Tag: 2020

Categories
politics

Celebrating With An Anxious Mind

It is 3:19 PM EST on November 7, 2020. I just returned from a therapeutic dispensary (curbside pick-up while masked), where I retrieved a self-prescribed package of medicinal-grade cannabis. It has been over a week since I last took my prescription. I take it for anxiety. 

As the man said, “Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.”

But now it is Saturday, and I have returned from the therapeutic dispensary, and the people of planet Earth have been introduced to President-Elect Joseph Biden and Vice-President-Elect Kamala Harris.

My very first thought upon hearing the news was, “C’mon, Georgia.” See, when you have an anxiety disorder, you don’t get to experience the same level of relief and enjoyment as everyone else; instead, your anxiety leaps to the next closest obstacle.

You might think I’d be anxious about the Supreme Court. After all, President Trump and the Republicans out-shamed themselves to rush Associate Justice Barrett onto the bench for just this purpose: to side with the Republican Party if and when the validity of the Presidential Election come before the Court. While the Republicans already had a majority on the Court, Chief Justice Roberts’ decisions have raised some valid concerns about his willingness to rule from a place of naked partisanship, so they appointed and confirmed Justice Barrett to the Court to ensure the Republicans a favorable outcome. 

Justice Barrett’s decision to recuse herself from the pre-election case in Pennsylvania gave me hope that the Republican leadership misread the strength of her character, although I am not delusional enough to imagine her loyalty to the Constitution will override her loyalty to the Party if a particular case provides her with the moral wiggle room to avoid her Catholic guilt.

While the Republicans on the Supreme Court could still reveal the partisan horrorshow beneath their dignified black robes, even my anxiety has too much faith in democratic institutions to fall into that abyss.

Our democratic institutions,  unfortunately, also include the United States Senate, which has been controlled since 2015 by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senator McConnell famously led The Party of No during the Obama Administration, which was a “daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance” to the Democratic majority’s agenda. He is also the first Senate Majority Leader since the Civil War era to deny a president the right to fill an open seat on the Supreme Court. 

As it stands, experts predict the Republican Party to retain control of the Senate for the 117th United States Congress, but their prediction rests on the likelihood of the two special elections in Georgia resulting in two more Republican members being added to the Senate in January. With Alaska and North Carolina almost guaranteed to send two Republican members as well, the outcome of the Georgian special elections will determine which political party controls the Senate. 

I find hope against that happening in the surprising results of the presidential election in Georgia, where the Democratic candidate defeated the Republican candidate by (as of the afternoon of November 7th) roughly 12,000 votes.

I also find hope in Stacey Abrams, a Georgian who parleyed her gubernatorial defeat in 2018 into a powerful force for fair elections and who deserves the lion’s share of the credit for the surprising results in Georgia. 

Political strategists expect the two parties to spend upwards of $200 million on the two special elections. I don’t know anything about the four candidates who will be facing off, but each race has a Republican running against a Democrat, and I don’t want Senator McConnell and the Republican party to continue their stranglehold on progress.

So yes, it is a Saturday night, President Trump has been defeated at the ballot box, my self-prescribed anxiety-soothing herb is back in the house, and I’m about to leave to celebrate the nation’s victory around a campfire with my family, friends, and neighbors, but still, the anxious voice in my head won’t stop repeating the phrase, “C’mon, Georgia.”

Categories
politics

The Democratic Debates, Night 1

Senators Sanders and Warren occupied the center of the stage, and their progressive policies occupied the majority of the debate. The party’s more moderate candidates got to comment on why those policies won’t work, and some of them even explained why their policies ought to be implemented instead.

The focus on their progressive policies allowed Senators Sanders and Warren to provide further details for the American people. It also forced them to demonstrate their fighting skills, which are a necessary qualification in the job ahead. Democrats need to trust their candidate’s fighting instinct if they’re to defeat President Trump (they’ll especially need them on Twitter, because the next election will be influenced by the candidate’s back-and-forth Twitter instincts).

