Monday, February 4, 2019

In defiance of Nov’s blue wave & will of the people, NRA pursues challenging NYC’s strict gun law & Trump acts to make it easier to sell AK-15’s abroad

By Marc Jampole
The blue wave that swept Democrats into office on the local, state and federal levels has given progressives and centrists hope that legislatures will soon start passing tougher gun control laws.
Meanwhile back at the ranch—or in Trump’s case, the garish, overpriced resort—those who want to expand the sale of guns and the rights of gun owners to create unsafe environments for everyone else are winning two major victories, both of which will lead to an increase in gun-related crimes, deaths and acts of terrorism in the United States and around the world.
When I write “in the United States,” I specifically mean my home town of New York City. As Amy Davidson Sorkin describes so well in her “Talk of the Town” article in the February 4 New Yorker, the New York state affiliate of the National Rifle Association and two Bronx gun owners are trying to get the Big Apple’s gun law declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law is so tough that gun owners can take their guns out of their home only if they are unloaded and in a locked case.  It will be the first time the Court will be considering gun rights since its awful 5-4 decision in D.C. v. Heller that proposed that the Second Amendment gave people an absolute right to bear arms that had nothing to do with serving in a government militia. With Brett Kavanaugh on the court, it’s likely that the New York City gun law will be overturned.
I take this lawsuit personally. In fact, it pisses me off bigly. One of the reasons I moved back to New York seven years ago after being gone for decades was because of the extremely tough gun control laws. It’s a no-brainer to figure out why New York has among the very lowest rates of crime, violent crime and murders anywhere in the United States. It is effectively illegal to carry a gun in the street and there is a relatively low level of gun ownership. Every legitimate study on the issue shows that the lower the number of guns in a locality, region or country, the fewer deaths and injuries from guns; the higher the number of guns, the higher the deaths and injuries from guns. No wonder New York is so safe. I can’t be the only New Yorker offended to the quick that these Bronx bozos and the NRA want to force their minority views on the overwhelming number of New Yorkers who like to be able to walk the streets and ride the subway safely. Keep in mind that large majorities of Americans, including gun owners, want stronger gun control laws, including the banning of assault weapons like AK-15’s and wait periods for all gun purchases.
Gun sales are down in the United States, primarily because gun owners loaded up on weapons during the Obama years, when they feared administrative action to regulate firearms ownership. But while enjoying success in corrupting and intimidating legislators on all levels of government, the NRA has not been able to grow its market, as the number of gun owners has declined steadily over the past 50 years. Of course, each of these gun owners own more guns than they used to. There are, however, still only so many guns the shrinking number of gun owners can afford to buy.
Luckily for U.S. firearms manufacturers and unfortunately for everyone else, the Trump administration intends to rescue them from a shrinking market by making it easier to sell AR-15s and other weapons to individuals in other countries by loosening export regulations and oversight. Many American gun and ammunition manufacturers that sell primarily to consumers will no longer have to register with the State Department, which currently licenses international arms sales, or to pay the department an annual fee. Instead, those sales would be licensed by the Commerce Department, which has a simpler process and does not charge a fee. According to the New York Times, the State and Commerce Departments privately told Congress that they intend to finalize the new rule soon. Once the administration gives Congress formal notice of the rule change, lawmakers will have 30 days to decide whether to intervene. It’s unlikely that Congress could permanently prevent the rule from going into effect unless the Democrats controlled both houses.
So it looks as if the federal government is going to facilitate the spread of the epidemic of mass shootings from the United States to the rest of the world.
As is usual with gun laws and gun violence, the hands of both major parties are dripping in blood. The Times reports that the Obama administration originally wanted to make a similar change. They were about to complete the rule when the Sandy Hook massacre occurred. Even though the rule change affects sales outside the United States, the Obama administration thought it was politic to drop the idea.
Trump uses threats to public safety that don’t really exist to justify building a wall along our southern border with Mexico that we don’t really need. Yet he and the Republican Party ignore the pressing need to strengthen gun control laws. Instead, they create more of a danger to the public by supporting laws, regulations and lawsuits that make it easier to buy guns or give gun owners more rights in the public square.
Let’s face it. The GOP has become the party of death and the culture of death. While both parties are dominated by militaristic thinking, the Republicans spend far more on the armed forces than the Democrats and start more wars, which after all, help their crony defense contractors and suppliers. Republicans are just as enthusiastic about helping commercial gun sales, as shown by their eager embrace of every proposed law and regulations of the gun lobby.
But the conservative predilection for death goes well beyond support for gun manufacturers and policies that kill people. We can start with their approach to healthcare, which denies coverage to people who can’t afford it to save wealthy taxpayers a few bucks. The GOP’s environmental and energy policies support the coming death of other species and millions of people in areas suffering extreme weather events. The GOP’s support for gutting social welfare programs shows a mean-spirited disregard for human life. The immigration policy if taken to its extreme will lead to the death of the American economy, since native-born Americans are reproducing at very low rates which, if unaugmented by immigration, will result in a rapidly shrinking population within a few years.
Even the GOP’s support of laws that prevent abortions is pro-death. Here’s my reasoning: You can’t die unless you are born. By forcing unwanted births and then shredding the social net that helps children in impoverished circumstances, anti-abortion laws almost by definition add to the toll of human suffering, including some number of unnecessary premature deaths.
The Democrats aren’t much better when it comes to killing people outside the country, but their domestic policies for the most support the health and well-being of the population.
I would like to write that never has a political party been so dedicated to death and so fascinated by destruction as the current edition of the GOP. But then I remember our genocide against the Indians, our dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities, slavery’s destruction if human life. That’s just in U.S. history, and doesn’t consider the Soviet Union, England, France, China or Rwanda. The collective thinking of individuals that occurs in political parties too often falls prey to the dark nightmares of its most blood thirsty members.  

Thursday, January 31, 2019

If Schultz runs for president, will business-oriented Republicans planning to hold nose & vote for Trump instead desert the Donald for Mr. Café Latte?

