If you were following the 2007-08 Obama campaign closely, it was possible to get at least some outlines of what his administration might look like if he eventually won the nomination and the presidency. It was a fair bet that Tom Daschle would be in charge of enacting health care reform, and he would have been if he could have survived the confirmation process. You would not have been at all surprised if John Kerry were nominated to run the State Department. If you knew anything about the tight-knit relationship between Chicago-based pols, Rahm Emanuel’s appointment as chief of staff would not have shocked you. If you looked a little deeper, you’d see that people like Samantha Power and John Brennan were going to have influential roles, and it wasn’t hard to guess that Valerie Jarrett would be at the center of things.
Maybe it’s possible to do the same kind of prognostication about a potential Bernie Sanders administration, but I’ve been racking my brain and I’m not doing too well. He simply doesn’t have the establishment support to field a small army of surrogates. But it’s still surprising that people haven’t emerged to argue for his policies in magazine and newspapers columns. He’s proposing some pretty big ideas like taking another shot at single-payer health care and creating a system to provide free college tuition the same way that we have tuition free high school. You’d think there would some folks angling to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services or Secretary of Education in his administration. You’d think they’d be easy to identify because we’d see them making the case for Sanders’ vision for reform.
I’m sure there is some of this that I’ve missed, and please point me to anything or anyone that you’re aware of who is doing this kind of surrogate work.
But the relative absence of identifiable people behind Sanders who would be empowered by his election makes it very difficult for me to assess him as a candidate. I think we elect gangs of people to the presidency more so than individuals. The Clintons have a well-established gang. Some of their gang makes me crazy and some of their gang are people I have the utmost respect for, but I do have the ability to envision what a Hillary administration would look like.
With Sanders, I don’t know who would be empowered at Defense or State, or what kind of person he’d try to put in charge of the Treasury Department. Where’s the person who could be the point man or woman for his single-payer push?
This problem has really come to the fore in recent weeks as the wonks on the left have begun turning against Sanders on substance. With Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Johathan Chait blasting his health-care proposal, the lack of surrogates to push back has been quite noticeable.
Turning to the Democratic race, it’s been striking that since the Dem establishment and wonkish liberals began their political attack on Bernie Sanders — “He’s a socialist!” “He’s unelectable!” “The GOP will destroy him!” — the only Democrat who has pushed back on this critique has been Sanders adviser Tad Devine on MSNBC. Bottom line: Sanders doesn’t have any well-known Democratic Party validators to back him up. In 2007-2008, Barack Obama had plenty of Dem validators going up when going up against the Clinton machine — Tom Daschle, Tim Kaine, Deval Patrick, and Claire McCaskill (who’s maybe been the most aggressive against Sanders right now). It’s something to watch over the next 11 days: If 80% of the Democratic Party continues to hit Sanders here, and there isn’t DEMOCRATIC pushback, can Sanders win that fight?
Sanders is doing a lot of things very well. The poll numbers show it. His fundraising shows it. He organization on the ground is impressive.
But it’s still hard to figure out what him actually winning would look like. There are a lot of progressives who sincerely want to support Sanders but are holding back because either they’re not convinced he’s electable or they don’t think his policies are realistic or correct. If this is an ideological war for the heart of the Democratic Party, where are the ideologues or even the policy makers who are on Sanders’ side?
This is a deeper question than just who’s willing to stick their neck out and endorse him. Where are the people who agree with him, think he can win, and are in line to work for him when he becomes president?
Oh you’ve gone and done it now Booman. Don’t you know that St. Bernie of Vermont is totally awesome and needs no stinkin surrogates for he shall save us all with his mighty bully pulpit that will give us single payer healthcare and free college in his first 100 days. I know because his stans tell me so..
Ding, ding; we have a winner. Just don’t expect much validation around these here parts.
It’s cool. This thread is entertaining as hell though….
Me: So all this big shit Bernie’s talking.. How will he actually implement it? No bullshit about “Revolution” or “bully pulpit” or “moving the conversation left”.. How will he actually get shit done? Especially if both Houses of Congress are still controlled by the GOP?
Bernie stans: He’ll fight the estab… Well um.. Well fuck you! That’s how!
Y’all funny as hell man. A whole lot of us on the Black side of the blogs are howling at y’all right now LMAO.
Sanders won’t have a revolution if he doesn’t get both Houses of Congress.
Fortunately for Sanders, the demographic argument for him getting the House is very plausible. He has to run one of two paths: energize the less hardy members of the democratic base or cut into the margins of the GOP base. I can talk more about this argument if you want, but basically if Sanders can get ’04 turnout, get ’08 margins with Millenials, ’12 margins with racial minorities, and ’04 margins with everyone else that’s a 7% vote margin and enough to win the House.
Unfortunately for HRC, she has no plan to win the House other than ‘hope that white women find it in their heart to defy general election polling and support me’. We have no reason to believe that she’d do any better than ’12 Obama and a lot of reasons to believe that she’d do worse. This is why the Democratic establishment is trying to soothe the base and get them to believe that two years of appointing SCOTUS candidates should be the most we should expect from their administration.
Basically, the reason why I buy into Sanders’ revolution is not that I particularly believe in his message or value honest or appreciate a candidate that won’t fuck us over on warhawkery (though though are all pluses) but because I think that he can win the House.
Frankly, I’d rather worry more about the fate of liberalism if I had to face the GOP for four years with no Congress but with the consolation prize of a unified Democratic Party on call than the fate of liberalism after I won Congress but was tasked with rebuilding the Democratic Party’s political apparatus.
The real question is how much the Democratic Party will go along with Sanders even if he does win the House and Senate in 2016.
Personally, I’m not really too worried about an active counterattack from centrists if Sanders manages to win House and Senate. You only have to look at their performance of 2014 and their projected performance for 2016 and 2018. “Yes, we lost 2014, as predicted, by huge margins. We won’t win House in 2016. We’ll lose Senate in 2018. And winning anything more than the Presidency ain’t looking too good in 2020 either. But the demographics are so destined that by 2024 a generic Dem will win both Chambers of Congress even with the Gerrymander and uninspiring policies.” I’m dead fucking serious. That’s not just their game plan for the next few cycles, but their argument for legitimacy — we should go with them over the wild-eyed radical because they’ll be able to fight things to a standstill for 8 years and then maybe demographic change will allow them to construct a counterattack. You know, assuming Gen-Y doesn’t ditch them like a bad habit or paler-skinned Latinos don’t melt into the white working class.
The Democratic establishment is stubborn, clueless, and above all-else weak. Plan A is to sit on their ass for 8 years and hope for a positive black swan. And Sanders should fear the opprobrium from these lazy cravens?
You speak with great authority on this matter, but all I really see are rainbows and ponies. On what data is your certainty based? Why do you think Clinton would do worse than ’12 Obama? Why do you think Sanders would do better? Frankly, I’m not seeing how Sanders could get any coattails in the midwest or the south. At least Clinton has good relations to the black and hispanic communities, and could pull support in some of the cities.
Two words: Generation Y. 2012 Obama actually did a pretty damn good job with other demographics. He racked up his margins with racial minorities and didn’t lose any other Gen-Y adjusted demographic (race, older voters, gender, class, etc.) by more than 2%.
However, not having Gen-Y turned out to be his undoing. He lost the youth vote in absolute margins by 6% and turnout by a similar amount.
And racial minorities won’t save her. The Latino and Asian-American absolute vote ratio increased by 10%, Blacks by high single-digits. However, this was all done with the votes of older voters. Latino and Asian youth vote for Obama barely budged, while these two demographics as a whole barely increased turnout at all. Black males 18-29 voted 14% more for Romney. As in, 6% voted for McCain and 20% voted for Mr. ‘You non-tax payers are the scum of society’ Romney. Ponder that statistic for awhile before kidding yourselves about the black vote being permanently in the bag for Democrats.
Gen-Y was HRC’s weakest non-black demographic in 2008 and polling in 2016 shows that she’s still weak here. Obviously, we still have a long way to go until the election but the warning signs look bad. And if HRC’s central argument of ‘you will get grinding mediocrity and you will like it because things can always get much worse’ continues to get pushed I don’t think it’ll get any better. Unless she has a plausible plan to juice racial minority turnout to heretofore unseen levels (which includes keeping Obama’s record-high turnout of black voters) or a plan to cut into the margins of the white working class she can’t hope to do better than Obama.