Viewers also saw a softer side to Senator Klobuchar. The Minnesota Senator genuinely teared up several times throughout the night. Because healthcare is a central issue in American politics, Sen. Klobuchar was able to share, regardless of question topic, several stories about people victimized by the healthcare industry. Each time she shared a story, she teared up. These were not politician tears. They were the tears that come when you feel a connection, in real time, to someone in pain. This wasn’t just a show of empathy; it was empathy itself.

Even Marianne Williamson, who is incredibly and justifiably out of place, had a moment. She put an unexpected focus on the “dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country.” This psychic force can be measured, as Beto O’Rourke pointed out, in the increase of hate crimes since the president took office and in the increased activity of white supremacy groups. Most Democrats recognize this force, but only Ms. Williamson offered a plan to take it on.

Her plan, by the way, is “love.”

As a teacher, I loved that Congressman Ryan, in his closing statement, used the words “trauma” and “education” in the same sentence.

As a person with compassion, I loved that Mayor Buttigieg called for a Democratic win so commanding it forces the Republican Party to reject Trumpism forever and unite behind a new crop of Republican candidates who actually possess a social conscience.

As a member of the Vermont Progressive Party who votes in the Democratic Primary, I appreciated the debate. I enjoyed hearing the Democrat’s more moderate candidates respond to Sens. Sanders and Warren’s more progressive policies. In their commentary, I heard some interesting ideas I hope the next president takes into account. Finally, should my preferred progressive candidates drop out of the race before I get to vote for one of them, the debate gave me reasons to prefer one moderate over another.

Most of all, though, it showed me that any of the candidates, including Marianne Williamson, would be a better president than Donald J. Drumpf.

Categories
politics

A First Take on the Democratic Candidates for President

I’m a relatively well-informed guy. I check The New York Times and The Washington Post every day. I follow a bunch of politicians, magazines, journalists, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and activists on Facebook and Twitter. But at this point, I can’t tell you definitively who is running for president and who is not.

I mean, I remember reading the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, announced his plan to challenge President Trump for the Republican nomination, but I’ll be damned if anyone in my network is talking about it. I can only hope the right-wing bubble that exists separate from my algorithmically generated media feeds is awash with talk of his challenge, because as The Washington Post made clear, President George H.W. Bush’s re-election bid was weakened by the need to defend his record against a challenger from within his own party. With Gov. Weld challenging President Trump, the President’s re-election bid could, if we’re lucky, suffer the same fate.

But if President Trump comes out of the primaries still aglow among the members of his own party, the future of American democracy will rest on whichever candidate is delivered up by the voting members of America’s Democratic party.

It’s a process we need to take seriously.

The Problem

As of today, 209 candidates have filed with the Federal Elections Commission as candidates to become the Democratic nominee for President.

Even if you discount the people who are crazy or just having fun, the list of at least mildly qualified individuals is ridiculously long.

We’re still eleven months away from the Iowa caucuses, but I’ve already donated money to three different candidates. I followed my heart and gave more money to Senator Sanders than I did to Mayor Buttigieg or Senator Warren, but I want to hear a substantive debate between at least those candidates before I enter the voting booth (in other words, Senator Sanders has not locked down my vote).

But I also want to hear from a good percentage of the others. Senator Booker interests me, thanks to the Oscar-nominated documentary, Street Fight, which focuses on his 2002 campaign to become the mayor of Newark. I have reservations. I don’t like how he voted on a largely symbolic but still important proposal put forward by Senator Sanders and Senator Klobuchar in 2017 that would have signaled Congress’ willingness to take on the pharmaceutical companies and lower prescription-drug costs, a move supported by 72% of the American public. Senator Booker joined the majority of Republicans who voted against it, and the proposal failed, 46-52. Obviously, that’s not cool.

Senator Harris interests me as well. I know very little about her, but I’m nervous about the fact that, as the District Attorney of San Francisco, she “ignored [her] constitutional obligation” to serve in the interests of the public, rather than of the police. But I’m also persuaded by the conundrum she presents for the party, given that she is a highly qualified African-American woman who isn’t backing away from her record.

