside, let me say that it may be incumbent upon local, state, regional or national private organizations dedicated to progressive liberal causes and policies to take the lead and to feed their own thoughts up the chain to the Democratic powers-that-be. In that vein, let me turn to the attempt of one small core team in one small community in central New York State, to make their own attempt at using a survey instrument to lead them toward answers to: What happened in this election? What responses are needed? How should we organize to present our Plan? That group of (10 people), met a week ago and after going through a survey where they answered questions individually and then pooled their answers to reflect a weighting of answers, came up with some interesting findings. I will not reveal here the entire instrument, but will give you their results so far.
Their answers characterized the off-year election in this way: this election showed that Democrats running away from their President and the issues and policies he expounds is not a winning strategy. For instance, the long-term attack against the Affordable Care Act produced a narrowly focused view of “government” as incompetent and unhelpful enabling Republicans to prevail in a contest about government’s role and its accomplishments, or lack thereof. On the other hand, more than policy matters worked against Democrats. Demographics worked against Democrats and for Republicans (to put it simply: more senior citizens showed up to vote for Republicans than young people showed up to vote for Democrats). Finally, unlimited undocumented funds from billionaires and super PACs for highly damaging negative ad campaigns helped to determine the outcome. While there were sympathies expressed for other causes (like: voters not feeling a “recovery”; a series of international crises; a unified Plan of Attack from Republicans), this scenario represents one picture and informs their thinking of what to do about the election.
Next, the group looked at various aspects of what a responsive Plan might contain, essentially covering four areas: Jobs Now; Build Stronger Communities; Make Democracy Work for the People; Everyone Pays Their Fair Share. The rankings were weighted; that is, a first place vote got three points, second place two points and third place earned 1 point. Then the values were added up to give a weighted score on the various elements of each section. What happened? Well, these ten Progressives called for the following to be part of a responsive Plan:
End All Tax Breaks for Companies that ship jobs and profits overseas;
Invest in America’s Infrastructure to create jobs;
Put Americans to Work NOW – create temporary jobs immediately especially for the long-term unemployed;
Stop the War on Workers and Labor Rights
Invest in Public Education
Strengthen Corporate Commitment to the Communities in which they operate;
End the War on Drugs
(3 more tied in rating included: Medicare for All, Protect Women’s Rights and Equality; Focus on Reducing Poverty among Children and their Families).
Election Reform
Overturn Citizens United decision
Support permanent Comprehensive Immigration Reform
A third area on what to do in response as an organization was not able to be completed, but the group decided to ask its members to do so in a somewhat unique way: to answer the final section as a survey on the website surveymonkey.com. In that regard, it is perhaps a fitting ending to this piece to invite readers to take a look on surveymonkey.com where you will find the entire survey at this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JS2J8D2
Take it if you wish. Your own scores and choices should be available to you when you finish. It may be helpful to you as it has been to the referenced small group as to their concerns and commitments. Check it out. You may even want to use it within your organization, or to promote it to others. Maybe your own version might produce better results...
The point of it all is: as Progressive Democrats, we cannot sit by because the status quo is not acceptable. We need to be asking ourselves why we lost. What can we do about it? How do we proceed as an organization to implement a responsive Plan? Let’s Get Busy!
Publius Speaks
Become A Follower
11/28/2014
11/16/2014
What Happened?
What can I say? Much
too much, if the length of this piece is any indication! The People have spoken
and the Party of NO, the Big Lie and of not-so-subtle Hate has been put in
power. As I have said for the last few
weeks: elections have consequences, and
we are about to experience those consequences first-hand. The next two years are about to unfold the very
essence of the Republican brand, and it won’t be pretty. Unless the President uses his veto power to
reject every piece of Radical Republican legislation presented to him, we are
about to experience two of the worst years ever seen in our modern era.
What did we learn from this debacle?
1) When Democrats run away from
their President, and from progressive Democratic values, they get
walloped at the polls. Some say they got
walloped anyway. I disagree. They got inundated because they did not stand
strong for progressive Democratic principles and values. They tried to sound
like Republicans so they could draw the independent and moderate middle votes. It didn’t work. It rarely works. Instead of standing strong
for health care reform, minimum wage increase, jobs legislation, raise in
social security and Medicare benefits, and so on – what amounts to a populist
agenda – some chose to “protect women’s access” to contraception and abortion as
their main item in their campaign.
Others chose to go soft on fossil fuels, others faltered on the rest of
the President’s agenda, like immigration reform. Ms. Grimes in Kentucky would not even
acknowledge her voting support for the President in the last election.