By Marc Jampole

In daydreams I imagine a 2020 Democratic presidential ticket consisting of some combination of Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff Merkel, Chris Murphy and Kamala Harris trouncing Trump or whoever the GOP nominates in 2020. Sometimes I throw Corey Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand into the mix, or reluctantly configure a ticket that includes pre-boomers Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. My craziest fantasy is that Democrats nominate Hillary and she gets her, and the country’s, sweet revenge.

Really, I’d be delighted with just about any Democrat considering a presidential run, except for Beto or Tulsi. But like most people I know fed up with Donald Trump’s stupidity, racism, anti-intellectualism, bad policies and possible treason, I’d hold my nose and even vote for these inexperienced and undistinguished centrists rather than chance another term of ignorant and autocratic insanity.

But this week, those dreams turned ugly as I pondered the very real possibility that in November of 2020 Americans have the choice of a qualified Democrat versus two unqualified conservatives, Howard Schultz and Donald Trump. If Schultz runs, most experts and pundits expect him to filch more voters from Democrats than from Republicans, for one simple reason: Schultz, who proclaims he is a Democrat, will split the anyone-but-Trump vote. Non-racist centrists and conservatives planning to vote Democratic will flock to the Starbuck’s founder instead. In both 2000 and 2016, votes for third-party candidates handed the election to an unqualified Republican candidate who got fewer votes than a qualified Democrat.

I’m not sure whether this analysis is correct. We know that many business-oriented Republicans—you know, those who only care about low taxes on the wealthy and no government regulation of business—voted for Trump rather than any Democrat. It’s possible that those voters, fearful that a Democratic president will reverse Trump’s regulatory rollback and enormous tax cut for the well-heeled, are currently planning to vote Trump again, but will see Schultz as a “responsible” business-friendly alternative. In such a scenario, Schultz hurts Trump.

No one really knows what Mr. Café Latte’s influence on voters will be, but whatever it is, an independent Schultz run complicates the race into something other than Trump versus decency and science.  

Schultz qualifications are as illusory as Beto’s. That he is at all qualified to be president is as ridiculous as the false but highly publicized notion that Hillary or Warren are not likeable or that Octavio-Cortez acts inappropriately. But as long as the mainstream and right-wing news media keeps pumping out these myths, the American public will have to shift through the deceptive labeling and conflation.

If Schultz runs, the media will have a field day repositioning the Democratic candidate, making her/him seem far more left-wing than he/she really is. They will keep jabbering that Schultz is a centrist, someone who represents a middle position between the generic Democrat and Trump.

His statements about issues so far put Schultz at the far right of the Democratic Party, inhabiting a space similar to Beto or West Virginia’s Joe Manchin: He thinks the national debt is the most important problem facing the country. Remember, just about every politician who has ever stated that the deficit was our biggest threat, or a bigger threat than global warming or wealth inequality, has proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare to close the deficit. While Schultz favors same-sex marriage, gun control and a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, he has stated explicitly that universal healthcare—“Medicare for all”—is un-American. His negative comments about Alexandria Octavio-Cortez’s realistic and fiscally responsible proposal to raise marginal tax rates to 70% suggests that his stated support of comprehensive tax reform probably means he wants the middle class and poor to pay more and the rich to keep paying a miniscule portion of their fair share. He wants to enhance border security, but is against building a wall.

There are a lot of issues about which Schultz hasn’t thought or has only expressed superficial or fuzzy ideas, unlike the typical candidate who has a long list of positions and specific proposed legislation before forming an exploratory committee. Whereas Harris, Gillibrand and Warren will be able to give you detailed policy analysis on every major or minor issue, for the most part Schultz hasn’t thought through much, not even his aversion to budget deficits.

And yet the news media takes him seriously!

Schultz’ billions of dollars and public visibility as the creator of one of the most prominent 21st century brands gives him several unfair advantages over other candidates for president. First and foremost, his money and prominence enable Schultz to capture the imagination of the news media, much as Trump did. He is immediately considered serious, regardless of his lack of policy or government experience. The quality of his ideas matters not. Now in Schultz’s case, he really has had great success in business, unlike Trump who has run every business he ever managed into the ground except for his forays into entertainment and branding. But over the history of the United States, there has been absolutely no correlation between success in business and success in government.  More important, only one president never either served in the military or in government before his election. That, of course, is the disaster who won the Electoral College vote in 2016.

Mr. Café Latte’s money enables him to ignore the primaries, and thus avoid the sifting through of candidates and positions that a political party does before agreeing on a nominee. Obama, Hillary, Bush II and even the Donald fought heavily contested primaries. By virtue of his billions, Schultz can automatically declare himself a finalist. Like so much in today’s society, it’s the privilege of instant credibility that is reserved only for the ultra-wealthy.

If Schultz is a patriot and not another billionaire full of himself, he will either run in the Democratic primaries or declare himself out of the race. If he truly cares about the United States, he will realize that his independent candidacy will only make things easier for Donald Trump. If he truly respects our American democracy, he won’t use his money to cut in line, but follow the system of primaries and caucuses that we have established after a few centuries of trial and error.  

Saturday, January 26, 2019

Editorial: No Ransom for Hostages

Donald Trump’s effort to extort $5.7 billion for a border wall under the pretext of compromise is another exercise of his bad-faith negotiating style. Trump, in a White House speech Jan. 19, proposed to extend temporary protection for young immigrants and refugees in exchange for the money for the first stage of his proposed border wall, despite lingering questions about the need for such a wall along the Lower Rio Grande Valley, given its impact on the regional environment and commerce.

Democratic leaders were not consulted before the speech, so Trump’s proposal appeared to be a compromise with Vice President Mike Pence and First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner. Anyway, it was a non-starter. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called it “simply more hostage taking,” but Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he would bring up the bill with Trump’s proposal for a vote in the Senate. McConnell had refused to let the Senate vote on bills passed by the Democratic House to reopen the government.

As a practical matter, Democrats would gain little by accepting the temporary relief Trump offered for young immigrants and refugees, since the Supreme Court on Jan. 18 declined to review lower court rulings that kept President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in effect for at least one more year. And a trial in federal court in New York challenging Trump’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Haitians concluded Jan. 10 with internal government emails showing the administration was so determined to end the program that it ignored its own government’s research flagging health and safety concerns. A decision is expected after March 1.