I don’t know where you get your data but Romney did not get 20% of the the black vote no matter how you subdivide it.
I said 20% of the black male vote 18-29. You know, the Millenials.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/26/young-voters-supported-obama-less-but-may-have-mattered-more/
You have too much faith in the Millenials. Bernie’s act plays well with anyone who’s never watched so much as a Schoolhouse Rock video but anyone (and not just the neolibs.. LMAO) who has a working knowledge of how Government works knows Bernie is selling a whole lot of bullshit. I don’t stan for either Hillary or Bernie. Frankly I find then both crushingly mediocre. Save the big talk. The only thing I need from either of them them whoever gets the nomination is just don’t fuck up what progress we’ve made (And yes Emoprogs,we’ve made progress) in the past 8 years. That’s it.
hmmmmm…Nails, head, hammer … You a carpenter, Kenny?
Emoprogs. Hadn’t heard that before. What’s that from?
Sanders can get a Democratic House with a landslide, but he can’t get a progressive majority with any landslide. The problem is the Blue Dogs and the New Dems. There’s still something like 10 blue doggy types and about 70 New Dems. Those folks will not vote for single-payer healthcare or a broad transaction tax no matter what.
Clinton’s agenda is basically the most that any Democratic president could get in 2017. It’s basically aimed at the New Dems that will be the swing votes with a dream outcome in the 2016 congressional elections. If Bernie gets elected, even with a large Democratic majority in Congress, he’ll be struggling to achieve her agenda, and struggling hard, because Clinton has a pretty ambition liberal agenda.
Her agenda is cautious and definitely not liberal.
The concern I have about Bernie’s support is that he’s polling poorly with minorities. The biggest problem with that is not a general election problem; it’s that Hillary will win the primary unless he begins doing much better with minorities in about a month. He’s running out of time to gain more support from these voter blocs.
A portion of the 2008 primary battle is flipped here. The big challenge for Obama was being able to compete in the very white states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Having done so, Barack was able to establish a near-unbeatable edge in delegates over the next month by winning the next two States, each of which had a significant minority electorate, with more to come.
Bernie could win both Iowa and New Hampshire and still have a difficult path, with a supermajority of the States voting before and on Super Tuesday holding significant numbers of non-white voters. Winning Iowa and New Hampshire could change some dynamics, but telling non-white voters that their problems would be solved if income inequality is dealt with, the big banks are broken up, a Constitutional amendment is passed to take big money out of politics, and college is made affordable is not working at the moment.
Bernie’s campaign has called for reforms in justice, immigration and social policies as well, but they’re not core parts of his message or his record. Perhaps this is part of Bernie’s problem in attracting non-white support so far.
Surely it’s not -that- hard to envision what Sanders actually winning would look like: a Democratic administration headed by a president who constantly offered his full-throated support of DFH positions that other candidates would shy away from, while at the same time achieving not a single whit more than any other Democratic president could, given Republican intransigence and media obstructionism.
I can’t imagine that he’ll win. But if he does, I can even less imagine that 90% of Democratic operators won’t suddenly be eager to work for his administration. A job’s a job.
A President’s power is pretty circumscribed, isn’t it? So arguing that a center-left/moderate Democratic president will be much different from a left-left Democratic president isn’t supportable. It’s just the Great Man theory. The biggest difference, I’d imagine, would be in what they’ll say, and if they can nudge some currently-fringe options toward the mainstream.
At least on domestic policy. On foreign policy … it’s stunning how happily the ‘liberal pundit elite’ is disregarding Clinton’s support for the greatest foreign policy disaster in a generation, which cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. I know it’s old news, and embarrassing, but I still–naively–find it a little surprising. It wasn’t -that- long ago.
Am I remembering wrong? Did Sanders vote for the invasion, too?
Borrowing a quote from the Jaundiced Eyeball: “…our wised-up punditocracy demands a caretaker presidency to manage those affairs of state least prone to democratic oversight, while the Democratic establishment . . . plans its next offensive to capture the largely ceremonial office of the presidency.”
What part of ‘the rise of socialism, the end of finance capitalism as the prevailing mode of production, and the implementation of production-for-use in place of production-for profit’ is hard to visualize?
Pretty much all of it, but especially without Matt Stoller cloning himself to serve in multiple cabinet positions.
Having once shared the front page at openleft with Matt – that made me laugh.
The socialist movement in the United States was regionally important prior to the First World War. Upon US entry into the war, the Wilson administration smashed the socialist movement, which never recovered. I have the same wish as Davis X Machina, I just don’t think a US socialist movement is about to spring out of a vacuum even if by some fluke Bernie Sanders is elected president.
Whut? The mid-30s were the second revolution that birthed the CIO. The Wagner Act and Social Security?
Davis, Davis, Davis:
Bernie has eschewed the seizure of the means of production as a goal. He no longer is truly a representative of the just aspirations of the proletariat and is now a puppet of the capitalist state.
Honestly, if his term as Mayor is a guide, look for the addition of a lot of bike paths and a really nice community boathouse.
Guessing this is a bigger factor than you want to acknowledge. Nobody with anything to lose wants to piss off Hilary. At least that’s pretty easy for me to believe.
I like the economists who have supported him on wages and Wall Street. Hardly fringe.
Exactly.
In answer to Booman: Robert Reich is definitely on board. And Elizabeth Warren can’t be very far off.
More later. My daughter wants me to play with her doll house.
This all sounds like “this is hard so lets quit now. Besides Hillary will get mad.” That may be true for some but then who wants them?
What you said. Did it ever occur to any of these folks that maybe, just maybe, Bernie’s direction just HAS to be taken or we’re fucked. Like maybe its not just a bunch of talking points calculated to attract voters ?
So let’s go for it, and if we don’t win, we’re fucked anyway. But if we do win, we’re not.
Most people who are supporting Bernie are doing it because they NEED HELP, they NEED RELIEF, and he seems to be the only candidate that even recognizes that.
Honestly, this bumper sticker says it best:
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/100409203/feel-the-bern_sticker?productId=1624415673
I agree he lacks surrogates to answer the questions. But if he wins, I would predict that will no longer be a problem. His job is that steep climb to beat the Clinton machine.
He’s been in politics for decades. He’s got plenty of people. Like he said, maybe not a Secretary of the Treasury from Goldman Sachs (or whatever), but there are plenty of people who’ll love to serve Sanders.
This is a weird, kind of concern-troll post. Curious, no?
Yes it is. And it’s the second post here in the same vein within the past three weeks.
Concern-troll? Maybe. But while Longman’s “wracking his brain” trying to recall some names that might be assumed insiders in a hypothetical Sanders administration, I continue to wrack my brain trying to recall a presidential primary when, prior to the Iowa caucus this kind of information about a candidate’s possible appointees was known.
It’s one of the pleasant coincidences of Sanders’ running as a Democrat without being one himself. As a matter of fundamental loyalty to the Party, Democratic officials and operatives are essentially forbidden from endorsing him. So who of them will eventually fall away from the Party to join his campaign and might be identified as potential appointees? It’s a good point. We just don’t know. Yet. His is really an independent bid for the nomination. Turns out that for millions of voters, this time around, his more-or-less complete lack of support from the Democratic Party makes Sanders a lot more like them. And, in contrast, makes Hillary seem like she’s the ultimate cause of their problems, not a solution.
(wrong video above, meant to post this one….)
What was the single most important thing that defeated Romney? IMHO it was “he doesn’t care about ordinary people.” He was of, by, and for the elites. And at the end of the day, that was a bigger negative for him with that small slice of the electorate that can swing elections than the color of Obama’s skin.
Yes, politicians are attracted to power like flies to honey. Does anyone really think that a capable person will turn down SecDef SecState, SecTreas, Seclabor just because Hillary is mad about losing? Losers lose. Winners win. Get the Oval office and they will come.
Does anyone think because Trump has no politicians in his hip pocket that he won’t be able to form a cabinet?
Get real! This is the lamest argument against voting for Bernie that I’ve ever read.
I don’t think there is any doubt Sanders can hire people as president. I do question whether he can find anyone with any expertise who agrees with any of his policies.
Sanders is aiming to overthrow the establishment and usher in a new altruistic (I guess) establishment. He won’t sell out and hire any neo-liberals, will he?
Where is the political revolution if Bernie doesn’t have lots of like-minded people with some experience to help him run the government? Who are these like-minded people? Don’t the people in his cabinet have to believe in his political revolution? He has the chance the appoint thousands of people to key posts in government. They need to have some expertise (in housing or energy or whatever), they have to have some experience managing huge bureaucracies, and they have to believe in the revolution.