Beyond that, it appears from the
most recent action to place Senator Elizabeth Warren on the inside of
Democratic Party Leadership with the title of strategic policy adviser to the
Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, helping to craft the party's
policy positions and priorities, is a step that is much needed. She will also
serve as a liaison to progressive groups to ensure they have a voice – which is
exactly what is needed!
3) Money rules – not values,
not policies, not principles, not even accomplishments. Whether we like it or not, the wealthy have
taken over our elections, with the help of a conservative SCOTUS. Democrats are caught in the middle, espousing
a long-desired election campaign reform package, and yet needing more money to
fight the forces of the Koch brothers and their ilk who now spend enormous sums
through third party PACs to boost “their” candidates. The answer is quite
simple: until we can gain control of Congress, and advance the cause of
thorough election reform, we must adopt the premise that money-raising and
targeted spending is a necessary evil/goal and must be a top priority. We have to face the fact that we have to pry
money from the big spenders and the big corporations – from all those who at
least have some values in common with us. (By the way, where are George Soros and Nick Hanauer and
other rich progressives like them? We need their
backing). And, we probably cannot afford to be too choosy about every donor either so here’s one thought: why not require all major donors to sign an
affidavit declaring their understanding that the money is a donation freely given
that does not entitle them to any special treatment or access. Or, perhaps we
could simply promise them the Moon and deliver an inconsequential Pluto!
5) Progressive citizens who did not
vote have made this result inevitable.
Where were the students, the minorities, the working poor? Home?
At work? They certainly were not
at the polls in the numbers needed. In
fact, the many student leaders in the 22nd NY Congressional district
did not even respond to a call for their participation in a district-wide
write-in campaign. Perhaps they voted at
their homes, but if so, they missed an opportunity to make waves in one
particular upstate NY district. There
are some who say that voter suppression laws had something to do with the lack
of voter turnout, but that is yet to be proven.
The evidence is not convincing.
What is perhaps more convincing is the Gallup Poll that was taken shortly
after the mid-term election and published by Politico.com on Nov. 12.
“Only 36 percent had a favorable
view of the Democratic party, a 6-percentage-point drop from before the
midterms, the Gallup poll released Wednesday found. With the GOP standing with
42 percent favorability, it is the first time since 2011 the GOP has had a
higher rating than the Democrats. The
favorability rating for Democrats is the party’s lowest since Gallup began
asking the question in 1992.”
So, perhaps it is less voter suppression than voter depression that kept Democrats from the polls.
6) Finally,
you cannot win elections
when you do not stand up for difficult issues like healthcare reform, tax
reform, job creation, or regulation of Wall Street financiers or bank
CEOs. According to a study by the
Brookings Institution, “only 36 percent of 2014 Democratic candidates mentioned
support of the Affordable Care Act in their platform.” You cannot pretend to be a Populist Democrat
while acting Republican-lite. A certain
amount of discipline is required within a political Party, usually administered
by Party Leaders, and that discipline must extend to those who side once too
often with the opposition. In this
particular case, the discipline was handed out by the voters. Here are the names of some who got voted out
perhaps because they did not strongly espouse populist Democrat Party accomplishments: Mark Udall (SD); Mark Warren (VA), Mark
Begich (WA), Mark Pryor (AR) (“Mark” well what happens to democrat Senators
when they abandon democratic principles).
Democrats should have run on their principles, not away from them. Because they allowed the President to be demonized and denounced by Republican con men and women, and because they did not stand up for him and did not run on the accomplishments of the last 6 years --some accomplishments that were made despite Republican obstructionism -- many people had no reason to vote for them and probably did not even show up at the polls on Election Day.
We apparently lost this election because many Democrat office-holders refused to face a multi-faceted reality. We can’t win with a passive strategy. We can’t win just talking about progressive issues, values and policies. We can’t even win with a good ground game! We need to recognize first and foremost that the Republicans have bested us in using language and symbols to utterly devastate our candidates. And who answered back? No one because everyone was hiding from the same reality. All the gimmicks, organizations, data gathering and data entry, plus good old fashioned GOTV, did not work because Republicans have stolen the ground out from under us, and tilted the playing field. Some call it a game. Not Republicans: they know it’s a WAR. And since Democrats are not war-prone, we have a very hard time dealing with that reality (and in fact have failed to deal with it). Here are some of the reactions I found, none of which speak on their own to the multi-faceted reality:
1) Some
say we must support and elect Mary
Landrieu of Louisiana. Apparently,
that is not necessarily a widely held view.