Vice-President Biden has not yet filed with the FEC but he accidentally announced his candidacy at a private dinner. I have little interest in the former Vice-President’s campaign. I enjoy him as a vocal member of the party, but I do not want him to be the leader of it. Despite his current position at the top of the polls, I suspect the primary process will once again reject Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

I don’t know enough to be for or against former Texas Congressional Representative Beto O’Rourke. He seems like a good campaigner, but I have no idea how he might govern.

I’m curious about Governor Inslee because one of my friends who lives in the governor’s home state has vouched for him, and he seems to be the only candidate willing to put America’s response to climate change at the center of his platform. Climate change is an existential threat, and anyone who cares about the future of our species needs to recognize its position as the central crisis of our time.

And then there’s Andrew Yang, whose popularity, Rolling Stone reports, may be the result of right-wingers trolling the Democratic primaries. Mr. Yang wants to make a Universal Basic Income the central plank of the Democratic platform. In Mr. Yang’s version of the UBI, “every U.S. citizen over the age of 18 would receive $1,000 a month, regardless of income or employment status, free and clear. No jumping through hoops. Yes, this means you and everyone you know would receive a check for $1,000 a month every month starting in January 2021.” I know what you’re thinking, but Mr. Yang has a real plan to pay for it.

The list goes on and on, as could analyses of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. But that, my friends, is the problem. We don’t want the primaries to seem like a clown car.

The Solution

The Democratic Party is well aware of the problem, which is why campaigns must do one of two things if they want to be invited to the first four debates:  “either earn at least 1% support in a series of public polls of Democratic voters or attract 65,000 individual donors.”

As the Washington Post notes, this requirement is “more focused on growing the number of donors than on raising money.” The candidate who receives 65,000 donations (regardless of the amount of those donations) will be just as entitled to a place on the debate stage as someone whose connections to the cultural and financial centers of our country provides them with enough name recognition to garner 1% on a series of national polls.

The new rules (debated and agreed upon in the wake of the 2016 DNC scandal) give more power to grass-roots activists and outsider candidates, who may not have the ability to tap into the financial networks of New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle, but do have the ability to generate support among a large cohort of people.

The Action

I recommend you take this opportunity to peruse the individuals who have announced their candidacy and make a $1 donation to at least two or three of them. We want a healthy debate during this primary cycle, and the rules being set up by the Democratic Party seems to favor our voice.

This is your first chance to vote. And it will only cost you $1.

Categories
politics

Does Ocasio-Cortez Make Bernie’s Presidential Campaign Obsolete?

As Edward McCaffrey writes on CNN.com, “[Representative] Ocasio-Cortez is pointing a spotlight on the pressing issue of economic inequality in America, and on the role of current American tax policy in fomenting it…. Granted, [Rep.] Ocasio-Cortez is not getting as much attention for her tax policy as for her dancing, but at least the coverage of her tax ideas is a start toward talking about things that really matter.”

America is paying attention to her policies because Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a vibrant young woman of color, and in 2019, America would rather hear its truths from women such as Rep. Ocasio-Cortez than from old, white men such as Sen. Bernie Sanders or Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Her opponents know this, which is why members of the GOP (both in a professional and an amateur sense) are working hard to damage her reputation. Have you seen any college-year videos of a freshman representative from California or Michigan? No, because the GOP isn’t hunting for them. The GOP sees in Rep. Ocasio-Cortez their downfall: she’s young, progressive, female, and brown.

So she has our attention. And what does she do with it? She turns the spotlight on some the country’s biggest problems and suggests radical, sense-making proposals as solutions.

She points to the effects of climate change and says, “America, we need a Green New Deal.”

She points to the effects of income inequality and says, “America, we need to make the bosses’ bosses pay.”

Given America’s attention, she has produced a radical agenda, and because of her passion, her charisma, and her seriousness, we’re willing to consider it.

