Categories
politics

An Amendment to the Second Bill of Rights

President Obama’s speechwriter, Jon Favreau, has become a successful political podcaster with a show on HBO. A couple of months before the elections this November, he released a 15-episode series about the history and future of the Democratic Party. I listened to it off and on for the past couple of weeks, and outside of the fact that not a single episode focuses on the extinction-level event that is human-caused global-climate change, I found myself generally agreeing with Mr. Favreau’s arguments, hearing in them a healthy balance of idealism and pragmatism.

In the ninth episode of the series, entitled “The Second Bill of Rights,” Mr. Favreau investigates what “a bold, progressive agenda” might look like for the Democrats. He speaks with advisors to Present Barack Obama, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Secretary Hillary Clinton. He also speaks with the leaders of various Democratically-leaning interest groups, and with journalists, professors, historians, and more.

His most important finding is that all of the policies of the Democratic party   are founded on “the belief that the government should play a much larger role in reigning in the free market and making sure that people can count on a good job, a decent income, quality healthcare, reliable childcare, a useful education, and a dignified retirement.”

The federal government’s role should be that of “intervention in order to help people deal with the downsides of globalization,” and its investments, policies, and actions should seek to ease the suffering of real people.

As Becky Bond, a former senior advisor to Sen. Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, expressed to Mr. Favreau:

People see “Medicare for All” as a radical idea, right? But they don’t necessarily think it’s a radical idea that when people are sick they ought to get to go see the doctor…. I think that [Democrats] can go out and talk about what are the real solutions to our problems, here’s what we need to do to get there — it’s gonna be really hard, it might take a long time, and even if we have to compromise, at least let’s be clear about what it is that [Democrats are] for. 

Based on his extensive investigation of the party and its members, Mr. Favreau suggests that Democrats are for the following:

  • Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.
  • Subsidizing income to provide “a foundation of security under a vast majority of Americans,” first through expanding access to the Earned Income Tax Credit, and then through the creation of a Universal Basic Income.
  • Guaranteeing a job to every American who wants one through a program inspired by President Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration, managed locally, and dedicated to creating jobs in “the Care Economy: care for community, care for people, and care for planet.”
  • Creating a universal skills program that helps workers transition from one job to another, and make everyone eligible for them and eligible for receiving a basic income while participating in them.
  • Providing every individual — if they have the ability — with a free college education, and erasing the economically-crippling burden of a generation’s worth of student-loan debt.
  • Providing universal access to healthcare through a Medicare for All program that eliminates copays and deductibles, provides equitable access to high-quality healthcare, and reduces the cost of that care.
  • Strengthen the ability of workers to unionize at the jobs by making it easier for workers to form a union, penalizing employers who fire the workers who try to start a union, and revoking the “right to work” laws that weaken unions in several of our united states 
  • Reversing the consolidation of financial power by strengthening and aggressively enforcing federal anti-trust and consumer protection laws

Because Mr. Favreau titled his agenda the “Second Bill of Rights,” one should probably write them as follows:

  • The right to a job.
  • The right to a fair and living wage.
  • The right to exist regardless of one’s ability to work.
  • The right to an education that supports the improvement of one’s lot, regardless of age or income.
  • The right to the best possible healthcare.
  • The right to form a union that advocates for the value of one’s labor.
  • The right to participate in a fair and balanced economy.

I have no problem with any of those rights and fully support their enactment into law. 

But what bothers me is that, without addressing climate change, the Democrats are just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Maybe Mr. Favreau and the Democrats he spoke with ignored climate change because they assumed everyone knows the Republicans won’t even admit there’s a problem, so the Democrats have already won the argument with anyone who is willing to hear it.

Maybe they ignored climate change because all of the rights they mention presuppose the existence of the human species, and so any agenda they might offer presupposes a winning strategy on climate change.

Or maybe they ignored it because Mr Favreau couldn’t make his episode any longer.

Whatever the reason, it’s not a good enough excuse for leaving climate change off of a bold, progressive vision for a Second Bill of Rights.

Because we all deserve: the right to a safe climate.

Categories
politics

Be Aware of Robert Reich

Robert Reich served as President Clinton’s Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997. He advised President Obama as a member of his economic transition team, and he forcefully endorsed Senator Sanders’ candidacy for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

He is also a well-loved professor, a prolific writer, and a dedicated explainer of the economy.

Start here. 

Categories
life politics

Change the Channel

This is all just a TV show. That’s what I learned from this great article in Current Affairs magazine. Moderate conservatives and liberals prefer President Jed Bartlett of Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing, while the right prefers Donald Trump of The Apprentice and FOX News. Hilary Clinton, supported by the media, ran on Jed Bartlett’s platform of intelligence, competence, and moral smugness, while Donald Trump ran on FOX News‘ platform of cynicism, xenophobia, and aggression (read as “security”).

The election wasn’t an election as much as it was a study in what kind of TV shows we like to watch. Those who prefer scripted dramas voted differently from those who prefer “reality” TV.

Except, and this is what’s important from the Current Affairs article, that analysis isn’t true at all. Because reality is neither a scripted drama nor a reality TV show. It sounds trite, and no one would ever argue that it was, but it’s also important to remember: reality is neither a scripted drama nor a reality TV show.