First, Mary Landrieu needs to get
her priorities straightened out, then she might deserve that support. She seems too anxious to support a Republican
agenda, which has worked for her in the past, but this year may not be enough
as we shall see in December. On the other hand, she voted 96% of the time
with her Party, so maybe she needs some slack, but here’s the part of her
record that raises questions about her candidacy:
--voted for military tribunals to
try terrorists and for enhanced interrogation techniques, such as
‘water-boarding’
2) Veto
plans—there is much talk about the President’s
power to veto any legislation written by Republicans (who knows if they
remember how to craft legislation?). Problem
is, he has to consider a few questions:
are there some areas where signing Republican legislation would at least
provide something of worth and value to the general public? Should he allow some measures to pass into
law without his signature just to show what Republicans will do when given the
chance? Should he work for compromise (I prefer “trade-offs”) on major
issues? And what about a veto override:
are there some issues where enough Democrats would join with Republicans to
overturn a veto (2/3s vote)? Veto power
is not a simple concept. It’s a
difficult way to govern, and it tempts the Party in the majority to blame the
President for everything he blocks – such would be a continuation of the false
charge that he is prone to abuse of power by governing by Executive Order!
3) New leadership – there are critics
who claim that our leadership in the Dem Party is inadequate. Most of this falls on Harry Reid, but the
President comes in for some criticism of his management of the Executive bureaucracy
as well. According to some, Harry Reid
allowed too many Democrats, especially from southern and western states, to
stray from the Democratic agenda. Most
of those Democrats lost and one hangs in the balance – Mary Landrieu.
4) Get behind Hillary – many seem
to think we should get behind Hillary right now and push her all the way to
victory in 2016. Unfortunately, she does
not seem to be ready to declare her candidacy right now (if ever), and there is
that nagging feeling out there that by 2016 she will not be the candidate we
need or want! Democracy for America has
even put out a missive that calls for a competitive democratic primary battle
to show Americans “who we really are, our ideas, our diversity, our vision for
the future of America.” DFA even
presents an alphabetical list of possible candidates who have at least
expressed an interest in running. They
are asking members and readers to vote as to who they want to run for President
in 2016. That should prove
interesting. What is more interesting is
that almost every time the Democratic Party gets involved in primaries to such
an extent, we tend to lose momentum and the general election!
5) Work
on saving Obama’s legacy – there are those who say keep fighting for
the President’s agenda although it has been rejected by voters and by the
Republican majority. We will take a
terrible risk if we do not use the next two years to resurrect and support his
many accomplishments. Hiding from his
legacy will threaten the winning of the Presidency in 2016. A group of Democrat office-holders should
take the initiative to make this a top priority by tying his accomplishments
into a new New Deal for America.
6) Too
many simply say “donate money”. Simplicity itself will not help Democrats no
matter how much is raised. In essence,
the number of dunning letters coming into private homes from Democratic
organizations is way out of line and off the mark. They fabricate the polls and true situations
of every race; they capitalize on every news event; they accuse those who don’t
respond of being disloyal; they don’t provide a spirited vision or any
inspirational way forward.
7) One
interesting progressive group claims that pushing Harry Reid to take action on judgeship appointments between
now and Jan 20th is of extreme importance. Again I have sympathy
with this concept, but it is not going to win elections for Democrats (although
it may win some progressive decisions in the lower courts).
8) Some,
like Robert Reich and Senator Elizabeth Warren, declare that we must stick with certain “popular” or
“populist” issues and push them constantly. Reich says we need “an agenda for shared
prosperity’ including a raising of the minimum wage, investment in education
and infrastructure; lift the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll
taxes, resurrect Glass-Steagall and limit the size of banks, make it easier for
low-wage workers to unionize, raise taxes on corporations with high ratios of
CEO pay to average worker pay, and much more.”
Senator Warren speaks along the same lines, but also emphasizes the need
to control Wall Street and CEOs.
DigitalJournal talks about a new
New Deal being needed, both in terms of saving the middle class and in order to
win elections around a unified core of values.
The U.S. economy is out of the recession, but many voters do not feel
that way. “Yes, the message is still as
pertinent as in 1992:
“It's the economy, stupid.” Voters are annoyed with the White House because the
economy still sucks. And, while many pundits are blaming Democrats' mid-term
woes on refusing to tack to the political right and become more conservative, I
agree with those who say that the Dems are suffering for failing to stick to
the socioeconomic left.”
9) Sometimes it is important to see what our foes have to say. Charles Krauthammer, writing in the NY Times,
expresses some thoughts that need to be taken seriously. “He explained on Wednesday the 5th that the
Republicans “didn’t win on Tuesday – the Democrats lost. “It was a repudiation of Obama, but it wasn’t
an endorsement of Republicanism yet. It was a way to say we endorse you, we
give you the gavel, we give you the opportunity.” He also said that the GOP must show that it’s
a party of ideas and actions by developing an agenda to pass legislation and
dare the president to exercise a veto.
“That will show you who the party of ‘no’ really is,” he said.