Perhaps to allow Trump to pose as a moderate on immigration, right-wing commentator Ann Coulter criticized Trump’s proposal for a three-year extension of protection for DACA recipients and refugees who hold Temporary Protected Status. “Trump proposes amnesty,” she said. “We voted for Trump and got Jeb!” Coulter was largely responsible for getting Trump to renege from his agreement to accept a bipartisan continuing resolution that would have prevented the government shutdown in December.

Democrats see no incentive to reward Trump’s strong-arm tactics, particularly as recent polls show a majority of the public doubts the need for the border wall and blames Trump and the Republicans for the closures that left 420,000 “essential” workers toiling without knowing when they would get a paycheck, 380,000 other employees “furloughed,” without knowing when they would get back on the payroll, and millions of employees of federal contractors laid off with no prospects for getting paid.

Trump has tried to harness chaos in his business career, and the shutdown distracts from Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump’s corrupt campaign and ties with Russian oligarchs, but polls show the public is getting tired of Trump’s antics. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released Jan. 13 showed 53% of Americans say the president and his party deserve the blame for the government shutdown, while another 29% point their finger at the Democrats in Congress.

In the Post/ABC poll, conducted Jan. 8-11, support for the wall has increased over the past year, from 34% in January 2018 to 42% this January, but a majority (54%) still oppose the wall. And only 24% are buying Trump’s line that there is a security crisis at the border. Nearly half (47%) said there is a serious problem but not a crisis.

Trump’s chronic bad faith frustrates attempts to build compromises. He is, after all, a notorious liar with, at best, a reckless disregard for the truth. The Washington Post has three reporters in its Fact Checker department working full time analyzing Trump’s false claims. They have tallied 8,158 false or misleading claims by Trump in the two years he’s been president, as of Jan. 20, including more than 6,000 such claims in the president’s second year — and many of the false claims have been repeated, in some cases, more than 100 times after the misstatements were pointed out. (That compares with 18 false or misleading claims the New York Times found President Barack Obama had made over eight years.) And Trump already has reneged on at least two deals he has made with Democrats on protecting young immigrants who were brought to the US as children, and he has flip-flopped on other offers.

On Sept. 13, 2017, after Trump said he would end DACA, and he called for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, he reportedly agreed with Senate Democratic Leader Schumer and House Democratic leader Pelosi on the broad strokes of a DACA-border security deal that didn’t include Trump’s wall, only to see the White House walk it back the next day.

Trump on Jan. 9, 2018, at a bipartisan meeting in the White House, called for a bipartisan agreement on DACA, family-based migration, the diversity lottery and border security. On Jan. 11, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) informed Trump six bipartisan senators had reached a compromise, which included a path to citizenship for eligible young immigrants, the first year of Trump’s border wall funding, ending the diversity visa lottery and reallocating those visas, and restricting the ability of former DACA recipients to sponsor other family members. Trump invited them to the White House, but in the meantime he was talked into rejecting the deal, and in the meeting he made his now-infamous “s**thole countries” comment.

Feb. 14, 2018, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a compromise plan, which included $25 billion for the border and a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants, but the White House lobbied against the compromise, which got 54 votes in the Senate, but fell short of the necessary 60 votes.

As we’ve said before, if Republicans were serious about stopping undocumented immigrants from taking jobs from Americans, Republicans would support reinstating laws making it a crime to hire undocumented aliens. They won’t do that because the Chamber of Commerce won’t allow it, and farmers who provide lip service to the need for a wall along the southern border aren’t looking forward to replacing their undocumented workers who tend their crops and livestock. And Trump’s properties allegedly have hired undocumented immigrants to build and run those properties — including two women who reportedly cleaned Trump’s room at a golf resort in New Jersey.

Ever since Newt Gingrich led a Republican insurgency to power in the House in 1995, closing down the government has been a feature, not a bug, of their budget policy — and Trump has embraced that practice. Seeing 800,000 federal workers going without pay is clearly causing him no distress, and reflects his own business practices.

USA Today June 9, 2016, noted that Trump was involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those were ordinary Americans who said they had to sue to get Trump or his companies to pay them. Trump told USA Today if a company or worker he hires wasn’t paid fully, it’s because The Trump Organization was unhappy with the work.

Trump on Jan. 14 retweeted an article from the conservative Daily Caller, attributed to an anonymous senior official in Trump’s administration, arguing that 80% of federal workers do “nothing of external value” and that “furloughed employees should find other work, never return and not be paid.” The writer argued the shutdown is an opportunity for Trump to greatly reduce the size of government.

There is need for a good-faith compromise on immigration reform, but we don’t see it happening under Donald Trump. Republicans must join with Democrats to pass a continuing resolution — with a veto override, if necessary — and get those 800,000 federal government employees, as well as more than four million people who work for contractors, back on the payroll. — JMC

Editor's Note: After government employees had been forced to work 35 days without pay, Trump on Jan. 25 announced he would accept a stopgap bill to reopen the government for three weeks while Democrats and Republicans negotiate over border security. Call your senators at 202-224-3121 by Feb. 15 and demand that they stop this nonsense and finally pass the spending bill, regardless of whether there is money for the wall. 




From The Progressive Populist, February 15, 2019

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652



Selections from the February 15, 2019 issue

COVER/Jonathan Cohn
Progressives will get their debate on Medicare for all — and questions abound


EDITORIAL
No ransom for hostages


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS
The demons come to haunt us all


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Shutdown ripples through the community


DISPATCHES
Trump outlined his vision in his inaugural address. Two years later, how’s it going?
Two years into Trump’s presidency, far-right extremism has surged.
Scientists say Trump’s first two years may be fatal for livable climate.
Four volunteers convicted for leaving life-saving supplies for immigrants in Arizona desert.
Nancy Pelosi's popularity surges.
House Dems snub labor choice for trade panel.
Pollution at Texas coal plants poses major threat to health and environment.
Businesses hit hard by Trump shutdown are suddenly silent about GOP lawmakers ...


