Athens, Georgia — Throughout the day, and especially around evening news time, Atlanta’s commercial television stations are bombarding viewers in the greater metro area with paid political advertising. The primaries for Georgia governor, U.S. Senate and other races are just three weeks away.
One spot in particular jumps out. Former President Donald Trump, in a voice-over, endorses David Perdue for Georgia governor over incumbent Brian Kemp. Trump derides Kemp for refusing to find him the votes to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in 2020 and for failing to exercise his supposed authority to simply throw out the ballots.
This is, of course, a bald-faced lie — indeed, part of the “Big Lie” that is even now being investigated by a U.S. House select committee.
Mainstream media ads also amplify The Big Lie.
Even as a grand jury convenes in Atlanta to determine whether Trump criminally interfered in the election when he phoned Kemp and pressured him to alter election results.
Kemp and Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State, both Republicans who themselves had voted for Trump, simply declined to exercise powers that didn’t have. They refused to ignore recounts and facts. They refused to cheat.
But still the ad runs and runs, with Trump kvetching about what was “stolen” from him and his supporters.
How can this be? How can these TV stations keep showing attack ads that make claims that their own news anchors, both local guys and their respective network counterparts, routinely mention only with the modifiers “false” or “baseless”? Is there no “truth in advertising” requirement?
Short answer: No.
At least not where political advertising is concerned.
I emailed my concern about this a couple of days ago to WXIA-TV, the NBC affiliate in Atlanta that I most often watch for news. What can I say? I have a crush on Andrea Mitchell.
A WXIA representative got back to me this afternoon. Here’s the reply. I’m guessing you did not know this:
“The Federal Communications Commission’s political broadcast rules actually prohibit television stations from refusing or altering political advertising from any legally qualified candidate,” WXIA’s spokesperson said.
“More specifically, the FCC says that a person who has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office, is qualified to run under the appropriate federal, state or local laws to run and has met all of the other necessary qualifications to run for and hold the office they are seeking, is permitted to purchase political advertising time within 45 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general or special election in which that person is a candidate.
“Additionally, television stations cannot censor or alter the content of political ads being run in any way. The ads must be run in their original form — even if their content differs from the ordinary program content that the station would regularly air.
“A station is also prohibited from rejecting a political ad from a candidate, despite its content. As a result, broadcast stations are not responsible for the content of those particular political ads, even if the content may be demonstrably false or defamatory in nature.” (bold italics mine)
So, even if Trump accused Brian Kemp of sheep shagging or Kemp said Trump and Perdue are having an affair, the Atlanta stations would be obligated to televise their ads uncut. And so, in similar situations, would all other federally licensed commercial TV stations in other parts of the country, including yours.
And we worry what Elon Musk is going to do with Twitter.
Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He regularly shares his insights and wit at Wry Wing Politics. He’s also a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (200-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune (1986-2000). He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” by Skyhorse.
Saint Paul, Minnesota — Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen today called on the Minnesota Legislature to give $2,000 gift cards to eligible Minnesotans who “responsibly refuse” COVID-19 vaccinations for their children. Jensen, a medical doctor and former state senator, says his proposal is the best way to help families without resorting to “sick Nazi-like forced medical experimentation of the Walz regime.”
“We’re putting out a call for patriotic families who agree to keep their children free of tracker chips and DNA mutilation, and instead serve as beautiful little herd immunity enhancers,” said Jensen surrounded by unmasked young children at a news conference held in conjunction with a protest of a community vaccination event. “As a doctor, I know we must end the so-called virus the way we did before humans went soft, by fearlessly facing it maskless and trusting in God and his gift of natural herd immunity.”
The Jensen proposal comes in the wake of a recent announcement by Governor Tim Walz that his administration will provide $200 gift cards to Minnesota families who agree to vaccinate their 12- to 17-year old children. The families of vaccinated children will also be entered into a lottery for $100,000 in tuition for a Minnesota public college of their choice.