What did we learn from this debacle?
1) When Democrats run away from
their President, and from progressive Democratic values, they get
walloped at the polls. Some say they got
walloped anyway. I disagree. They got inundated because they did not stand
strong for progressive Democratic principles and values. They tried to sound
like Republicans so they could draw the independent and moderate middle votes. It didn’t work. It rarely works. Instead of standing strong
for health care reform, minimum wage increase, jobs legislation, raise in
social security and Medicare benefits, and so on – what amounts to a populist
agenda – some chose to “protect women’s access” to contraception and abortion as
their main item in their campaign.
Others chose to go soft on fossil fuels, others faltered on the rest of
the President’s agenda, like immigration reform. Ms. Grimes in Kentucky would not even
acknowledge her voting support for the President in the last election.
2) When the Leaders of the Democrats in Congress protect their caucus members from taking difficult stands and difficult votes, Democrats tend to lose. Harry Reid is the epitome of a Leader who is past his time; he needs to give up his new position of Minority Leader, and to be replaced by the likes of Chuck Schumer of New York who has already demonstrated his leadership abilities. As to Nancy Pelosi, it pains me to say that her leadership may also be passe`, although I venture to say she should probably remain through the lame duck term. Politico.com’s exclusive interview of Pelosi on Nov 12th spells out some reasons why she should stay: she is unrelenting on Democratic principles, policies and strategies; she is a strong leader; she possesses incredible fund-raising prowess having just demonstrated again this cycle that she can outraise all other House Democrats. But, Pelosi also acknowledges that fresh leadership is important to cultivate, but she will stay as long as the members keep wanting her to be their leader, and there is little indication of opposition. Although there are reported “grumblings” from younger members, there is no real movement yet to get her to retire. No one doubts that she has the accumulated power to make that decision on her own!
3) Money rules – not values,
not policies, not principles, not even accomplishments. Whether we like it or not, the wealthy have
taken over our elections, with the help of a conservative SCOTUS. Democrats are caught in the middle, espousing
a long-desired election campaign reform package, and yet needing more money to
fight the forces of the Koch brothers and their ilk who now spend enormous sums
through third party PACs to boost “their” candidates. The answer is quite
simple: until we can gain control of Congress, and advance the cause of
thorough election reform, we must adopt the premise that money-raising and
targeted spending is a necessary evil/goal and must be a top priority. We have to face the fact that we have to pry
money from the big spenders and the big corporations – from all those who at
least have some values in common with us. (By the way, where are George Soros and Nick Hanauer and
other rich progressives like them? We need their
backing). And, we probably cannot afford to be too choosy about every donor either so here’s one thought: why not require all major donors to sign an
affidavit declaring their understanding that the money is a donation freely given
that does not entitle them to any special treatment or access. Or, perhaps we
could simply promise them the Moon and deliver an inconsequential Pluto!
4) The People do not have enough understanding of the way government operates: that Congress is responsible for legislating, and when legislation is not written to solve real problems, the President cannot be blamed for that omission. The blaming of the President for the failures of the Senate and the House is ignorance writ large. Added to that ignorance is the delusion that a divided government will somehow make people work together. It’s not going to happen. We have reaped the harvest of a national education system that removed civics and political science from its curriculum, except in some cases where they remain as electives. If you have ever watched “Jay Walking” on the former “Tonight Show with Jay Leno”, you can understand perfectly what is being said here. The people picked off the streets by Jay and shown a picture of the Vice President, for instance, were at a loss as to who was pictured.
What’s worse, we are at a loss to explain how anyone
can vote against their best interests in an election. 2014 will ever stand as the epitome of that
kind of voting. In spite of all kinds of
austerity programming in proposed Republican budgets and legislation; in spite
of seeing millionaires prosper while average wages went down; in spite of
health care reform that benefits millions of consumers threatened with repeal,
the voters still chose the very people who promote those concepts and
ideas. Apparently, self-flagellation
and self-abuse are alive and well in our country. Even scientists have vague reasons for such
behavior. All we can say is that education
is one very important answer, and we must put civics lessons back into the
public schools and into community forums.
It is not enough to emphasize math and science as a way to prosperity.
5) Progressive citizens who did not
vote have made this result inevitable.
Where were the students, the minorities, the working poor? Home?
At work? They certainly were not
at the polls in the numbers needed. In
fact, the many student leaders in the 22nd NY Congressional district
did not even respond to a call for their participation in a district-wide
write-in campaign. Perhaps they voted at
their homes, but if so, they missed an opportunity to make waves in one
particular upstate NY district. There
are some who say that voter suppression laws had something to do with the lack
of voter turnout, but that is yet to be proven.
The evidence is not convincing.