It’s reality, with real live consequences. The people in Syria are not characters in some postmodern multimedia text; transgender people are not characters who’ll soon disappear from some screen; and ex-miners are not going hungry just for the chance to star in some capitalist’s propaganda poster. This shit is real, and it really matters to persons. Decisions made in New York, Washington D.C., London, Paris, Berlin, Beijing, etc. affects real change in the daily experiences of individuals all over the planet and not just in the power dynamics of a popular TV show called Watch the Throne.

In Our Climate Future is Actually Our Climate Present, Jon Mooallem explains that we will not experience climate change as some great calamity, but as a kind of gentrification, with human beings doing what human beings are already doing: putting our heads down and continuing to trudge on, day by day, until we die.

But it’s the job of politics to make trudging through this life just a little bit easier, not just for me and you, but for everyone.

And why wouldn’t it be? If the political truly is personal, then politics is the act of living among your fellow human beings. It’s not a game to be played at the highest professional level; the Democrats and the Republicans are not the Red Sox and the Yankees. They’re two groups of people who claim to stand for specific ways of treating other people.

The Democrats claim to stand for treating each human being with dignity and respect, and they extend that claim to embrace the moral obligation it recommends, that is, to protect and advocate for those who cannot protect or advocate for themselves. This stance does not allow for bullying, but it does allow for righteous indignation, civil (not to be read as peaceful) protest, and a willingness to engage in defensive combat.

It recommends this not just as a form of politics, but as a form of living a life. It accepts the complexity that comes from living in a democratic society where your neighbors, not to mention the millions upon millions of other people whom you don’t know and will never meet, all get a say (at some level) as to how you live your life (if you want to live your life among them, anyway).

In a democratic society as large as ours, where we can’t come to a consensus on a statement as objectively true as “The Earth is not flat,” Democrats claim the only way to interact with each other, in our homes or outside of them, is with dignity and respect and the moral obligation to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

This is not how actual Democrats behave. This is their claim as to the right way to live among your fellow human beings.

The Republicans claim the proper way to act among others is to say Fuck them. This is not the same thing as Fuck youRepublicans are Christians, after all, and good Christians don’t say “Fuck you” to one another. They will say “Fuck you” to them though, just as God said “Fuck you” to all the other thems in the Old Testament: The first-born sons of Egypt? Fuck them. The Sodom and Gomorrah? Fuck them. The Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites? Fuck them. King Ahazia? You’re fired!

But as for the rest of us — those of us who are not them — the Republicans claim we can pretty much do whatever we want.

Want to shoot someone? Make sure they’re not one of us or that you can claim you were protecting yourself; and if you can’t find someone to shoot, join the army and we’ll point your gun in the right direction.

Want to get rich? Go for it, and the best of luck to you. If someone gets in your way, fuck them.

Want to screw a girl? Don’t worry, because they secretly really want it; and if they don’t, well…fuck them.

Heard that there’s someone with an unwanted pregnancy? Fuck them for not being more responsible.

Do what you want. Do what you’re good at. And fuck them if they can’t take it.

Based on everything I’ve seen or read or experienced, that’s what the Republican Party claims is the way we should act among our fellow human beings (again, not fuck you but fuck them).

It sounds like I’m saying the Democrats are angels and the Republicans are devils. I’m not. There are plenty of Democrats who stomp on the backs of the underprivileged and plenty of Republicans who spend their days providing crucial services to those who are suffering, regardless of what the victims look like or believe.

What I am saying is that there is both a Democratic and a Republican claim about how we should act, and they differ from one another. Both are attractive, but for different reasons.

It’s a lot easier to live in a Fuck them world, and it promises to be more interesting: there’s obvious conflict in a Fuck them worldview, and as the ratings for Honey Boo Boo demonstrate, conflict itself is exciting, regardless of its content.

Living in a world where everyone is treated with dignity and respect, and where the only sanctioned conflict is against an act of injustice? That sounds predictable and boring.

Except reality is never predictable and boring. It’s difficult to treat people with dignity and respect, and the world is filled with acts of injustice. Ultimately, as the Buddhists have long argued, all life, regardless of race, class, or even species, is struggle, and it provides a near-constant engagement with both internal and external conflicts. If conflict is exciting, then nothing could be more exciting than deeply living one’s life, and at the end of the day, isn’t every life lived deeply by the one who is living it?

This conception of reality, where everyone is fighting both internal and external conflicts almost all the time, founds the Democratic claim that everyone deserves dignity and respect. If everyone is in the middle of some conflict, the last thing we should do is add to their troubles by making them the them of our Fuck them.

The Republicans, on the other hand, tell us not to worry about what they’re going through. Worry about us becoming more safe or economically better off, and fuck them if they get in the way.

Again, I’m not talking about actual Democrats and Republicans here. I’m talking about their advertisements for the way we should live our lives.

Unfortunately, too many people would rather watch Donald Trump say Fuck them than engage with the complexity of trying to actually understand them. And right now, those people are holding the remote control.

Jed Bartlett thinks we should persuade them to give it to us instead. But you can’t persuade someone out of a remote control. There’s only one thing we can do: take it by force, and fuck them if they get in the way.