ADAM TURTLE
Adapt or die: This is the lesson of both evolution and history


JOHN YOUNG
Miles and miles of big, beautiful lies


JILL RICHARDSON
Hollywood’s fat shaming is getting old


ART CULLEN
Epic hypocrisy of Republicans’ sudden distaste for Steve King


SAM PIZZIGATI
Prices, plutocrats, and corporate concentration


LEO GERARD
Tax dollars can buy happiness


JIM VAN DER POL
Geoengineering is no solution to climate change


ED RAMPELL
How will Trump’s presidency end? Seven ways it may.


BOB BURNETT
Trumpty dumpty sat on a wall ...


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Welcoming Cupid!


SAM URETSKY
Can Pelosi dance with Ocasio-Cortez?


CHUCK COLLINS
The government shutdown expands the ranks of ‘underwater nation’


WAYNE O’LEARY
Bigger is not better


JOHN BUELL
Tax justice and the Democratic prospect


N. GUNASEKARAN
Messy urbanization hits Asia’s poor hard


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Blue waves in the Golden State


ROB PATTERSON
Songs of resistance


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
Heck of a job, Donald


SETH SANDRONSKY
Rethinking mythologies


THEATRE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
Quills, quips, quibbles, questions — and revolution


JAMES A. HAUGHT
Best and worst

Friday, January 11, 2019

Editorial: AOC’s Modest Proposal

New Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has been living rent-free in the heads of right-wing pundits ever since the Democratic socialist former bartender from the Bronx gained notoriety with her upset win over liberal 20-year incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in the June 26 Democratic primary. But the right wingers really flipped their wigs when she suggested, during a 60 Minutes interview, that the top marginal tax rate be increased to as much as 70% to finance initiatives such as the “Green New Deal” she is proposing to get a handle on climate change.

The ensuing hubbub showed that some prominent “conservatives” either don’t understand how marginal tax rates work, or they were being intentionally dishonest about it, Aaron Rupar noted at Vox.

After a preview of the interview was released Jan. 4, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), tweeted that Ocasio-Cortez’s tax proposal would result in government seizing “70% of your income and [giving] it to leftist fantasy programs.”

A few hours later, Grover Norquist, head of the Americans for Tax Reform, claimed in a tweet that Ocasio-Cortez “wants 70%” of “your production,” and suggested her proposal is akin to slavery. “It’s hard to believe that Norquist, who has dedicated his professional life to tax policy, doesn’t understand how marginal tax rates work, but he is nonetheless misrepresenting it on Twitter,” Rupar wrote.

Conservatives have attacked AOC for allegedly not being well-versed in policy details, but Rupar noted she succinctly and accurately described how progressive marginal tax rates work while discussing her proposal.

“Once you get to the tippy-tops, on your $10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%,” she said. “That doesn’t mean all $10 million dollars are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”

Under the current marginal tax rates, the first $9,525 earned by a single filer is taxed at 10%. Income from $9,525 to $38,700 is taxed at 12%. Income from $38,700 to $82,500 is taxed at 22%. The brackets go up to the top rate of 37%, which for a single filer kicks in at $500,000 ($600,000 for a married couple filing jointly).

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, in a New York Times column Jan. 5 noted that AOC is advocating a tax rate of 70% on very high incomes, “which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics and arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance. … And it’s a policy nobody has ever implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history.

“To be more specific, Diamond, in work with Emmanuel Saez — one of our leading experts on inequality — estimated the optimal top tax rate to be 73%. Some put it higher: Christina Romer, top macroeconomist and former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates it at more than 80%.

Krugman noted that when America had very high rates on the rich (as high as 92%) after World War II, the economy did just fine. Since then tax rates have come way down, and if anything the economy has done less well.

“Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it’s obvious,” Krugman wrote.

In 2017, the Economic Policy Institute reported that CEOs at the 350 largest companies in 2016 took home an average of $15.6 million — 271 times what the typical US worker earns. That was up from a ratio of 30:1 before the Reagan-era tax cuts. When Ronald Reagan left office in 1989, CEO compensation averaged 59 times the typical earner. The increasing use of stock options to inflate executive compensation packages has exploded that CEO-to-worker pay ratio since then.

AOC proposed that the top marginal rate of 70% be applied to incomes over $10 million, but that allows a generous ratio of executive compensation at 321 times the median personal income, which was $31,099 in 2017. We would propose that any compensation more than 30 times the median personal income, which would be approximately $932,000, should be taxed at 70%. That would give executives an incentive not only to reinvest earnings in their company, but also to pay their workers more, so they’d get that median income — and the top marginal tax benchmark — up.

After getting the government opened up, the first bill the Democrats hope to pass is a sweeping anti-corruption bill aimed at stamping out the influence of money in politics and expanding voting rights. HR 1 has no chance in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said, “That’s not going to go anywhere,” possibly because Republicans know they can’t win a fair election any more.

AOC and her progressive allies might not get much of their initiatives past the Republican-dominated Senate, but if the progressive coalition can pass some of these bills out of the House, with the cooperation of new Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, they can show voters what might be possible if they return Democrats to a Senate Majority and the White House in 2021.


Deadbeat Don Holds Workers Hostage

Another reason why we should not run government like a business was on display during the federal government shutdown. It was no surprise that Donald Trump, who has been a grifter and a deadbeat all his life, sees nothing wrong with leaving nearly five million workers without paychecks for an indefinite period of time.

Trump, who routinely stiffed contractors on his real estate projects, forcing them to sue him to get their payments, has suggested that the shutdown could result in a net savings for the federal government, which shows his misunderstanding of how the government works.

First, most of the federal employees will eventually get their back pay when the impasse is resolved. About 420,000 of the federal workers are classified as essential and are working without knowing when they’ll be paid. About 380,000 federal employees have been furloughed and probably will get back pay when the shutdown is resolved. And they’re not all highly-paid bureaucrats. J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents about 40,000 Bureau of Prisons employees who have been furloughed in the shutdown, told the New York Times his members get an average take-home pay of $500 a week, which leaves little cushion during a shortfall.