What is perhaps more convincing is the Gallup Poll that was taken shortly
after the mid-term election and published by Politico.com on Nov. 12.
“Only 36 percent had a favorable
view of the Democratic party, a 6-percentage-point drop from before the
midterms, the Gallup poll released Wednesday found. With the GOP standing with
42 percent favorability, it is the first time since 2011 the GOP has had a
higher rating than the Democrats. The
favorability rating for Democrats is the party’s lowest since Gallup began
asking the question in 1992.”
So, perhaps it is less voter suppression than voter depression that kept Democrats from the polls.
6) Finally,
you cannot win elections
when you do not stand up for difficult issues like healthcare reform, tax
reform, job creation, or regulation of Wall Street financiers or bank
CEOs. According to a study by the
Brookings Institution, “only 36 percent of 2014 Democratic candidates mentioned
support of the Affordable Care Act in their platform.” You cannot pretend to be a Populist Democrat
while acting Republican-lite. A certain
amount of discipline is required within a political Party, usually administered
by Party Leaders, and that discipline must extend to those who side once too
often with the opposition. In this
particular case, the discipline was handed out by the voters. Here are the names of some who got voted out
perhaps because they did not strongly espouse populist Democrat Party accomplishments: Mark Udall (SD); Mark Warren (VA), Mark
Begich (WA), Mark Pryor (AR) (“Mark” well what happens to democrat Senators
when they abandon democratic principles).
Democrats should have run on their principles, not away from them. Because they allowed the President to be demonized and denounced by Republican con men and women, and because they did not stand up for him and did not run on the accomplishments of the last 6 years --some accomplishments that were made despite Republican obstructionism -- many people had no reason to vote for them and probably did not even show up at the polls on Election Day.
We apparently lost this election because many Democrat office-holders refused to face a multi-faceted reality. We can’t win with a passive strategy. We can’t win just talking about progressive issues, values and policies. We can’t even win with a good ground game! We need to recognize first and foremost that the Republicans have bested us in using language and symbols to utterly devastate our candidates. And who answered back? No one because everyone was hiding from the same reality. All the gimmicks, organizations, data gathering and data entry, plus good old fashioned GOTV, did not work because Republicans have stolen the ground out from under us, and tilted the playing field. Some call it a game. Not Republicans: they know it’s a WAR. And since Democrats are not war-prone, we have a very hard time dealing with that reality (and in fact have failed to deal with it). Here are some of the reactions I found, none of which speak on their own to the multi-faceted reality:
1) Some
say we must support and elect Mary
Landrieu of Louisiana. Apparently,
that is not necessarily a widely held view.
First, Mary Landrieu needs to get
her priorities straightened out, then she might deserve that support. She seems too anxious to support a Republican
agenda, which has worked for her in the past, but this year may not be enough
as we shall see in December. On the other hand, she voted 96% of the time
with her Party, so maybe she needs some slack, but here’s the part of her
record that raises questions about her candidacy:
--on controlling gun violence, more often sided with GOP to expand gun rights, voted against ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, voted to expand concealed gun carry laws, voted in favor of Republican rhetoric on enforcing laws on the books.
--as to Oil interests: approved Keystone pipeline being instituted and against more study with a decision 30 days after report issued; currently trying to get something passed in the Senate so she can use it in her run-off.
--wanted to see expansion of eavesdropping by CIA, etc.
--on 2007 CIR, voted with Republicans to defeat cloture on debate and thus wreaked chances of passing bill with special worker visas
--voted against authorization of withdrawal from Iraq
--voted for military tribunals to
try terrorists and for enhanced interrogation techniques, such as
‘water-boarding’
2) Veto
plans—there is much talk about the President’s
power to veto any legislation written by Republicans (who knows if they
remember how to craft legislation?). Problem
is, he has to consider a few questions:
are there some areas where signing Republican legislation would at least
provide something of worth and value to the general public? Should he allow some measures to pass into
law without his signature just to show what Republicans will do when given the
chance? Should he work for compromise (I prefer “trade-offs”) on major
issues? And what about a veto override:
are there some issues where enough Democrats would join with Republicans to
overturn a veto (2/3s vote)? Veto power
is not a simple concept. It’s a
difficult way to govern, and it tempts the Party in the majority to blame the
President for everything he blocks – such would be a continuation of the false
charge that he is prone to abuse of power by governing by Executive Order!
3) New leadership – there are critics
who claim that our leadership in the Dem Party is inadequate. Most of this falls on Harry Reid, but the
President comes in for some criticism of his management of the Executive bureaucracy
as well. According to some, Harry Reid
allowed too many Democrats, especially from southern and western states, to
stray from the Democratic agenda. Most
of those Democrats lost and one hangs in the balance – Mary Landrieu.