Jensen, who is seeking the Republican endorsement for governor in party caucuses that are expected to be heavily populated by vocal Trump loyalists and vaccine opponents, announced that Minnesotans who don’t get vaccinated will get $2,000 gift cards to TrumpStore, the official retail arm of the Trump Organization.
They also will be entered into a lottery for a scholarship to Trump University. Upon questioning, Jensen clarified that the scholarships will be revert to the Trump Organization in the event that the university is unable to serve the children.
In what Jensen called a prudent move to conserve tax dollars, he also indicated that the offer would not be available to citizens in Hennepin, Ramsey, St. Louis, and Cook counties.
On his website, Former President Trump praised Jensen and his proposal as “a beautiful doctor who knows a great store and university when he sees it and is going to be a great pro-Trump governor of the corrupt election-stealing fake state of Minnesota.”
Note: This post is satire, the use of humor and exaggeration to make a point. Jensen did not make this proposal. Only the part about Walz and his proposal is true.
Truth: The non-partisan fact-checking organization Politifact cited Jensen as a major source of its 2020 “Lie of the Year 2020 about coronavirus downplaying and denial. Politifact noted Jensen’s appearances on Fox News claimed that overflowing hospitals were committing Medicare fraud by overcounting COVID-19 cases. Then-President Donald Trump repeated the unsubstantiated claims as he minimized the seriousness of the COVID pandemic while other wealthy countries around the world were implementing effective public health protections.
Experts say the number of COVID deaths are likely under-counted, not over-counted, due to false negatives on tests and a lack of testing.
In May 2021, Jensen also joined U.S. Capitol insurrectionist Simone Gold and others in suing the federal government to prevent children from receiving COVID-19 vaccines. The lawsuit claims that COVID-19 poses “zero risk” to children. The suit indicates that Jensen believes “it would be reckless to subject anyone in that age group to the experimental COVID-19 vaccine” and that he believes recommending that children get vaccinated “would violate his oath as a doctor and place him in an untenable position.”
Data from the American Academy of Pediatrics shows that more than 6 million children have tested positive for Covid since the beginning of the pandemic. While children are less likely to get hospitalized and die than adults, it does happen. Children also help spread the virus to more vulnerable people.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) , 77.9% of Minnesota adults (18+) have been vaccinated.
Minnesota Republicans love to portray Minnesota as a liberal la-la land that unfairly victimizes their oppressed wealthy donors by “soaking them” with high taxes.
Not true. The reality is, Minnesota’s state and local taxes remain regressive, meaning that the rate of taxation actually decreases as incomes increase.
This is wrong. Those with higher incomes should pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes, because they can afford to do so without suffering as much of a blow, proportionally speaking, to their quality of life.
Conservatives typically point to state income tax rates to make their case, because that tax is indeed progressive. The problem with that tired old spin is that the income tax is far from the only tax. Minnesotans also pay sales, property, and excise (on alcohol, tobacco, and motor fuels) taxes, and those taxes are all very regressive. That is, those types of taxes all hit people with lower incomes much harder, as a percent of income, than they hit people with higher incomes.
So the most relevant measure of whether Minnesota’s overall tax system is based on the ability-to-pay is the effective tax rate for all state and local taxes combined. Every year, the Minnesota Department of Revenue calculates this amount. Here is what the most recent version looks like.
Here are a few important things to note:
Tax Burdens Are Decreasing, Not Increasing. Between 2018 and 2023 (projected), tax burdens are decreasing at every level of income. Remember this the next time you hear conservatives whining about “skyrocketing taxes.”
Progressivity Is Improving, But Not Enough. Between 2018 and 2023 (projected), the gap between the effective rate for the poorest and wealthiest Minnesota pay is narrowing , but it’s not a large or sufficient improvement. The arc of the moral universe is bending towards justice, but it’s a painfully slow rate-of-change.