Also, an estimated 4.1 million people work for federal contractors, according to Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University. The contract workers clean offices, serve food and provide security or other services for federal agencies, and they are not expected to receive back pay when the deal is worked out.

In the past, Trump’s father bailed him out of financial trouble until the debts got too great, as Donald managed to lose money on three casinos in Atlantic City as well as the Plaza Hotel in New York City, taking them through bankruptcy a total of six times. Trump said there was nothing wrong with using bankruptcy to handle debts, and insisted he had “used, brilliantly, the laws of the country.” But that’s why he had to turn to Russian oligarchs and Mideastern potentates to finance recent ventures — and now he is desperate to distract the public from the fact that he’s in over his head.

Tell your senators to put the government back to work. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, February 1, 2019

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Selections from the February 1, 2019 issue

COVER/Jim Goodman
Dairy farming as we knew it is dying. After 40 years, I’m done.


EDITORIAL
AOC’s modest proposal; Deadbeat Don


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS
Divesting in Trumpism


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Let the presidential candidates show they can help


DISPATCHES
Mainstream media blows coverage of Warren’s DNA test.
Maine’s new governor gives health care to 70,000 on first day.
US-Mexico treaty shows Trump border wall absurd, also illegal.
Only six on terror list stopped at southern border in first half of 2018, and more immigrants are leaving than coming in.
Trump's trade war costs middle-class families hundreds of dollars this year.
Trump in ‘no hurry’ to get Senate-confirmed Cabinet secretaries.
Trump tops 7,645 lies in December.
Supreme Court clears the way for Mass. A.G. to pursue ExxonMobil.
Don't mess with AOC ...


ART CULLEN
Our role in Democracy


JOHN YOUNG
Trump nation can’t see out its own windows


JILL RICHARDSON
New Year’s affirmations


ANTHONY PAHNKE
The Farm Bill should be better


JIM VAN DER POL
Reaching across the aisle isn’t working for the people


GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Time to leave the war zone


JAMES A. HAUGHT  
Evangelicals vote, ‘nones’ falter

MARK ANDERSON
Beekeepers seek to save the buzz


SETH SANDRONSKY
Amazon and cross-border solidarity


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
From genetics to the media: In praise of sunshine


SAM URETSKY
Not all cities get IT booms


FRANK CLEMENTE
The GOP tax bill is creating jobs — just not in the US


WAYNE O’LEARY
The yellow and the green


JOHN BUELL
Which way the yellow vests?


JOEL D. JOSEPH
Worldwide corporate tax dodge


BOB BURNETT
Trump’s slow-motion breakdown


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Let it all out


ROB PATTERSON
Thank goodness for Bob Dylan


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
There’s a new crust in town


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
The life aquatic with Hawaiian Jason Momoa: Polynesian power!


Midterm Madness

Graphic by Kevin Kreneck

AUMFs are really MFs, as they give POTUS authority to wage wars w/o first asking Congress. Let’s support Barbara Lee’s legislation to repeal 2001 & 2002 AUMFs

Wednesday, January 9, 2019

Trump’s wall is a typical GOP maneuver: Propose a stupid idea that hurts non- whites to solve a non-existent problem

By Marc Jampole

As Stephen Colbert pointed out, Republican strategist Stuart Stevens best characterized Donald Trump’s Oval Office speech about the proposed wall along our Southern border hours before Trump gave the speech: “There are numerous examples of presidential addresses made to calm a public. This will be the first to frighten a calm public.”

The partial federal government shutdown is now well into its third week and millions of Americans are suffering because Donald Trump and his Republican flunkies in the Senate insist on building a wall along the border of Mexico, a bad solution to a non-existent problem. We already do tight security screening and illegal entry is way down, thanks to a combination of better Latin American economies and the unwelcoming attitude of the current administration.

It’s not the first time that Republicans have addressed a non-existent problem with a solution that will hurt many people, primarily non-whites, and not help the country. Remember, the states under GOP control have passed dozens upon dozens of restrictive voting laws to address the non-existent problem of voter fraud by individuals. Just as the origins of building a wall is racism, so was the wave of new voter laws, which have targeted minorities, the young and the poor. For example, the Texas voter ID law allows voters to use a hunting license as proof of identification, but not a Texas university ID card. As with the wall, new voter registration laws solved a non-existent problem by targeting non-whites.

Time and time again, Republicans have used non-existent problems in the economy as the excuse to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Once again, there were no long-term problems with the economy. But even if there had been—as there were in 2008—the way to grow the economy and create jobs is never to give tax breaks to the wealthy. What works much better is to give tax breaks to the poor and lower middle class. But what works the best is to raise taxes on the wealthy and invest the money in the economy—building new dedicated mass transit, fixing roads and bridges, making college more affordable, developing carbon neutral technologies. Yet every time the Republicans seize power, the first thing they do is lower taxes on the wealthy. They did it under Reagan, Bush II and now, Trump. Lowering taxes on the wealthy hurts not only racial minorities and the poor, but the middle class and most of the upper middle class, in several ways: It takes money out of the economy, as the rich invest their tax savings in the secondary stock market, bigger houses and other non-productive assets. More important, the government has fewer funds to invest in programs that actually grow the economy and create jobs.

The Afghanistan war breaks the GOP pattern of solving a problem that doesn’t exist with something stupid and racist, but just a little bit. We did have a terrorism problem in 2001. The Afghan War started within a month of 9/11, supposedly to hunt Al Qaida. So the problem was real, but the solution was just plain stupid—the wrong answer, almost by definition, since every outside power that has ever tried to invade or control Afghanistan has instead got caught in the worst kind of intractable, unending, unwinnable quagmire. The Soviet Union, England, the Sikhs, the Mughals—all of these governments invaded Afghanistan, and all soon regretted it. As has the United States.