4) Get behind Hillary – many seem
to think we should get behind Hillary right now and push her all the way to
victory in 2016. Unfortunately, she does
not seem to be ready to declare her candidacy right now (if ever), and there is
that nagging feeling out there that by 2016 she will not be the candidate we
need or want! Democracy for America has
even put out a missive that calls for a competitive democratic primary battle
to show Americans “who we really are, our ideas, our diversity, our vision for
the future of America.” DFA even
presents an alphabetical list of possible candidates who have at least
expressed an interest in running. They
are asking members and readers to vote as to who they want to run for President
in 2016. That should prove
interesting. What is more interesting is
that almost every time the Democratic Party gets involved in primaries to such
an extent, we tend to lose momentum and the general election!
5) Work
on saving Obama’s legacy – there are those who say keep fighting for
the President’s agenda although it has been rejected by voters and by the
Republican majority. We will take a
terrible risk if we do not use the next two years to resurrect and support his
many accomplishments. Hiding from his
legacy will threaten the winning of the Presidency in 2016. A group of Democrat office-holders should
take the initiative to make this a top priority by tying his accomplishments
into a new New Deal for America.
6) Too
many simply say “donate money”. Simplicity itself will not help Democrats no
matter how much is raised. In essence,
the number of dunning letters coming into private homes from Democratic
organizations is way out of line and off the mark. They fabricate the polls and true situations
of every race; they capitalize on every news event; they accuse those who don’t
respond of being disloyal; they don’t provide a spirited vision or any
inspirational way forward.
7) One
interesting progressive group claims that pushing Harry Reid to take action on judgeship appointments between
now and Jan 20th is of extreme importance. Again I have sympathy
with this concept, but it is not going to win elections for Democrats (although
it may win some progressive decisions in the lower courts).
8) Some,
like Robert Reich and Senator Elizabeth Warren, declare that we must stick with certain “popular” or
“populist” issues and push them constantly. Reich says we need “an agenda for shared
prosperity’ including a raising of the minimum wage, investment in education
and infrastructure; lift the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll
taxes, resurrect Glass-Steagall and limit the size of banks, make it easier for
low-wage workers to unionize, raise taxes on corporations with high ratios of
CEO pay to average worker pay, and much more.”
Senator Warren speaks along the same lines, but also emphasizes the need
to control Wall Street and CEOs.
DigitalJournal talks about a new
New Deal being needed, both in terms of saving the middle class and in order to
win elections around a unified core of values.
The U.S. economy is out of the recession, but many voters do not feel
that way. “Yes, the message is still as
pertinent as in 1992:
“It's the economy, stupid.” Voters are annoyed with the White House because the
economy still sucks. And, while many pundits are blaming Democrats' mid-term
woes on refusing to tack to the political right and become more conservative, I
agree with those who say that the Dems are suffering for failing to stick to
the socioeconomic left.”
9) Sometimes it is important to see what our foes have to say. Charles Krauthammer, writing in the NY Times,
expresses some thoughts that need to be taken seriously. “He explained on Wednesday the 5th that the
Republicans “didn’t win on Tuesday – the Democrats lost. “It was a repudiation of Obama, but it wasn’t
an endorsement of Republicanism yet. It was a way to say we endorse you, we
give you the gavel, we give you the opportunity.” He also said that the GOP must show that it’s
a party of ideas and actions by developing an agenda to pass legislation and
dare the president to exercise a veto.
“That will show you who the party of ‘no’ really is,” he said.
Krauthammer then lists five big
items for a Republican agenda that he says must be urgent, determined and relentless:
1. a bill a week for the first 10 weeks. Start with obvious measures with significant Democratic support, like the Keystone XL pipeline
2. fast-track trade negotiation authority that Harry Reid killed and that Obama, like all presidents, wants. Republicans should propose and pass it, thereby giving Obama a victory and demonstrating both bipartisanship and magnanimity (as well as economic good sense).
3. a simple, targeted bill to repatriate the $2 trillion of assets being held by U.S. corporations overseas, a bill to authorize and expedite the export of liquid natural gas and crude oil (the latter banned by an obsolete 1975 law) and a strong border security bill.
4. symbolic abolition of Obamacare that Obama will immediately veto is less important than multiple rapid fire measures to kill it with a thousand cuts. Repeal of the medical device tax. Repeal of the individual mandate. Repeal of the employer mandate. Repeal of the coverage mandate thereby reinstating Obama's broken promise that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." And repeal the federal bailout for insurers on the Obamacare exchanges
5. sweeping reform of the tax system, both corporate and individual, abolishing loopholes and lowering rates, like the historic Reagan-O'Neill 1986 reform or Obama's own abandoned Simpson-Bowles commission. And go large: Invite the other side into immediate negotiations with the aim of producing a tax bill by spring
His final message to the GOP consists of a caution: “an Executive order on immigration would be naked impeachment bait. Don't take it. Use the power of the purse to defund it. Pledge immediate repeal if Republicans take the White House in 2017. Denounce it as both unconstitutional and bad policy. But don't let it overwhelm and overtake the GOP agenda. That's exactly what Obama wants. It is his only way to regain the initiative.”