Is it possible?
I suppose the candidate that’s able to put together a campaign that defeats the Clinton machine will be able to identify administrators capable of running the government.
Anyway, this question is premature (as it was when you asked it a month ago). Let’s see if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire and his polling in following state primaries continues to rise.
Seriously, in January of 2008 you were able to glean leading contenders for top level cabinet positions in the Obama administration? Did you foresee Timothy Geither at Treasury? Bush’s Robert Gates continuing at Defense? Republican Kathleen Sibelius at Health and Human Services? Gary Locke at Commerce? Any of the others? Nobody wonders about such things at this early stage of a presidential nominating contest. And obviously, as soon as it becomes clearer (if it does) that Sanders may really win this thing, so will it become clearer which current and former Democratic Governors and Senators, academics et. al. will be on short lists for those positions.
Such questions weren’t even asked in blogland January 2008. And doubt anybody that supported Obama expected the answer to be 5% Chicago cronies, and the remainder split between the Clinton and Bush gangs.
He would probably have lost votes if people had known his economic choices.
Perhaps not as 95% would have been the same and then folks would only have had to decide which 5% was least objectionable, the Chicago cronies or Bill Clinton and his cronies.
What MIGHT change is the regulatory heads revolving door with industry. That has been the worst manifestation of neoliberal policies, imo.
Hillary will get right on that. Well as soon as she staff’s all the economic/finance slots with her Wall St. cronies.
Choosing between Capone and Moran.
Translation:
Further translation:
More translation:
Four more years of neo-liberal bullshit.
Look where the last eight have gotten us.
Please.
WTFU.
Bernie in the White House would be a slap in the face to the PermaGov, which indeed needs one. Would everything work all hunky-dory?
Hell no!!! It’d be chaos!!!
The government would grind to a halt!!!
And then everything would get better, not worse.
Bernie Sanders, secret agent of the Libertarian Party.
Lord A’Mighty!!!
If he could get Elizabeth Warren to run with him on the ticket!!!
Lord A’Mighty what a fuss they could kick up!!!
Later…
AG
I don’t know what’s happening here, Gilroy, but I actually agree with you.
Yes, and for once I wasn’t put off by his comment styling. Or this time it worked well enough. Some thing are much better if they are rarely repeated.
Aw c’mon, folks. I write beop/post-bop/Nuyorican latin jazz prose. Just like I play. Get with the program. That shit’s been around since the late ’40s. Get widdit!!!.
‘Hit Ain’t Whatcha Do ‘Hit’s The Way ‘Atcha Do It was written by Trummy Young…one of my main musical influences…way back in the ’30s.
Get with the program. Get hip. Read wid some riddm!!!
You be bettah off.
Trummy w/Louis Armstrong.
Pops…that’s what we call Louis Armstrong…knew.
You should too.
It’s as American as apple pie. And collard greens, too.
Swing, babies. Swing.
Please.
AG
Yes, I know that and it’s why I generally refrain from commenting on your posts. Most of your comments exhibit everything I can’t stand about jazz, latin, and bebop. Most of it is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me and those that don’t bore me. The Bill Evans at the Montraux Jazz Festival recording is an exception.
That’s sad to hear. Really. It’s the art music of the Americas. Bill Evans included. He’s right smack in the middle of the idiom. What do you listen to?
AG
Practically anything else. Okay, a little bit of Reggae goes a long way for me. Small doses of country. Have no one favorite genre — very much like blues, bluegrass, folk (both American and world), classical (except for Tchaikovsky and Strauss), Stockhausen and other electronic music, some operas, most of the Great American Songbook, Charles Ives, some rock. An eclectic mix that musician friends and acquaintances never been able to figure out, and several jazz fans have dragged me off to jazz performances under the impression that I only needed to hear more of it to like it.
Damien Rice is currently high on my list. Whether simple and pared down in his concerts or over the top lush as in Hypnosis.
That is indeed a bafflingly eclectic list. I wonder if you might like Romanian ethno-jazz ? (lăutărească music)
Catalin Fasui, electric violin
Luis Iordache, tambal (hammered dulcimer)
Daniel Costache, bass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlilmUbmYBw
Well anyway, I do.
No.
“Jazz” is reggae, country, blues, (American) folk, the Great American Songbook, rock, etc. Damien Rice too. It is all based on the fusion of African musical traditions with European/Caribbean ones that happened at the end of the 19th Century in and around New Orleans. Anything that uses a rhythm section is “jazz,” just for starters. You like the American Songbook? Sinatra is most definitely a “jazz” singer, as were all of the other great practitioners of that art. You like Bill Evans but don’t like “jazz?” It sounds to me like you’ve been exposed to the wrong “jazz” out front, so you never got to the point where you could like it.
So it goes, of course. Different strokes, etc.
But…Bill Evans, for example, was perhaps he most influential jazz pianist of his generation. Most of the harmonic content of Miles Davis’s two greatest groups was invented/finalized by Bill Evans.
Whenever someone says to me that they don’t like “jazz” but likes other sorts of music I send them to the great collaborations of Gil Evans and Miles Davis, especially the “Porgy and Bess” and “Sketches of Spain” albums.
“Jazz” is just music…the sum of the American experience. There is lots of righteous anger in it…as befits the history of America…and a great deal of righteous despair as well. But in the end it overcomes. Check it out more deeply. Without “jazz” and the comedy of Warner Bros. cartoons I believe that the U.S. would have lost WWII and Hitler would have won all of Europe. We laughed and danced him out of contention. <Swung</u> him out. For that reason alone…check it out.
Later…
AG
You’re only correct if one accepts your proposition that all music is jazz. Which isn’t a proposition accepted by musicologists and is rejected by the canon of the great American songbook (although a significant portion of the music lends itself to jazz interpretations, styling, or reharmonizations and for the most part I don’t like those versions and I’m not a Sinatra fan.) American jazz as we know it today is a somewhat late convention.
Didn’t mean to suggest that I’m a Bill Evans fan; only that I find that one recording pleasing enough. To throw Damien Rice into your pot of jazz is silly.
George Gershwin:
Far too many different influences (including the Yeshiva theater) to claim Gershwin = jazz.
So, none of those jazz fans, including musicians (and a musician husband – High School of Music & Art grad), ever exposed or introduced me to the “right kind” of jazz? They did and I’ve already said that it perplexed them as to why it either bored me or made me cringe.
You don’t like the melodic/lyrical genius of Frank Sinatra but you “like” The Great American Songbook?
I give up.
You’re right
Enjoy yourself.
AG
I give up. Good call. Better call is where my musicians friends ended up by accepting that I don’t and never will like jazz. (btw — didn’t say I like all of The American Songbook.)
Listening to jazz is like watching children walk a tightrope across the Grand Canyon. The great ones make it and its fabulous.
Almost all, however, are not great.
That’s why I am in NYC. It’s where the great ones stay and play.
AG
See below.
AG
Or above.
Wherever.
AG
The problem is that Sanders, his stump speech rhetoric notwithstanding, wasn’t running to become president. He was running to change the dialogue, which is why he’s spent so much time and effect on single-payer healthcare, which he won’t be able to implement even if he gets elected. It’s valuable to get people to understand that the problems with our healthcare system are mostly from having so little government in it, but it’s not a proximate policy goal.
Now that his polling is doing so well, it’s looking nonfreakishly plausible he could be elected. And, of course, he wants to be president. But he still didn’t prepare for it, because he didn’t think this would happen six months ago. Can he prepare for it now with less than a year to go? I don’t know, but it’s difficult. It’s supposed to take more time to finish a full cosmetology degree, and it does take some time to actually win an election.
Odd how so many people have and continue to assert that Trump and Sanders weren’t really running to become POTUS. That they had some other agenda in mind and that other agenda is a Rorschach test for pundits, bloggers, etc. to opine on.
It’s really simple. Nobody, regardless of how little chance they may have, runs for POTUS for any reason other than that they want the job.
Really? You seen Carson’s campaign lately? Trump got into it for the same reason: To sell books and re-inforce the brand.
I am one of those who think that Trump does not want to be president. He wants to run, he wants the crowds adulation, he wants to get exposure, … But win? That’s too much like work.