That brings us to Iraq. Let’s set aside the war for a second and think about what the government had done by 2003 to fight terrorism—greater cooperation with allies, an enormous increase in surveillance, enhanced airport and border security and the development of drones are just some of the many ways we fought terrorism from outsiders after 9/11. Some would say, and include me in this group, that we committed overkill. By 2003, terrorism was no longer a problem, thanks to the Draconian measures the Bush II Administration took, with the cooperation of the Democrats. Thus the war in Iraq was another wrong-headed GOP solution to a non-existent problem that ended up severely hurting populations of non-whites. It perfectly follows the pattern of the wall, voting restrictions and tax breaks for the wealthy.

Those who say Trump has taken over the Republican Party are absolutely and completely wrong. Trump and the GOP were a match made in heaven. Trump’s policies and actions are completely consistent with Republican ideology since Reagan. His decision-making process fits right into Republican strategizing: Create a problem and solve it with a cockamamie idea that hurts non-whites. The wall represents the apotheosis of Reaganism. Those Republicans like Romney and Corey Gardner who criticize Trump only dislike his obvious emotional instability, his crude style, his addiction to lies and the overtness of his racism. They’re fine with his policies.

Trump’s foreign policy does represent a break from Republican ideology, to be sure. He rejects traditional alliances and seems fond of autocrats—perhaps picturing himself as the de facto leader of an international white nationalist movement. Of course, the true leader is Vladimir Putin.

But he deserves credit for announcing the drawdown of about half the troops in Afghanistan. We can only hope that he follows through on this promise, and soon brings home all our remaining troops in Afghanistan.

That would be a start to dismantling the global U.S. military machine now operating in 80 countries total. We have active troops fighting in 14 countries and have recently bombed or used drones in 7. Our military personnel conduct counterterrorism training in 65 countries. All this, in addition to our 40 military bases around the globe. While Trump courts disaster to turn his back on our allies, start a trade war with China and replace multilateralism with go-it-alone bellicosity, his instinct to bring home U.S. troops is a good one.


But even when he gets it right, Trump screws it up. Of all the many places where the United States has an active military engagement, just about the only one we can justify is our presence in Syria. We have no business in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the Central African Republican, Yemen, Mali and elsewhere, but our small force in Syria does bring a small measure of stability to the civil-war ravaged country. We can only leave once there is a permanent political solution that protects the Kurdish population. To do otherwise would mean we have abandoned an ally, a despicable action that we know Trump has embraced before in both his business and political careers.  

Saturday, December 15, 2018

Editorial: Call Trump’s Bluff on Immigration Reform

Donald Trump and his Republican enablers clearly see their xenophobic immigration policy as a great way to divide working-class Americans from the Democratic Party. An economy with less than 4% unemployment, as exists today, is considered “full employment,” and nearly everybody can find a job — but getting a job with a living wage is the challenge.

Many working-class white Americans blame immigrants for keeping wages down, but the real culprits are corporate managers who like the current immigration chaos precisely because a ready supply of undocumented immigrants who will work hard for low wages reduce the pressure to increase wages and benefits.

There is a progressive populist case to be made for preserving jobs for Americans.

First, Democrats must not approve any appropriations to build Trump’s wall along the border with Mexico. It’s a stupid idea, which not only would waste billions of dollars, but also interferes with property rights, commerce and environmental concerns along the border.

If Trump claims a mandate to build the wall because he campaigned on it, Democrats should remind him that he also promised Mexico would pay for the wall. Democrats certainly should not allow construction to proceed until the check from Mexico clears the US Treasury — and that should end the matter, since we don’t expect new Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to approve spending more than $20 billion on a 1,000-mile wall to help Trump keep his unwise promises.

Instead, Democrats should support a bill calling for enforcement of sanctions on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants, including criminal penalties for employers who fail to withhold taxes for wages paid to immigrants. We have tried deporting undocumented immigrants when they are found, and that clearly does not stem the flow. Stiff fines and jail, when necessary, for bosses is the most effective way to reduce the numbers of undocumented immigrants in the US. If they can’t find work here, they won’t stay.

But I’ll let you in on a little secret: The US Chamber of Commerce and other industrial groups won’t stand for it. They like the current chaos because undocumented workers not only work hard for low pay, but also can be turned in for deportation if they cause any “trouble,” such as talking about joining a union.

So business lobbyists would put the kibosh on any effective immigration control. But it would be interesting to get Republicans on the record on employer sanctions. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal to hire or recruit undocumented immigrants, but successful prosecutions are rare because the law included an “affirmative defense” that released employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of workers’ documents.

In 1996 the federal government established the E-Verify program, which allows employers to compare information provided by the prospective employee with government records to confirm identity and employment eligibility. But the program remains largely voluntary.

Reviving employer sanctions should be part of a “Fair and Humane Immigration Policy” Sen. Bernie Sanders is advocating that includes enacting and expanding President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) to allow the parents of DREAMers, who were brought here as children, the parents of children who were born here as citizens, the parents of legal permanent residents, and other immigrants who would have been given legal protections by the 2013 immigration bill reform that passed the Senate but died in the House. This would allow all undocumented people who have been peaceably in the US for at least five years to stay in the country without fear of being deported. Under this plan, Sanders has said, close to nine million of an estimated 11 million undocumented aliens would be able to apply for deferred action.

Sanders also has proposed establishing a whistleblower visa for workers reporting labor violations. An affirmative process would be available for these individuals to request deferred action. And any immigration proposal should include support for all workers’ rights to organize their workplaces.

We must reject fear of immigrants. If Trump seriously believed that the “caravan” of refugees from Central America, who are trying to lawfully apply for asylum in the US, really contained Islamic terrorists, as he claimed when he was stoking fear before the midterm elections, he should have sent Homeland Security agents to meet them with a pocketful of “green cards” to hand out to Central American refugees who could point out Muslim imposters. We don’t mean to be racist, but an Arab jihadist would stick out like a sore thumb in a crowd of Central Americans. Of course, Trump was lying when he made the claim, but again, Democrats should call his bluff.

Unfortunately, the right wingers will remain in control of the Senate next year. But Democrats in the House can show what pro-worker progressive immigration reform would look like if Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump would get out of the way.