10) Finally,
we may have lost this election so badly because there was too little attention paid to the major problem of voter suppression
and vote stealing. According to Bob
Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman on smirkingchimp.com, “since the Bush-Cheney-Rove
theft of the 2000 election in Florida, the right of millions of American
citizens to vote and have that vote counted has been under constant
assault.” The authors point to the
GOP-led purge that has denied the vote to students, the elderly, those living
in poverty and to citizens of color.
“Our voting system, to put it mildly, is bought and rigged, further
feeding the deadening sense of public futility and frustration.” One example they cite, unknown to many, is that
Republican Secretaries of State in 28 states use a ‘cross-check’ method that
allowed them to eliminate several million registered potential Democrat
voters “Deliberate (and often illegal) disinformation
campaigns, destruction of voter registration forms, outright voter
intimidation, and other suppression techniques” (such as manipulation of un-trackable
electronic voting machines) are all examples of an electoral system that is
rigged to favor those elected overwhelmingly on Nov. 4th, 2014. It’s by design, not accident, that the voter
turnout in America is ranked 120th in the world! In this election, barely 1/3rd of
those eligible actually voted.
So: where do we go from here? First, we have to set out some goals and
strategies for the longer term, because we Democrats have dug a hole so deep
that it may take a generation to dig out, and that means having some long-range
plans. More next time…
11/02/2014
FOUR Horsemen of the Political Apocalypse: Gridlock, Nullification, Veto & Impeachment
Last week we spoke about election consequences. Just so we don't misunderstand each other: the posting presented last week concentrated on what the Radical Republicans have in store for us; their plans and intentions for legislation and change. It was not intended to cover the political question of what will happen if there is a Republican-dominated House and Senate and a Democrat as President. This week's post is related to that political question.
The answer is easy: GRIDLOCK! Our constitution is set up to provide checks and balances, and sometimes those c's & b's can be used politically to either score political points, or to block the intentions of one of the parties in the equation. It is highly likely that the Republicans will produce a flurry of legislation that is intentionally an affront to the Democratic Party and particularly to the President. After all, it has been the intention of the GOP from the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency to tarnish his character, his qualifications, his background, his racial origins and his many actions as the Executive and Commander-in-chief. Their motive in this case of particular legislation will be to force the President to use his veto power to block the destructive and deleterious legislation that will come forth. And, in my opinion, the President will not hesitate to do so. Hopefully, the Democrats who remain in the Senate will be able to save him from having to use his veto too often. That is, the Senate minority always has the ability to force a cloture vote on a filibuster requiring 60 votes. That tactic has been used by the Republicans all through Obama's two-term presidency. There is no reason why the Democrats, if they are in the minority after Tuesday, should hesitate to use the same tactic against the legislative initiatives certain to come from the Republican majority.
Thus, gridlock is available in terms of two very strong procedures: the constitutionally guaranteed check on the Legislature in the form of the Executive veto, and the constitutionally-sanctioned procedural rule of cloture (rules of both Houses are at least allowed and somewhat protected as to their viability by the Constitution) that requires a 3/5's vote of the Senate to close a filibuster (meaning, in essence, that it takes 60 votes to pass the legislation being filibustered).
It is conceivable, therefore, that all legislation will be stymied in the next two years - an outlook that is disquieting if not alarming because it threatens the functionality of our legislative and executive branches of the federal government. However, the Radical Republicans will rejoice in this prospect, because it will enable them to further advance their notion that the federal government is in need of diminution, and that States should be given more and more responsibility for governing and for initiating change. But please remember that "change" for Republicans is regressive not progressive. That is, they will expect the states (at least those controlled by their Party) to initiate changes that return us to a time when government was also fairly ineffectual. They will want the states to continue to:
-- restrict voting
-- restrict health care and bring to bear all the privatization possible of that system
-- promote Business and demote Labor
-- de-regulate in every area that restricts capitalism
-- encourage more privatization of governing functions to the private sector; including education
-- reduce taxes wherever possible on the already wealthy, i.e. corporations and small businesses
-- give banks and other financial institutions every break possible
-- promote business by waiving state and local taxes on them for a number of years and giving them other financial breaks to coddle them into establishing their enterprises in those states
-- become the proving grounds for Republican ideology: make contraception and abortion illegal; promote the Christian religion in public life and in schools; continue to make it difficult for women to pursue careers outside the home; build prisons, nursing homes, mental hospitals, orphanages to promote business under the guise of "taking care" of the less fortunate (in other words use re-institutionalization as a means toward capitalistic profiteering, as all of these institutions can easily be contracted out for operation by for-profit businesses right along with the boon to the construction business).