To say nothing of having to meet an actual adversary who really will say mean things about your bankruptcies, you close ties to the NY/NJ Mob, your hair … well, maybe they’ll leave the hair alone.
No, I believe T-Rump does want to be prezsident,
just like we see on the TV …
—————
He doesn’t want the job,
none of the hard work that goes with it;
won’t put even half the weak effort the shrub did,
Don’t brief him just solve the problem so he can brag about it.
He does want the bragging rights that he is de president,
with all the pomp and circumstance that comes with it
He wants the celebrity of being el presidentie
That he wants;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
I don’t think he is considering doing, the 16 hour seven day a week, requirement that goes along with that less public part of the job;
That part he probably is thinking of out sourcing to others,
sorta like the shrub did.
To run this far and not get the job;
—-what a loser—–
After all, W pulled it off and soon will be respected again.
Teh Donald is no mere Bush league human, nor does he respect them much.
Losing; whether respect and or elections is for the Bushies, not for el T-Rumpo.
I don’t think Bernie would do that. Maybe his running mate. Bernie would contrast policies and the contrast would be stark. Yes, his policies are simple, so is basic Physics. Compare Medicare for all with Hillarycare and Obamacare. No 2000 page bill that no one understands required. The populace fears the unknown, but everyone knows Medicare (or thinks they do). Likewise for breaking up the big banks and limiting CEO pay. It’s hard to argue against them without sounding elitist. And the public hates the banks and CEO’s, even most of the Tea Party.
Medicare is not that simple, but Medicare without deductibles, co-pays, and Advantage plans could be simple, could cover eye and dental procedures and prevention. The next objection is people fraudulently scamming government healthcare. The first step on that is to ask exactly what sorts of scams they have in mind.
And the final objection is always “How are you going to pay for it?”…the deficit yada-yada.
The answer is that we will rewrite the tax code so that the people wanting to get rich by privatizing your Medicare are the ones paying for it. Or some diplomatic variation of that answer.
There is no reason for a $5 million in salary MBA CEO managing several hundred doctors who can manage themselves if only they did not have to contend with hiring accounting, billing, and collections departments. Medicare for All eliminates the need for those departments as long as the administration of Medicare is efficient in processing payments.
Boy is he overpaid;
The Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Health deals with 279,792 Employees in 152 VA Medical Centers and approximately 1400 community-based outpatient clinics, with a budget of 62.5 Billion dollars He is responsible for all veterans health Care issues, serving 8.76 million veterans each year.. BTW he is the chief executive of the nations largest integrated health care system. He only earns $165,300.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs deals with 137,000 Employees in 65 hospitals, 412 clinics, and 414 dental clinics at facilities across the nation and around the world. He oversees a budget of 62.5 Billion dollars and is responsible for all Active Duty and retiree health Care issues, approximately 9.6 million people. He only earns $155,500.
It is long past time for us in this country to stop looking toward the private sector where excessive greed and capitalistic rule of money trumps all thinking, for good ideas of how to get the most health care to most people, and to look back to the two very large entities of the US Government who are already doing exactly that.
Yea – having known Bernie for about 35 years, this is nonsense.
People have this idea of him that is born out their experience with the usual radical lefty types.
Bernie is a BRILLIANT politician. I don’t think people get that. They think , well, he got elected in that crazy state of Vermont.
And that really isn’t right. I am absolutely certain he thought he could win. He is a much better shot in this race than in the 81 Mayoral race. People outside the state who weren’t there I guess don’t appreciate how HARD that was. The reaction of the Democratic establishment in Burlington was pure hate. I know – I kind of was part of it.
And what we found out was he almost always had a plan. No one I knew thought he had a prayer of winning re-election – honestly that was in some ways a tougher race.
People underestimate him. This article underestimates him because it is written with the thought he is some kind of left wing academic who got lucky.
But that is very far from the truth.
Sanders has been fucking brilliant. He has the best political ads I have ever seen.
This isn’t an accident. None of it is.
He is well ahead of the curve – the blogs are just starting to figure this out.
Hope you are right. Even if he does not win, I want him to scare the shit out of the centralist neolibs. Make them think about polishing their resumes in 2018.
his new ad – wow! and he can use it in each state, same music, various cast of ppl from the state. wow!
Thank you. May I quote you?
And can you tell us if the following is par for the course for past his opponents?
Billmon:
You kind of go through the 5 stages of death with Bernie. You start in firm denial – how can we lose to the communist. You think our strategy is simple – we will call him a communist. You do that, and you realize he did little for about 10 years but think up answers for that, and it doesn’t work.
And I am not sure you ever recover from that. None of the Democratic campaigns in Vermont could ever figure it out – though in fairness Madeline Kunin beat him like a drum.
And you absolutely do freak out. Because Bernie’s message is simple – and no one stays on message like he does. He doesn’t handlers to keep him focused, he does it himself. And being a liberal, a simple message isn’t exactly your strength (compare Medicare for all and Obamacare in their complexity)
“Bernie is a BRILLIANT politician. I don’t think people get that.”
You are so right. Pay attention, folks. The 74 year-old Jewish Socialist from Brooklyn has already got the whole Clinton machine peeing in their pants.
Not sure the Clinton team is that astute. They’ve still got more money and almost all the endorsements from DEM politicians and the big cheeses at “liberal” organizations. Oh, and AAs and Latinos don’t like Bernie and they looove Hillary.
I apologize. I used the word nonsense – and I am sorry about that. There was no need for it, and it wasn’t nonsense.
This question is of a piece with all the calls for nitty-gritty policy implementation details and the reason for it is clear. The more details Sanders provides early on the easier it becomes for policy wonks (like Hillary advocates Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Jonathan Chaitt) to distract from the big picture questions that voters and Sanders want to focus on. Questions of vision and goals; a description of what’s gone wrong and the country as we’d like to see it. Clearly Sanders (like every other presidential candidate in the history of presidential campaigns since the dawn of time), a master of both economics and foreign policy in his own right, doesn’t need celebrity advisors to endorse and help promote his themes. Sanders doesn’t need Sanders to promote them; they promote themselves inasmuch as most of what he’s promising is exactly what majorities of Americans have been saying they want since, well, since the dawn of time.
Desirable as long as they are never associated with Democratic Party, however.
Gee, what a shock. Booman asked some reasonable questions and the responses were that the questions were either irrelevant, premature, or some sort of Trojan horses planted by a devious agent of the “PermaGov”.
It’s not necessary to be a Hillary Clinton supporter (and I’m not) to ask the questions that Booman asked.
Ask the questions; we all wonder. No one is saying don’t ask. I just wonder what’s the rush. Sanders is still seen (data points notwithstanding) as a longer shot at winning than Obama was at this point a year ago, and for good reason. We know a lot more about Sanders now than we did about Obama eight years ago, and what we know is…unsettling to many. Obama was unsettling too, because he was black, not because he was perceived as a radical in his political point of view. Eight years ago we were voting for the guy that used the word purple to good effect at Kerry’s convention in a speech. He was green, and likable enough. I didn’t enjoy his speeches because they were vacuous and played, I thought, purely on emotion. His voting record was a mish-mosh signifying little. So he was a blank slate, but as a former community organizer from Chicago it was a safe bet for enough Democrats that he would be ok as a Democratic president. No one (except I suppose the Clinton and Chicago machines) had any idea who might serve in his cabinet eight years ago today. Doesn’t look like any powerful Democratic machines have much interest in Sanders which is something of a relief to me personally. I focus on what he says and his record as an elected politician throughout his career. We have a much clearer picture of what kind of president Sanders will be than we did of Obama. Who would get the jobs in his administration? We’ll find out soon enough if he wins a good chunk of delegates over the next couple of months. If he doesn’t, it won’t matter.
Pretty much sums my feelings exactly.
“Hope and Change” not enough for you this time around?
By this time, Obama had already gotten endorsements from Kerry and Kennedy (and won Iowa, but that’s a different story).
did that at great political-capital cost:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-hit-list-102067
I think most who are safely warm & cozy in DC don’t see the risk of endorsing Bernie early to be a safe bet. they’ll wait, then support after he gets the nom.
Reich – Treasury or the Fed
Stiglitz – The Fed or Treasury (or Council of Economic Advisors)
Wesley Clark – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Probably keep Kerry as State Secretary at least for a while
The personalities of Bernie and Hillary are different, each with advantages and disadvantages. He is full of passion and I’d expect him to use the bully pulpit constantly, imploring the American people to flood Congress with their wishes in support of his proposals. Hillary is cautious, deliberative, weighing myriad details of things, going back and forth
He has “vision.” She has “process.” Both are necessary, in my opinion. I’ll support whoever obtains the nomination. At this point, I expect it to be Hillary, but I’m a “bot” for neither candidate.