Minnesota’s Taxes Remain Very Regressive. This is the most important thing to take away from this chart. Minnesota still has a very regressive tax system that hits poor people much harder than rich people. Minnesota’s poorest taxpayers pay a 24.7% state and local tax rate, while our wealthiest taxpayers only pay 11.6%.
Before you shrug this off, stop and really think about it. The wealthiest Minnesotans are required to pay less than half the tax burden the poorest Minnesotans are required to pay. For those who want Minnesota to be a more just and equitable place, the work is far from done.
Yes, stalwart conservative protectors of the wealthy will be quick to say, but the wealthy pay much larger tax bills than the poor! This is true. But it’s also true that when someone at the bottom of the income heap has to pay 24.7% for taxes out of their nearly empty wallet, that takes leaves a lot less to provide for their family than when the wealthiest Minnesotans only have to pay 11.6% for taxes out of their much fatter wallets and investment portfolios. The poor person may not be able to pay rent, while the rich person may only need to leave ever so slightly less to their already well-pampered scions.
Every time someone proposes asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes, wealthy news anchors, pundits, and politicians breathlessly characterize the proposal as “controversial” and “unrealistic.”
For what it’s worth, Americans disagree. For instance, a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found an overwhelming 76 percent of registered voters believe the wealthiest Americans should pay more in taxes. It might be controversial at the large donor soirees, but not most other places in America.
So when Minnesota DFL legislators propose, as they did this year, to create a new fifth tier state income tax rate of 11.15% on income above $1 million (or $500,000 for single filers), don’t fall into the trap of repeating the conservatives’ well-focus grouped “it’s soaking the rich” narrative.
Instead, look at these data and say “it’s a start.”
Minnesota Republicans are falling all over themselves to the appeal to non-maskers and non-vaxers who they apparently believe, probably correctly, will make up a majority of Republican caucus participants in the 2022 election cycle. They’re obsessed with the people in their partisan echo chambers.
Take Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen, MD, who made his name in conservative politics by questioning how serious a threat COVID was and suing to keep life-saving vaccines away from young people. Jensen is calling for businesses and citizens to engage in “civil disobedience” by ignoring experts’ vaccine and mask recommendations and requirements.
The physician turned politician who is under investigation by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice for spreading misinformation about COVID19, also wants to pass legislation to make Minnesota something called a “health freedom sanctuary state.” Dr. J was light on details about what this would mean for Minnesotans, but presumably it would ensure we all have the sacred right to infect and kill others.
Jensen is hardly alone. Throughout the pandemic, Minnesota Republicans at the state and local level have continually questioned the need for measures to protect Minnesotans against COVID. They have advocated freedom-to-infect positions similar to those used by neighboring deep red state South Dakota, which has by far the worst per capita COVID death rate in the midwest region (236 COVID deaths per 100,000 residents). Meanwhile, Governor Tim Walz’s Minnesota has one of the best in the region (142 COVID deaths per 100,000 residents).
Being opposed to masking and vaccinating is another issue that looks to be a savvy political move for Republicans during party caucuses and primaries, but potentially disastrous when it comes time to win a plurality in general elections, where Democratic and independent voters get their say.
After all, about 75 percent of Minnesotans over age 12 now have at least one dose of vaccine, and that number will be higher by election day. And national polls show large majorities of Americans back extremely tough restrictions.
64 percent support state and local governments requiring masks to be worn in all public places.
59 percent support requiring teachers to wear masks in schools.
58 percent support requiring students to wear masks in schools.
57 percent support limiting travel on airplanes to vaccinated people.
51 percent support limiting attendance to bars and restaurants to vaccinated people.
56 percent support limiting crowded gatherings — movies, sporting events, concerts– to vaccinated people.
60 percent support requiring vaccines for federal government and large business employees.
At a time when 80 percent of Americans are concerned about the spread of the COVID19 Delta variant, Minnesota Republicans are hell-bent on making opposition to restrictions their centerpiece issue. These surveys show that only about one-quarter to one-third of Americans agree with Republicans, with the remaining respondents unsure.