Let's not forget the other social upheavals that Republican ideology will bring to states: pollution so bad you can taste it; unmitigated climate change so prevalent you can't escape it; law enforcement so militarized you can't stand it; public education so denuded and tainted you can't use it; taxes so high you can't afford it; class warfare and wage inequality so prevalent you can't live with it; racial segregation and separation so stringent you won't believe it; the right to privacy denuded so thoroughly that you must wall yourself off from much of the outside world.
And, that doesn't even begin to portray the many invisible ploys that the rich and their "bought" representatives in the state legislatures and judicial systems will bring to bear: no more gay marriage or rights as "couples;" more blacks and Hispanics incarcerated for long terms and never free from their felonies even when they have served their time; more juveniles tried as adults and incarcerated for longer terms in adult prisons; restrictions on internet use and availability with the best services reserved to those who can afford them; the growth of private militias, some of which will be contracted to provide "law enforcement;" the lack of anywhere to turn when local, county or state government overrides or denies your civil rights because federal government laws, along with consumer protections, will have been nullified.
We can't possibly cover all that is waiting to happen if Republican Radicals seize control. But we can say that their Right-wing philosophy dictates their responses and their actions. That is why the Republican incumbents and challengers in upstate New York districts must all be rejected in Tuesday's Election. They demonstrate by their records - not by campaign rhetoric - that they are captives of the Radical Right and have already managed to vote with them numerous times. The consequences of electing Richard Hanna, Tom Reed, John Katco, Chris Gibson and Elise Stefanik will be exactly as I have described. Those candidates are committed to the very concepts and actions that have already been laid out above.
No wonder, then, that President Obama will have no other choice than to use his veto pen as often as he can. There will be times when some "bought" Democrats will defect to Republican thinking (gun control, immigration, and fossil fuel business promotion are a few examples), and there may then be an override of a veto, either in negotiations or by a 2/3s vote in each House of Congress. However, the evolving of state power and takeover may not always require national legislation, but may start with state legislation that could be protected by conservative justices in state courts, and the final arbiter, the Supreme Court.
That brings up another major consequence of the split in party control between the Legislative and Executive branches: Supreme Court nominations. If the President gets a chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in his final two years in office, whoever he nominates will run into a Senate that will most likely vote along party lines. If the Radical Republicans control the Senate, there will be no liberal nominees approved for the Supreme Court. President Obama will be forced to find a moderate judge or nominee who can win support across party lines. I dare say I cannot see that happening; I simply cannot envision a Republican Senate approving anyone nominated by President Obama. That would leave us with what might be called the ultimate gridlock: a Supreme Court reduced in size to 8 Justices with 4-4 votes on many cases, meaning they would remain undecided.
Let us bring up one more major consequence of a possible decision by the electorate to split the parties in power into a Republican Congress and Democrat Executive: impeachment of the President. The House under Republicans can come up with all the charges it has previously leveled and more. They can easily use their majority to resolve to impeach the President on those charges. The trial portion then goes to the Senate, where the conservative Chief Justice of the United States presides. Even if the Republicans hold the slim majority of 51-49, and if all Republican Senators join in an affirmative vote to even a few of the charges, the vote will be insufficient to force the President from office, because a two-thirds favorable vote of those present is required for actual conviction by the Senate. Knowing this is the case, I still would not put it past the House Republicans to at least have it on the record that Articles of Impeachment were presented and that a Resolution that impeachment was warranted was brought and passed by the House, even though it would most likely fail to be upheld in the Senate. This is what happened to President Bill Clinton, and in spite of not being upheld in the Senate, it is on the record that President Clinton was impeached (read as "indicted") by the House. Here's a summary presented by a writer for AboutNews.com:
"No American President has ever been forced from office due to impeachment.
In fact, only four times in our history, has Congress held serious discussions of impeachment:
Andrew Johnson was actually impeached when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by one vote and remained in office.
Congress introduced a resolution to impeach John Tyler over state's rights issues, but the resolution failed.Congress was debating his impeachment over the Watergate break-in when President Richard Nixon resigned.
William J. Clinton was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relationship to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was eventually acquitted by the Senate.
The Impeachment Process In the House of Representatives
The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted, or that impeachment is not called for.
The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted for a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in." (explained above)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)