Don’t Rush Impeachment

Many Democrats are urging the House to move on impeachment of the Great Misleader when the new Congress meets in January, but Democratic leaders need to consider the effect of passing an impeachment resolution in the House, when they would need 20 Republican votes in the Senate to reach 67 to convict Trump and remove him from office.

The report of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller III might move the needle, but there is an awful lot of denial in the Grand Oligarch Party. House Dems should start probing but hold off on judgment.

It’s not as if there aren’t enough judgmental Republicans in the Senate. Remember President Bill Clinton was acquitted Feb. 12, 1999, of both articles of impeachment for lying about a sex act with a consenting adult, with 55 “not guilty” votes for perjury and a 50-50 vote on obstruction of justice. That’s when Republicans controlled the Senate, 55-45. Clinton left office with 66% approval.

Current Republican senators who voted to remove President Clinton from office include Mike Crapo of Idaho, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Pat Roberts of Kansas. Who among them do you think would support the removal of Trump, even on much more serious charges Mueller is sorting through? (Hatch will be replaced in January by Mitt Romney, who has shown little inclination to criticize the Great Misleader, and Kyl is keeping the late Sen. John McCain’s seat warm, but is expected to quit the Senate early next year to let Arizona’s governor appoint an interim senator who Republicans think they can elect in 2020.

Mitch McConnell will be working with a 53-47 GOP majority in January, so only if Republicans in “safe red” states start feeling the heat will they consider making Trump expendable.

In the meantime, Trump has never reached 50% job approval as president in the Pollster.com average of 40 national polls. The Gallup Poll in December found 48% approval and 50% disapproval, while the Pollster average was 43.1% approval, 50.9% disapproval, as of Dec. 4. Sure, Trump could still get re-elected, but a competent Democratic candidate who is willing to campaign in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ought to be able to beat him handily. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, January 1-15, 2019

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Selections from the January 1-15, 2018 issue

COVER/Art Cullen & Tom Cullen
Trump denies what farmers already know: Rains are heavier every year.


EDITORIAL
Call Trump’s bluff on immigration reform


IM HIGHTOWER
Free the free press from Wall Street plunderers.
Putting the Trump stamp on the public.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS
David, Goliath and Sister Mary


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Farmers won’t like climate change, and neither will you


DISPATCHES
Treasury report nixes revival of postals banking, but proposes limits on postal unions.
Supreme Court punts on defunding Planned Parenthood.
Powerful House Dem supports Green New Deal.
Unemployment unchanged at 3.7%, but wage growth stays weak.
House GOP leaders resist reinstatement of net neutrality.
Trump boost of the coal industry has consumption down 4%.
Nebraska farmers say Trump trade war cost them $1.2B.
Trump's AG pick has a special record on special investigtions ...


ART CULLEN
Trump got rolled


JILL RICHARDSON
Republicans don’t want your vote to count


JOHN YOUNG
Trump’s intriguing definition of ‘zero’


JASON SIBERT
Disorder defines Trump’s world


MARSHALL AUERBACK
GM offers proof to the world that slashing wages isn’t the ticket to profitability


DAVID J. SCHMIDT
The priest and the migrant: Meeting the caravan in the Advent season


JASMINE AGUILERA
Lessons from south of the border


GENE NICHOL
Impeachable offense


BOB BURNETT
10 Action items for Democrats


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
The gray wave rises


SAM URETSKY
Letting go of industrial regulations isn’t bringing back the jobs


SAM PIZZIGATI
Executives make millions misleading cancer patients. Here’s one way to stop them.


WAYNE O’LEARY
Trump’s sugar high


JOHN BUELL
Building a green new deal


SETH SANDRONSKY
Subsidize this


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Ordering the chaos


ROB PATTERSON
Traveling by tube


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
What to serve at a hanging


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
AFI Fest 2018: The Weekend, Stan & Ollie

What happened to a Wonderful Life?

Art by Robin Streichler

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

If Democrats want to win in 2020, they won’t nominate a woman for president and will nominate a woman for vice president

By Marc Jampole

The Democratic Party is full of smart, experienced and personable women who would do a great job as president. The list begins with Hillary Clinton, but obviously nominating her would court disaster, as the irrational “lock her up crowd” is still rather quite large. Why give Republicans another reason to come out to the polls? Hillary would perform particularly poorly against any Republican other than Trump, because none of them would have Trump’s baggage and Hillary would still have hers.
The four women I like for president are Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand. I personally think it’s about time that a woman served as president.
But nominating any of these truly competent woman or any other woman would be a mistake. About 34% of all voters, including 59% of Republicans, do not personally want to see a woman as president in their lifetime. That’s a steep demographic hill to climb. We know that any male Republican candidate, but especially Trump, will attempt to associate a female candidate with weakness. The news media is sure to exercise its double standard for female candidates: questioning them for past actions and family situations that go unspoken when the candidate is a male.
There is plenty of evidence that a backlash against the very necessary and important #Metoo movement has formed. Leading the anti-#Metoo-ist charge is Trump Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who has pushed through new college regulations regarding claims of assault that favor the accused. Of particular interest is a recent Bloomberg News report that men at Wall Street investment banks, brokerages and other financial institutions are avoiding being alone with women, rather than risk an accusation of sexual harassment. These powerful business men, virtually all of whom had a mentor at the beginning of their careers, call it the Pence Effect, after Vice President Mike Pence, who will be alone in a room or at dinner with a woman only if it’s his wife. Now Pence can blame his squeamishness on his religion, but these Masters of the Universe blame it on the potential for a misunderstanding or false accusation. The article never mentions the fact that a mere 2% of sexual harassment or assault accusations are false. That means the likelihood of dining alone with a woman resulting in a false accusation is close to nil. That is, if the man keeps the conversation during business hours to business matters, and the dinner conversation to business or non-threatening personal matters. No physical contact beyond shaking hands, when appropriate. That these men don’t realize that all it takes to avoid assault charges is not to assault suggests a terrible truth about the lack of respect that women still suffer in the business and public worlds.
Whoever the Republicans run, it’s essential for Democrats to win in 2020. Why take a chance? What if the answer to the question, “Is America ready for a woman president?” is still no?
But on the other hand, it is extremely important that America moves forward. We have to lay the groundwork for a female presidency in the near future. A woman has twice run for vice president and once for president. Running a woman as a vice presidential candidate in 2020 keeps women in the presidential campaign limelight. And let’s face it, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand are all more competent and presentable candidates than Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin were. A woman vice presidential candidate will make a Democratic ticket more attractive to millennial voters.
But whereas all four women would make wonderful presidents and vice presidents, I would not consider Elizabeth Warren as someone’s running mate, because she’s already 69. In four or eight years, she’ll be in her seventies, on the verge of being too old to run for our highest office.
Interestingly enough, running one of the three younger women as vice president makes Joe Biden a more appealing choice to head the ticket. Biden will turn 78 in 2020 and, if elected, figures to serve one term only. Whoever is his vice president will be the presumptive presidential frontrunner in 2024. Making it Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand or another woman sets up the probability that a woman is elected president in 2024, assuming the Democrats do what they say they’re going to do.
Biden wouldn’t be my first, second, third or fourth choice among Democratic men. I still don’t like the way he mistreated Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991. Moreover, I would rather see a younger, more vigorous person in office.
But who should it be? Tune in tomorrow for the last in my series of articles on who the Democrats should nominate in 2020.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