One thought: I suppose Bernie knows Congress people the best. If he goes to Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, etc. it can take away from any possible Democratic Senate majority.
——————————————
William Black, SEC
Good except for Wesley Clark. He’s a Clinton creature, injected into the 2004 POTUS race to take out Dean.
Thank you. I’m not sure Sanders wouldn’t feel ok with a Clintonite. I do not get the impression they disrespect or even dislike one another.
But you, Booman, and most of those here are more savvy on politics than I am, and I appreciate your comment. / jw
Joint Chiefs are active duty. Clarke is long retired.
But maybe Defense Secretary?
Any retired officer can be called back to active duty by the Commander in Chief,
like Roosevelt re-called MacArthur;
Bernie COULD recall Clarke to serve, it would be legal but not good for moral because of the time Clarke has been gone and the number of Four star candidates who would have to be passed over for this to happen.
Why not Reich for Secretary of Labor, again?
Too low profile. While I would expect it to be higher profile in a Sanders’ admin, its stature with Congress and the media would still be low. Plus Reich has already had that job and may want a new challenge.
You’re right. Sanders has stated publicly, in an intervirew with George Stephanopoulos May 3, 2015, that he was thinking of Reich for Treasury.
Stephanopoulos also asked him about Defense, but Sanders just said it was too early to say.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/sen-bernie-sanders-us-scandinavia-307709
(at 5:43-6:29)
Less than a month later, Benjamin Bell asked Reich, “Would you serve in [Sanders’s] administration if he got elected and asked you?”
To which REich replied: “Sure.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/robert-reich-sees-convincing-explanation-hillary-clinton-email/story?
id=31550795
Reich, the only guy that I respected in that administration (to the best of my recollection) and they forced him out.
Diane Ravitch for Education.
I like that.
http://dianeravitch.net/2015/07/12/bernie-sanders-on-education/
Good point, they need to get out there. Amanda Curtis for education, for example
Please, please, let there be support of PUBLIC education again. No more Arne Duncans. Wonder where he is headed these days?
yes indeed indeed. you should watch the video of her I posted a couple days ago. labor background from Butte MT; I’ll look for another to post.
I was thinking Diane Ravitch.
Amanda is a high school math teacher former state rep; one of the first to endorse Sanders [last summer]
actually, now that I think about it, EPA is better, she’s strong on it and has a degree in physics
Boo, You’re pulling my leg: Sanders’ campaign is hollow! That’s a real whopper. Anyway it seems to be thriving on its so-called hollowness. Maybe the observer needs to review his concept of hollowness. Bernie is the most traditionally rational of all the candidates and he is now being accused of lacing reason. Perhaps he’s an impish anarchist. Who know? We’ll soon find out starting In Iowa. I find his contribution to the presidential campaign constructive, electrifying (though he might not be the latter personally). What a breath of fresh air: a mensch! Definitely not as prepackaged as the dynastic family from Arkansas who demand all the goods of the earth for themselves as if they were Goldman Sachs in person.
In fact his words and demeanor show by example how completely hollow and vacuous the Clintons (they are co-candidates) really are behind all their trappings of affable personality and conspicuous display and manipulation of their influential connections. HRC is the hollow woman!
She’s not hollow at all. I recall that back in about 1994, I found myself wishing she were president rather than her spouse. But she won’t say anything substantive without having her words reviewed by a committee of advisors and critiqued by focus groups. So of course she comes off as inauthentic.
Right, she’s hollow. She has no core – no core convictions. That’s the whole game isn’t it, the whole sexist game of the woman behind the man? She plays it magnificently. Her apotheosis was when she went on television and defended her family in the shadow of the Monica Lewinsky. It was her making, the predatory victim.
I wouldn’t use the term hollow. Bernie’s campaign seems to be hitting on all cylinders with the boots on the ground and the local sergeants to back it up. The real question is what happens when the show moves south and west.
It’s certainly not easy to beat out an established machine in Iowa and/or NH. But it can be done. Among other things you can spit across NH in headwind and piss across Iowa with a tailwind. The distances are quite literally small enough for dedicated volunteers to criss-cross the state in 2 days. Try that in FL, NY, CA, TX (speaking strictly of the primaries, not the general). Without an IN PLACE organization … good luck.
I don’t know if Bernie can pull it off. But if he does, it will be with a damn sight more than IA and NH.
“How much is good health care worth to you? $8,233 per year? That’s how much the U.S. spends per person.
Worth it?
That figure is more than two-and-a-half times more than most developed nations in the world, including relatively rich European countries like France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. On a more global scale, it means U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/
We cannot afford not to elect Sanders on this single issue alone.
Wow!! Someone decided to make a reappearance!! š
If he can’t win, why are you so eager to stick a knife in his back?
how is this sticking a knife in his back?
I could make a snarky comment about Marie3 and HRC … but I won’t.
This problem has really come to the fore in recent weeks as the wonks on the left have begun turning against Sanders on substance. With Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Johathan Chait blasting his health-care proposal, the lack of surrogates to push back has been quite noticeable.
Klein and Chait are of the left? Stop, man! I almost feel out of my chair laughing. Both are establishment hacks.
fell, not feel.
(CNN/ORC poll released today)
Have been assured by the Clintonites that it’s a crap poll. And an outlier. Her internals have her up by five in Iowa — as if that’s something to brag about considering where she was a few weeks ago.
Of course, no one asks the question as to why, if Sanders wins, is the Democratic establishment and its punditry arm/organizational surrogates is so out of step with the voting base. When faced with a democratic uprising where the traditional figures of authority and expertise are alienated, apparently this is a problem with Sanders and not Ezra Klein.
C’mon, centrists crow like all the fucking time about how unrepresentative the GOP elite is and how what the intellectuals and leaders want is so at odds with what the base wants and this is why we have Cruz/Trump/Carson. Why are you guys so reluctant to turn that analyzing gaze inwards?
Oh, no, wait. Let me guess: ‘Sanders’ base is naive, GOP base is stupid, GOP leadership is craven, but Dem leadership has it all figured out.’
And a majority of the DEM voting base has yet to figure out that they never wanted and still don’t want 90% of what Bill and Hill championed when in positions of power. They keep mistaking the luck of an improved economy during the late ’90s as something that Bill engineered.
I still maintain that it was the ubiquitous PC that drove the 1990’s economy. New technologies always spur the economy. There are hundreds of companies then when the growth reaches saturation there is a crash and consolidation with only a handful of companies left. Creative finance has a big part here too, but the finance is basically driven by the need to finance the technological expansion.
Do you know that there were once hundreds of telephone companies? And that prior to 1929 there were over a hundred automobile companies? (Mostly garage shops). In 1990 there were about 500 software companies, many doing excellent work, but as the juggernaut grew, it became a cliche that the way to succeed was to found a company with a brilliant product then have Microsoft buy you out to suppress it. Today that’s the Google story.
Technology drives booms. Unless that’s just my prejudice as a former engineer. Canals, the railroads, the telephone/telegraph, the automobile, television/radio/computers, the microcomputer/digital electronics, the PC. Can see the stock market booms and busts. Clinton was lucky like Reagan was lucky. Fascist policy had nothing to do with it.
Sometimes it’s just when you perform on the bill.
Legislation can clarify business direction. Al Gore’s championing what was essentially a common-carrier-style net-neutrality legal basis for internet commerce allows web development and entrepreneurial nonsense (pets.com, for instance) to take off. Impatience with returns spurred by outright investment fraud popped the dot-com bubble. Unfortunately that burst also shut down and delayed deployment of fiber cable broadband to the door. Now some deployment of fiber has returned. But having not gone through the shakeout that left workable assets devalued but still able to contribute to customer satisfaction, essentially lowering customer costs and increasing market size, it is unlikely that we will ever see universal broadband service with it being government infrastructure. Al Gore’s plan sought a private sector solution. I think what we have now learned is that the private sector is structurally incapable of delivering infrastructure-scale quality service without being in a strictly regulated (and thus not private) regime like AT&T or investor-owned electric utilities were when they were considered by the public to be reliable and good values.
At some point, there is going to be some new thinking with regard to the notion of what socialism is all about.