Oh and by the way, Minnesota’s DFL Governor Tim Walz, the person Republicans portray as being way too radical on COVID restrictions, hasn’t supported anything anywhere near as restrictive as the previously mentioned widely popular measures. Not even close. And since Republicans stripped Walz of his emergency powers in the spring of 2021, he hasn’t been able to do much of anything to protect Minnesotans.
Even if opposing safe and effective COVID protections during the deadliest pandemic in a century were savvy on a political level, it would be morally unconscionable. But it’s every bit as indefensible politically as it is morally.
So far, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has largely been a responsive caretaker governor, responding to the crises du jour rather than than actively pushing a progressive agenda and building a legacy for himself.
Governor Walz’s legacy is essentially “pissed off all sides while consumed with thankless pandemic management.” I think he did a reasonably good job managing the pandemic, but he definitely had to make enemies doing it.
One partial break from caretaker mode was his poorly named “ONECare” proposal, which would give Minnesotans the option to buy into MinnesotaCare. MinnesotaCare is a longstanding program serving low-income individuals and families who can’t get employee-sponsored health insurance and don’t quality for Medicaid, which is called Medical Assistance (MA) in Minnesota.
Giving Minnesota health insurance consumers of all income levels this additional option would ensure that every Minnesotan in every county had at least one health insurance option available to them. That’s a big deal. It also would bring more competition to an individual market that sorely needs more competition. Over time, this could result in lower premiums for consumers.
Walz has not pushed his proposal particularly hard. Meanwhile, other states’ Governors are leading their states forward.
Colorado and Nevada this year passed public option plans—government-run health insurance plans—that are set to launch in 2023 and 2026, respectively. They join Washington state, which enacted its law in 2019 and went live with its public option in January.
The early results from Washington state’s experiment are disappointing. In many parts of the state, premiums for the public option plans cost more than premiums for comparable commercial plans.
Many of the state’s hospitals have refused to take part in the public option, prompting lawmakers to introduce more legislation this year to force participation if there aren’t sufficient health insurance options in a geographic area. And consumer buy-in is also meager. In its first year of operation, the state health insurance exchange sold only 1,443 public option plans, representing fewer than 1% of all exchange policies.
Michael Marchand, chief marketing officer for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, the state’s health insurance marketplace, said it’s premature to judge the program by its first year.
During the earlier years of Obamacare, the premiums for many commercial plans were high, he pointed out. Eventually, as insurers became more knowledgeable about the markets, prices dropped, he said.
If Governor Walz would get re-engaged in this issue and actively market his plan, they could learn from the experiences of Washington and avoid it’s mistakes. For instance, in areas where there is insufficient health insurance competition, Walz could require hospitals to participate.
A MinnesotaCare buy-in option is extremely popular — only 11% oppose it, according to a Minnesota Public Radio survey. This is probably in part because it is an option. Any Minnesotan who opposes buying into MinnesotaCare — because of conservative ideology or because MinnesotaCare turns out to be expensive or poor quality — they can vote with their feet, as consumers in the state of Washington are doing.
Fighting for a MinnesotaCare buy-in option makes sense for Walz. The polls consistently show that health care is a top issue for voters, and huge majorities consistently trust Democrats over Republicans on that issue.
Moreover, in the 2022 gubernatorial general election campaign Walz may very well be running against a physician, Scott Jensen. This will ensure that health care is high profile in the race. Therefore, candidate Walz needs to be seen fighting for better health care, and this proposal gives him that platform.
If a MinnesotaCare buy-in option passes, Walz finally has a legacy beyond pandemic management. If Senate Republicans kill it, which seems likely, Walz has a great political argument to make while running for reelection and trying to retake the Senate: “I worked my ass off to give you another health insurance option and bring you some price competition, but Republicans like Scott Jensen opposed it on orders from private insurance lobbyists. If you want to more options and more price competition, vote for me and change the Senate leadership.”