With a deep bench of talent, the Democrat’s mantra should be ABB: Anyone but Beto

By Marc Jampole
The Democrats are blessed with a large number of candidates whose experience, politics and personality make them qualified to assume the office of the presidency. Even if we rule out the most well-known but all fairly ancient Democrats—the septuagenarians Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders—the Democrats’ cup runneth over with talented candidates.
Unfortunately Beto O’Rourke is not one of them.
Yet, Beto is the one that the mainstream news media want to focus on. The other day, MSNBC’s pseudo-progressiveChris Matthews pumped up O’Rourke’s candidacy. This week, The New York Times ran a front-page feature focused  focused on his potential candidacy. The only other possible candidates mentioned in the article are those the writer believes Beto particularly threatens—Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Joe Biden
What’s more, strong anecdotal evidence exists that large numbers of probable Democratic voters are intrigued by Beto. Other than Biden, Bernie and Hillary, O’Rourke attracted the most support in a recent national poll, although he won a mere 9% of participants. My Facebook universe of more than 3,500 friends, which is decidedly Democratic and progressive, generates at least two dozen updates a day about the 2020 election. About a sixth of the posts wail over the possibility of Hillary running and another sixth propose Bernie as the top choice. A handful of posts mention other candidates, while the remainder—about two-thirds—propose Beto as the top candidate.
Yet what has he done? Not much, as it turns out.
He served three undistinguished terms as a back bencher in the House of Representatives. Between forming an environmental coalition, speaking out (sometimes inaccurately) on many issues and paying her interns a decent wage, the spunky Alexandria Octavio-Cortez has already had a greater impact as a congressional representative than Beto did in six years, and she hasn’t even taken office yet. Before he ran for office, he had an undistinguished career in business.
Beto, like JFK, both Bushes, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Brown and Mitt Romney, does have the advantage of coming from a politically connected family. His mother is the stepdaughter of the Secretary of the Navy under JFK, while his father served as county commissioner and county judge and is a longtime political crony of former Texas Governor Mark White. We can assume that Beto called in decades of chits in first running for office as an unknown mediocrity.
When the news media and social media gush about O’Rourke, they focus on one fact and two feelings. First and foremost, they mention his charisma, which is, to quote Webster’s “a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure.” Charisma is an amorphous feeling that has been applied to JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Obama and George W. Bush (only in comparison to his 2000 opponent, Al Gore). No one likes to use the “c” word when talking about Donald Trump, Adolph Hitler, Huey Long or Mussolini, but we know that large numbers of people were irrationally devoted to these individuals. Some individuals with charisma were decent leaders, but most were fairly mediocre like JFK or Clinton, or full scale disasters like Ronnie and Georgie. Then there are the manipulative, lying demagogues. Many Democrats seem very likable, especially Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Corey Booker. Others have the gravitas that I prefer in a leader, including Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee and Sherrod Brown. All have greater credentials and have accomplished more in their lives than Beto.
Beto-heads like the fact that O’Rourke raised so much money from so many small donors for his failed campaign to unseat Texas Senator Ted Cruz. That’s the fact. We’ll never know, however, what portion of the small givers were as much anti-Cruz as they were pro-O’Rourke. A lot of people despised Cruz before they ever heard of Beto. Remember that Cruz is considered unctuous, hypocritical and untrustworthy by large numbers of people, and is even disliked by many of his allies in the Senate. No one has ever written that Ted has even a modicum of charisma, charm or even likeability.
Finally, supporters of O’Rourke believe that his great showing against Cruz in Texas demonstrates that he can beat Trump nationally in 2020. The implicit reasoning behind this feeling seems to be that the nation as a whole is more liberal than Texas. Yet Texas has a lot of minorities. Its demographic future seems to be similar to the path taken in Nevada, Virginia and Colorado, all states that are turning or have turned blue. Besides, it is Trump not Cruz who commands the so-called Republican base of evangelicals, those opposed to immigration and racists. They preferred Trump over Cruz in the 2016 primaries. If Beto couldn’t beat a despicable Cruz, why does anyone think he can handle the more formidable Trump?
Compare Beto to the last newcomer anointed as a charismatic Democratic savior who leaped ahead of more experienced Democrats, Barack Obama. First of all, Obama had far more relevant experience. He had been a prominent Senator who had made noises during his four years representing Illinois, and a Constitutional law professor before that. When we focus only on domestic affairs, Obama turned out to be a good president, but during his first few years in office he made several mistakes stemming from his lack of experience as an administrator. Can we expect the less experienced and less well-educated O’Rourke to do any better than Obama?
It’s not just that Beto is at best marginally qualified to be president. It’s that the Democratic bench is so deep and talented that it makes little sense to put the nation’s future in Beto’s hands.
In a related column tomorrow, I will consider some of these other Democrats from the standpoint of what should be the most important factor in 2020—electability.