It is not that Clinton got lucky. His administration was so tied to private-sector solutions that he failed to understand what he was doing right with the internet and wrong with Glass-Steagall.
And Reagan?
Another major factor was low oil prices that combined with the fashion statement of SUVs. (Was there also a tax incentive for gas hogs in the ’90s or did that only come later in the aughts with GWB?) Detroit boomed with increased profits from building SUVs.
“A majority of the DEM voting base is illiterate on political and policy history and doesn’t know what they should want” is a losing message. Fortunately, Bernie is not using it.
This is the sort of analysis that progressives should have been doing from the moment they knew that an rerun of the Obama administration was not satisfactory. But the “great man” view of history so pervades progressive thinking they cannot coalesce a movement into power.
What happens when an unexpected candidate actually becomes President and has to build a cabinet and a Congressional power base from scratch? What power does the President have that he use to his advantage? What power do the members of Congress and the people who he might solicit as appointed officials have? Do we actually have historical examples that brought anti-establishment Presidents to power? How did those play out?
Play out the scenario that Bernie against all odds first becomes the nominee cleanly and then against all odds becomes the President-elect with a clear victory and a mandate for “democratic socialism” from within the Democratic Party. First, what do establishment Democrats do? (Hint: What would establishment Republicans do with a Trump victory?) Option 1: Hold a presence in the party in order to counterweight all that you fear and re-establish the previous establishment. How did that work for the New Deal Democrats after Nixon’s victory? Option 2: Split the party. Option 3: Change your ideology to align with the new mood. Which Democrats would move in which ways? How many of each category will there be and what would be the alignment of the Congressional Democrats as a result?
For cabinet members, what possible new blood could be brought into the functional agencies of government? Might Bernie do what FDR did at Treasury – appoint a CEO of a manufacturing company who actually understands how money drives the economy?
Another interesting exercise for Democrats is selecting the cabinet that matches the times. Who exactly could as Secretary of Health and Human Services write the legislation and rules that could quickly transition American health care to universal coverage single-payer and have it happen? What exactly would it take? Why are those who not so long ago were pushing single payer now becoming naysayers?
Who is the Secretary of Defense who could get an accountable financial system in DoD?
Who the heck should Bernie Sanders appoint as DNI or DCIA or head of NSA?
Who could manage the EPA through the shitstorm of climate change?
Who could manage the Department of Agriculture to respond to climate change when getting them to end racist practices is still beyond the pale internally?
Who is a Bernie Sanders Attorney General? Ambassador to China, Russia, UK, Israel, and Iran?
Part of what is going on is that the media has lacked the curiosity to find out who Bernie Sanders’s brain trust is.
The media had the same difficulty with a little-known candidate twenty-some years ago. No one was really curious in January of 1992 who Bill Clinton would bring into his administration to deal with health care or into the major federal agencies? Nor was Clinton’s brain trust visible until after he was successfully elected.
There is an assumption that only the old guys can be competent at running the federal government.
Who will he pick for VP? Does any pundit/blogger/etc ever come close to getting the first big decision of the primary winner correct?
Yes, there should have been more questioning of Obmaa, Clinton, and Carter on this point early in their campaigns, but none of them would have given an answer even if they had certain individuals in mind. Instead of flopping around like Carter and Clinton, Obama went the easy route — the same old gang and those that supported him.
Sanders isn’t some backwoods naif. He actually knows the people that will be in the available talent pools. At this point one either truest his judgment to get the best and most qualified or one goes with the candidate that keeps the same old gang along with the man that will be her co-president.
Wonder who a President Sanders would choose for his inaugural invocation and benediction. Bet nobody would have guessed that Obama would have gone for Rick Warren for his invocation.
As I wrote above, it is because they underestimate Sanders, and the moment he resides in.
Big picture, here are three things that are true:
So what Booman does not realize is that the “wonks” he refers to have seen their world view outrun. The article he cited from the Washington Monthly represents this: an extremely limited proposal to help the self-employed that sounds great in a DC cocktail party but is a bandaid with almost no real political appeal. Another example: Hillary Clinton is for paid family leave – 6 weeks I think. In Canada in the last election the major parties agreed on 18 MONTHS!
In this context Bernie comes in and looks like a giant. His ideas are at least equal to the scale of the problem.
More importantly: he takes on the financial sector. This is the Achilles heel of the wonks. It was the wonks who were for deregulating it. And the wonks have trouble with attacks on Wall Street. They went to all the right schools, and oh so many of their college buddies work in hedge funds and investment banks.
See Chelsea Clinton and McKinsey for example.
I challenge Booman: go back and read what is in some ways the defining article of the Washington Monthly: The neo-liberal manifesto written by Charles Peters in 81 (I think). Now compare it to the things Bernie was saying in 1981 and ask who was right. Brad Delong did this: and was struck by how naïve the Peters piece was. Like Delong at the time I was I liked the Peters article a great deal.
And once that exercise if performed ask this question: whose policy understanding looks hollow now?
It won’t be Bernie’s.
Hmm, guess that explains the difference in tone between the posters on this thread here and over there.
Came across this link today that delved into that history….”I have been continuing the research for my next book (hopefully to be finished by May 2016) on the way in which the neo-liberals convinced policy makers including those in progressive social democratic political parties that the globalisation of finance and capital flows meant that the currency-issuing state was no longer capable of maintaining full employment through appropriate use of fiscal policies. The tenet we are entertaining is that the state never went away, it was just co-opted by capital to serve its interests. This will be a two-part blog and centres on a critical period in economic history in the mid-1970s, which marked the break with the full employment system which had moderated the excesses of capitalism. This was the period when the neo-liberal period dawned, and which steadily, opened the way for these excesses to reemerge, in all their indecent indulgence and destruction. It is also the period in which a series of economic myths crystallised into the mainstream narrative we know today, which opposes government deficits and allows unemployment to remain elevated at excessive levels. It is really important to understand what went on then because we are living with the legacy of the falsehoods introduced during this period.” http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32828#more-32828
Wow – awesome link.
So in Chapter 2 Keynes thought the following:
I. The wage is equal to the marginal product of labour
II. The utility of the wage when a given volume of labour is employed is equal to the marginal disutility of that amount of employment.
This really shows the limits of Keynesian economics. Keynes had a solution for an acute problem of under-demand. But his assumption in I is, I think, broken down. And because of this the Keynesians are at a bit of a loss. Clearly the wage is not equal to the marginal product of labor. Increasingly it looks like employers are able to extract some sort of premium from labor that means their wage is below their marginal product.
When this happens you have a CHRONIC problem if under-demand which Keynes doesn’t really have a solution for.
Great link.
A glut of labor = decreased wages = cost of “employed” status = neoliberalism
free movement of capital always trumps the lack of such in labor.
I remember. Back then, no one thought Clinton had a snowball’s chance in Hell. The hick governor of the poorest state in the union, that was how he was described. But he had charisma and got in front of a groundswell of dissatisfaction.
Warren Buffet as SecTreas. What a concept!
Iowa and New Hampshire they’ll be watching Hillary’s every fortune with resumes clutched firmly in hand. With the party in her grip nobody dares.
It is dispiriting to see all of the liberal groups line up: Planned Parenthood, League of Conservation Voters, Human Rights Council.
Bernie has been a passionate environmentalist all his life. Alas, Carol browner, a Clinton retread, sits on the LCV board.
Bernie gave domestic partnership benefits in 1982 I think? Maybe not that early – but I am sure it was one of the first cities in the country. He was for gay marriage in the 70’s. And he loses the endorsement to the wife of the President who signed DOMA?
They are all scared shitless of the Clintons. And oh how the knives will come out if Bernie wins.
Money talks.
They all are making, or are planning to make, major bucks off of Clinton. Really, that’s what Obama proved with the big money “progressive” organizations- it is more important to these guys to have “access” that they can then monetize one way or another than advancing whatever issue they advocate for. If the price of that access is STFU and get on board with the establishment… they are more than happy to do that, because they are making the big bucks and don’t want to see that gravy train get derailed.
Philistines. Philistines and grifters. Like the woman who headed up Susan Koman for the Cure, using her friend’s memory and the donations of millions to live high on the hog and boost her salary.
John Michael Greer, The Archdruid Report: Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment
Read this analysis and ask how the salaried class attacking Bernie Sanders as “socialist” might actually play out if Sanders points out what is going on here relative to the establishments of both parties.