This is the job of a self-proclaimed radical. It’s why Sen. Sanders and Donald J. Trump were so appealing in 2016, when voters felt like the promise of America was slipping away and Sen. Sanders and Mr. Trump offered radical solutions for saving it.

Sen. Sanders did not win the nomination of the Democratic Party in 2016 (as we all know). Instead, party elders in the form of superdelegates and their allies in the media-conglomerate-financial complex opted for a world-tested, business-friendly hawk who offered moderate advances in a socially left-leaning and economically right-leaning direction, advances that might have progressed the ball downfield a little but didn’t, for certain, consider the clock.

The political moment of 2016 didn’t call for moderation. Voters lived with a foreboding sense of financial ruin, cultural ruin, and climactic ruin, and they weren’t willing to settle for the same old thing.

So they took the only radical path on offer: the fascist one.

In 2019 and 2020, America needs to hear radical proposals of all kinds. We need to consider all the options and not just the ones that satisfy the interests of a rich and powerful cabal (of which there are many).

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is too young (legally) and too inexperienced (respectfully) to run for president in 2020, but the attention she’s received and the way she’s handling it might make her the best candidate for communicating a set of radically progressive solutions for America’s ills.

But it also might make her outshine Sen. Sanders as America’s favorite radical, just when Sen. Sanders will need his star to shine the most.

If Sen. Sanders decides to run for president in the upcoming Democratic primary, he needs to earn Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement before he announces. She needs to be on stage when he announces — and may even need to make the introduction — if he’s to capture the crest of her blue wave.

This should not be a difficult “get” for Sen. Sanders. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez worked on his primary campaign in 2016, and one would think she’d work for his campaign again — unless recent reports of sexism in his organization (and the organization’s lax sexual harassment policies) prevents her from doing so in good faith.

Sen. Sanders has attempted to dismiss these stories by saying he was too busy running for president to worry about the human resource policies of his campaign, but hearing now what happened when he ran in 2016, he promises to address the problem if and when he runs in 2020.

I for one believe him, and I suspect Rep. Ocasio-Cortez does as well, which is why he needs to earn her endorsement sooner rather than later. As an influential young woman who worked on his campaign, she can help him lay the stories to rest in a clear and authentic manner, both as a partner in the creation of the eventual solution and as his messenger.

I love the idea of democratic socialists having two powerful and beloved voices driving portions of our national conversation, but when one of those voices comes from an attractive, young, brown face and the other comes from a wrinkly, old, white face, I wonder how much that wrinkly, old, white face even needs to be there. After all, there are other, younger, and browner faces who may offer radically progressive songs of their own.

In my heart, I don’t think Sen. Sanders can win the Democratic nomination, not because he is too radical, but because he is too old: 79 may the new 69, except when it’s not, like when people under the age of 45 consider which candidate to support.

I don’t know which candidate will best represent the interests of the current wave of progressive activists, but I do know they won’t be someone older than President Trump.

In which case, what should Sen. Sanders do? If he doesn’t run for president (not because he shouldn’t win, but because he won’t), should he sit back and let Rep. Ocasio-Cortez take the lead for democratic socialism? Rather than working for her endorsement, should he offer her his?

This is not to suggest Sen. Sanders should retire or retreat, but it is to say that he should turn his political intentions away from 2020 and on to 2028, when Rep. Ocasio-Cortez will be eligible for the presidency (and presumably more experienced in [and partially responsible for] the new national politic).

He should also work as hard as he can, in concert wth Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, to influence the national agenda, despite not running for president. The two of them could offer identically radical legislation in their respective chambers of Congress, which might allow them to seize the news cycle for a few days, or they could double-team Democratic candidates who dare to protect the status quo. However they use the combined power of their binary star, these two democratic socialists would be able to demand responses from whatever candidates are running for office.

Again, if Sen. Sanders runs for president, I will most likely vote for him, but that doesn’t mean I think he can win.

And if he can’t win, then why, oh why would he run? With Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s star power ensuring that democratic socialism maintains an influence upon the national conversation, he’ll no longer need to “get the message out.”

And without the need to spread his message, what need would remain?