Now ask yourself what the consequences of yet another establishment victory in this election cycle turns out to be.
Also as an exercise ask yourself how a Trump vs. Sanders campaign plays out with the “S” word lighting up the sky and atmosphere.
Who does Trump bring into government if the dog catches the car?
It is far and away lots of pieces in motion. Even the political wisdom with how the Ammon Bundy provocation is brought to an end plays into this. Obviously, equal justice under law no longer exists in the US when the white right is privileged by threatening violence and the left and minorities who scrupulously practice non-violent tactics are violently suppressed.
To my mind the key insight in Greer’s article is the necessity of the salaried classes, what people are beginning to call the upper 20% to pay the true costs of their toys in environmental costs and labor costs. From the left that means absolutely scuttling all the pending trade deals as much as from the right it means absolute closure of immigration.
It is absolutely true that both trade and immigration are being used to impoverish people. A policy in which US trade and national security no longer promote immigration because the home countries are prosperous and moving toward democracy again would address that, but at this point is not credible to most voters, left or right. Not sure how Bernie Sanders sells a soft landing over against Trump’s tough action with walls and draconian customs and immigration services.
The Clinton attacks on Sanders, like the Republican clown car attacks on Trump, are fundamentally distractions and viewed that way by the enthusiasts of both candidates.
The problem with American politics is that the required change is anti-business and anti-middle-class in the short term (at least the middle class that television projects as the really real. And that change is not acceptable to the influence peddlers in politics and media, most of whom are squarely in that 20% salaried class, as are most political bloggers of both ends of the spectrum.
As a former member of the salaried class who is now, thanks to the changes of the past 25 years, a member of the Social Security only class (and thus to a lot of people just another member of the welfare class), who realizes the truth of Greer’s analysis of the class structure of resentment and the use of biological insignificance as class markers in politics, we are in a truly dicey political situation. Simple answers and conventional wisdom will not get us through this political cycle.
It will take more than the action of voting for candidates, but it is not clear what additional is required.
Thanks and before I consider your comment, Greer’s piece is dynamite. I’ve been cringing for years when Obama, Clinton, and Sanders invoke the struggle and disappearance of the “middle class.” It sounds false but my attempt to use worker or working class instead hasn’t been any more satisfying to me. I’m almost ashamed to admit that I missed or didn’t articulate that it’s the “salaried class” that can identify as middle-class and I know that they aren’t actually hurting, and in class terms, that status quo appeals to a larger portion of that demographic. It’s the “worker class” that’s been left behind — most graphically seen in the decline of male non-college worker income since 1972 — and while at one time a significant portion of the worker class earned close to, as much, or more than the average salaried class and therefore, considered themselves middle-class, it was only provisional.
It was the higher income end of the salaried class that I suspect MLK, Jr was responding to here:
Greer ever so briefly touches on something that has made it easier for me to see the hollowing out of the worker class and why it is offensive to me. An example: I have a thirty-five year old, made in America, KitchenAid mixer. Had to save for a while to get it because it was pricey, but worth it for those that bake. It’s got at least another thirty-five years of life left in it. I like things that are made to last and prefer to consume less for better and pay for better. (Less environmentally destructive as well.) Recently, took a look at the current KitchenAid mixers. Looks the same. The price in actual dollars isn’t that much more than what I paid 35 years ago. In inflation adjusted dollars it’s a third of what I paid. Not made in the US. Plastics instead of durable metal. It won’t be operational for 70+ years. And every new bride, either salaried class or expected to be salaried class, has that thing on their registry. Not because they bake, but because it’s a status symbol. A knock-off. And the men and women that earned a good wage from making my machine don’t have jobs.
Trump speaks to the worker class but he doesn’t seem to use words like workers, worker class, or middle class. Sanders isn’t reaching them by harping on the middle class — if asked workers self-identify was middle class but that’s not their real identification. They’re angry, resentful, and envious of the salaried class that with minor adjustment (buying inferior goods from China, etc. but more of them) have been pulling away from the standard of living of workers for decades. Thus, sticking it to the “salaried teachers” appeals to them. He speaks to them on an emotional and ID level.
Sanders speaks to the hopeful salaried class who can see that it’s more difficult to get into it because the size of the class hasn’t grown proportionately with the population. An economy can only support a certain size of a salaried class and part of that size is based on how much the worker class earns. Sanders is only reaching a more thoughtful and less selfish portion of the salaried class. Most are comfortable and secure enough with their position in the economic ladder that change is a threat to them. They’re not unlike the poor southern whites that had to repress AAs because if AAs got more, they would get less. Except for those people, AAs were real and not invisible as the worker class is to the salaried class.
And I seem to have gone off on my own tangent without answering any of your question or addressing any of you comments.
The difficulty with dealing with this reality is that Democrats cannot talk straight-up about it; it is taboo to talk about class conflict; people don’t identify either as working class (except culturally as a value) or salaried class (at all). And middle-class only as a “lifestyle” of home ownership, automobile, the television-advertized list of toys and so on.
That is the fear that all of the nay-sayers are glommed onto. We really won’t know until some votes happen. Opinion polls are lousy at reflecting the sort of cleavages that Greer identifies. Too much deflection or aspiration biases answers.
We need more tangents like this and fewer echoes and cheerleading. My feeling is that we are rapidly being sucked into status quo politics in an election that is hugely needed not to function as status quo politics.
At one time we sort of knew where the worker class voters were and why they were organized to vote. Private sector industrial unions. The shift away from unionized private sector workers to unionized public employee unions meant a shift from “worker class” to “salaried class” for the DEM party. The “worker class” was then “on its own” for political party affiliation and the GOP stepped into the breach with churches and demonizing unions. Democrats can’t talk about this because they chose the lazy path relying on unions that were increasingly dominated by the “salaried class.” Neither party is interested in the needs/wants of the worker class and those politically “on their own” workers that weren’t captured by churches, racism, and/or rightwing talk media stopped voting. Not because they’re dumb but because they’re rational.
Personally, I don’t think Trump is tapping into that non-voter worker demographic. Clinton in ’08 actually attempted to do that, but it was white and gender based and she’s simply not an attractive and good enough politician to inspire such people to vote and vote for her. Bernie is appealing to such people indirectly with a $15 minimum wage and single-payer. The problem is that it’s not easy to reach those that have opted out of voting for so long that they’ve lost the habit of voting. To preempt them hearing Bernie, the Clinton/DNC folks have been screaming that if elected Sanders couldn’t deliver on his agenda, and therefore, still no need to bother with voting. Difficult not to view that as evil.
It occurs to me that “salaried class” does not mean “exempt employee” under the Wage and Hour Law. It refers to the people who are much less subject to arbitrary games with their incomes either because there is subtantial legal protection for salaries and benefits or because they are the ones with the power to shape other peoples’ salary (and wages) and benefits and work hours and overtime hours. The resentment cannot be predicted by straightforward occupational or job title profiles. There are union teachers who are Trump supporters because they are tired of government salaried workers (administrators, state education agency people, USDEd people) creating havoc in their classrooms and their life. There are low-level health care workers scared to death what Obamacare or single-payer health care will mean for their jobs.
The failure of the political process to handle nuance means that it is difficult to air these issues within an election cycle, which is the only time that public is seen to be legitimately involved in politics any more. When they are making their consumer purchase of the candidate.
The only way that the establishment can win again is by creating a huge salaried class, which it currently is unwilling to do or to do it by misdirection, theft, or suppression. The latter three are what generate resentment.
In any given workplace, political orientation isn’t hugely different between exempt and non-exempt salaried workers. More important variables would be unionization and how large of a social divide exists between the professional salaried class and the non-exempt salaried class and for the latter how secure is that base salary position.
Non-exempt are by definition wage workers. They are covered by overtime rules. It’s the exempt workers who can be scammed into being salary in name only workers and now even employee in name only workers.
As with all formulations of large segments of society, it’s more complicated than “this or that.” For the most part, non-exempt employees can count on a base weekly or bi-weekly salary. If overtime becomes available they are quick to sign up for it, but their base standard of living is what the derive from their near guaranteed salary. That makes them very different from hourly workers who today struggle to get enough hours to support themselves and their families.
Non-exempt employees that are getting screwed work in low pay industries, such as fast food. However, they do have that guaranteed salary and the status of being “management.” Objectively, tech industry salaried workers are putting in the most extra hours over the standard 40/hours/week but it’s more of the culture and feels like a choice and less of a demand from a corporation that designs a salaried job that can’t be completed within a 40 hours workweek. They too still enjoy a salary and unlike a fast food manager, they have more reasonable expectations of advancement and stock price ka-ching. They’re in the professional class, and like new lawyers, physicians, stockbrokers, they’re “paying their dues.”
I’m struck with how frequently the phrase “Silent Majority” pops up. As best I can decipher it is to make a virtue of of buckling under to authority as being pragmatic and “facing up to reality”. 1. The boss is always right. 2. When the boss isn’t right, refer to 1.
The origin of the “Silent Majority” was with Nixon. Have to remember that back then evangelicals weren’t an organized political force and to a large extent refrained from voting at all. However, doubt that was the target audience for the Nixon gang. They were going for the disaffected and racist white worker class. If unionized they were beginning not to reap as many benefits from that affiliation and/or resented that more openings were filled by non-white workers.
However, affirmative action wasn’t limited to union shops or public employees. What was different by the late sixties and seventies is that white workers had never had it better when it came to wages and benefits. While legacy hires in all industries had existed for a long time, those white workers expected their children to get not just a job but a job with decent wages as they had. Legacy with privilege was a recent development for the worker class. Their kids were the Boomers and there were a lot of them.
The opening in that door got a lot smaller with the introduction of affirmative action. And they needed no instruction as to which party of blame for stripping them of that psychic privilege of being able to instruct their children to graduate from high school and then go down to the “plant” and get a good job. So, they voted for Republicans completely unaware that they were going from the proverbial frying pan into the fire. Aligning themselves with the party that supported cheap labor and if not cheap enough in the US, there was a wide world where cheaper labor was plentiful. The DLC began to form at precisely the wrong time because then both parties were active participants as “plant” closings increased. Thus, for those workers that didn’t opt out on the real basis that for them there wasn’t any difference between the two parties, fundamentalist religion and racism/hate as promulgated by RW media became their political glue.
Hmm, I always thought Nixon was referring to the worker bees who were not in the streets yelling. lol
Gosh, I guess Bernie will just have to rely on the fact that almost all of his positions are supported by an overwhelming percentage of Americans. But I guess we all know that Americans voting preferences haven’t mattered in quite a while.
Silly socialist…
(for the record, I’m for Bernie and I’m almost certain Hillary will get the nomination)
But what’s striking me today is that the establishment GOP would prefer Hillary to Trump or Cruz. It’s a shocking thought, but I think that after thousands of articles about the GOP losing touch with the old-white-hateful voting bloc it relied on, in 2016, the coin is flipped. Redstate, Limbaugh, Palin et al are now the new establishment and this time, it’s THEY who can’t win without the help of the old-school plutocrat neocon NRO GOP. They probably can’t win anyway (knock on wood) but they certainly can’t do it without the McCain/Romney/Ryan/Bush/Dole/McConnell contingent.
Quite frankly – if Cruz, Trump (or any of the other even worse ones) is nominated, the old GOP will prefer Hillary … or even, as whoever it was said today … Bernie.
Hillary is truely Third Way on the issues they care most about…economic priviledge. It gives me the horrors to imagine Hillary with a Republican House and McConnell and Schumer. A perfect trifecta to dismantle restraints of the nation state. Trade deals will fly.
OT:You can’t be a ‘natural born citizen’ of two different countries.
You can be a citizens of two different countries.
But, not a ‘natural born’ citizen.
Rafael is a ‘natural born’ citizen of Canada, which is how he got citizenship without either of his parents being Canadian.
He is an American Citizen.
He is NOT a ‘ natural born’ American Citizen.
…………………………………
WEDNESDAY, JAN 20, 2016 04:37 PM CST
Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution
The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz’s case squares with the actual meaning of “natural-born”
EINER ELHAUGE
rikyrah,
Normally, I agree with almost everything you say. And even if I don’t agree, what you say makes a lot sense. Except for this.
There should be no reason ANY citizen of the US cannot be president. It doesn’t matter if they were born in Timbuktu. It doesn’t matter if their father was Charles Aznavour (altho that would be SERIOUSLY cool) or a test tube. It shouldn’t matter if the mother was impregnated as a virgin by someone’s sky friend.
The only thing that should matter: CAN THEY LEGALLY VOTE FOR PRESIDENT?
This natural born citizen bullshit was put into place by men who honestly believed that there was some kind of mystic link between a person and the ground on which they were born. The brothers of these same men (and I mean LITERAL brothers) honestly believed that birth to right father meant you should rule over half the world. These men believed that the color of your skin defined your intelligence, the presence of a penis defined your worthiness to do business and the absence of physical deformaties was necessary to be a true man.
Fuck this shit. Get rid of it NOW. The only citizen requirement for voting is: can you vote for anyone to hold that office.
I heard that it was put in to block Alexander Hamilton.
Excluded Thomas Paine as well.
But who isn’t glad that we didn’t have to go through a Schwazenegger presidential campaign and the possibility that he could win?
We didn’t have to go through a Schwarzenegger Presidential campaign because he wasn’t a politician, and therefore was incapable of governing well, particularly in the Executive position in California. These jobs aren’t for amateurs. Look at Governor Rauner’s clusterfuck in Illinois. Even portions of the business community are publicly questioning his no-negotiations budget strategy. He’s accomplishing nothing, hurting the economy, and making the budget problems worse and worse.
I remember toward the end of Schwarzenegger’s term there was a particularly difficult budget fight and Speaker Bass said to reporters something like “I’ve never experienced a situation like what we have now, when a Governor cannot influence a single vote from the Legislators in his own Party.” You may remember that Arnold refused to meet with Legislators in the Republican Caucus; he just wanted to talk to the rest of the Big 5 and attempt to bully them into acquiescence.
To me, that’s one of the things that can be uses as a supplementary and completely legitimate campaign attack against Trump if he manages to win the primary or runs third-party. People are disgusted with politicians, but elected officials need to govern, and politics are an unavoidable part of governing. When Trump doesn’t want to negotiate, he just declares another bankruptcy or moves his opponents aside by raining money on them. Can’t do that in D.C.
To put it another way: Eisenhower and Schwarzenegger are two of the most recognizable Americans elected to executive offices. Which one does Trump most resemble?
Right or wrong, Constitutional provisions can not be trivial concerns. That way lies madness and the continued substitution of what the Constitution actually says in black and white for what ever the latest group with only marginal majority power says it’s supposed to mean even if the supposed to mean is in direct conflict with what the text actually says.
Clinton’s gang is chock full of lowlifes and scumbags.
which is another reason why I have no interest in seeing a Clinton Administration.
Not only will we be knee deep in scandals of Clinton’s own making..
But, we’ll also have to deal with the people she’ll put into place that will phuck up.
To some extent, Sanders doesn’t have to win for him to make a real change, even if it isn’t this year. Or next.
I firmly believe that Occupy was effective. While people made fun of the drum circles, and the lack of an organizing principle, or set thereof, Occupy took a concept that wasn’t particularly well-known, and made it so. People use 99% and 1% for specific purposes all of the time now, and income/wealth inequality is a household topic. Hell, even conservatives talk about it. (Hell, look at the big novels/movies like Hunger Games. Wealth/Power inequality is the entire story).
Occupy didn’t cause a full-blown revolution, but it never intended to. It brought an important issue to the forefront. And I think Sanders is the same for Democratic Socialism.
I don’t think he can win. I mean, I really hope he does, brings the House and Senate with him, and we can live in a country that cares about observable reality as a basis of policy. But I don’t think he can win.
But, he doesn’t have to, just like Occupy didn’t need to cause a revolution right there and then to be effective. Sanders mere presence on the Democratic side is effective because it is causing progressives to distinguish between the Democratic party elite and the people who aren’t in government pulling the levers, Republican or Democrat.
Sanders is a great representative for those of us who might otherwise sit quietly until election day and vote for the lesser evil. He provides a visible model of a progressive candidate who can stay on message and appear extremely honest, even if close to 50% of the people who hear him speak have serious reservations about what his potential policies are. That is valuable in itself.
Liberal has been turned into a conjuring phrase over the past few decades, and it has a negative connotation to it.
Sanders is clearing the way, to some extent, for those of us who are a lot more progressive than the Democratic party in general. He’s giving the US it’s first glance at “Democratic Socialism”, and I think that regardless of his winning the nomination or Presidency, that he’s doing a great job so far.