Pushing a public option is a great political option for Walz. So why is he so damn cautious about it?
Trying to pick your least favorite type of Trump supporter is not easy. The competition is stiff, and there are strong arguments for all of them.
Trumpist Typology
Greed Trumpists. There’s the Greed Trumpists, who will put up with any Trump outrage – kids torn from mothers and put in cages, white supremacy encouragement, coordinating with foreign enemies interfering in our democracy — to get a tax cut, even a tax cut that represents relative crumbs compared to the mountains of loaves lavished on billionaires.
Personality Cult Trumpists. There are the Personality Cult Trumpists, many of whom watched far too many episodes of The Apprentice with an uncritical eye. They find Trump entertaining and embrace the myth of Trump’s deal-making skills and “only I can fix it” hucksterism, despite his pandemic response debacle and tax returns that expose Trump as a bumbler of epic proportions.
Bible-Thumpin’ Trumpists. Then there’s the Bible-Thumpin’ Trumpists. They ignore of the dozens of Trump’s extreme anti-Christian actions—serial sexual abuse and infidelity and cutting food subsidies for the poor to name just a couple — that make a mockery of the Golden Rule and the Beatitudes in order to hoard as many Fallwell-endorsed judges as possible.
Tribal Trumpists. Who can forget the Tribal Trumpists, who will let Trump take their loved one’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) health protections and Social Security benefits just to be able to say that their Red Tribe of “real Americans” stuck it to the Blue Tribe of “libtard snowflakes.” Go team!
Changeophobe Trumpists. Changeophobe Trumpists are fearful of our fast-changing world and ever-nostalgic about the glories of what they view as the good old days of their childhoods. They are particularly susceptible to Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again” by keeping coal dirty, light bulbs inefficient, America white, global competition at bay, and bigotry unchallenged.
Racist Trumpists. The Racist Trumpists are obviously a very strong contender for least favorite. They insist that Trump’s villifying of immigrants and people of color is a “refreshing rejection of political correctness,” instead of a wink and a nod to the full spectrum of racists, from those of us who are sometimes lousy at recognizing systemic racism to full-blown white supremacist activists like the Proud Boys, Aryan Nations, Volksfront, American Freedom Party, Ku Klux Klan, and White Aryan Resistance.
Thug Trumpists. And then there are Thug Trumpists, who can’t recognize the difference between bullying and actual strength, and gravitate towards authoritarian personalities to serve as a binky to make them feel more secure in the face of their overblown fears of our changing and more diverse nation.
False Equivalence Trumpists
But the last month of the election is when we unfortunately have to be hearing a lot from perhaps my least favorite type of Trump supporters — the False Equivalence Trumpists. They continually declare that “both sides do it” to make their vote for the most bigoted, incompetent, and corrupt President in U.S. history seem somehow defensible.
Since last night’s presidential debate, the False Equivalence Trumpists were out in full force, complaining about “both candidates” being equally bad and lamenting that they “once again have to choose the lesser of two evils.”
Though they carry an air of intellectual superiority in their assertions, False Equivalence Trumpists are among the most intellectually lazy of all of the Trumpists types.
Obviously, both candidates have sold out to a special interest, lied, supported an unwise policy, or made a big mistake. Same as it ever was. But from that truth, False Equivalence Trumpists quickly jump to the safety of “both sides do it equally,” instead of digging into the facts to determine which candidate does it more. In a democracy, doing that kind of qualitative differentiation is a voter’s duty, and they consistently shrink from it.
Because False Equivalence Trumpists find it distasteful to be held accountable for supporting an imperfect candidate, they stubbornly cling to the truth of “both sides do it,” but not the whole truth. The whole truth is that any fair-minded analysis comparing Trump and Biden will show that Trump is much more incompetent, much more bigoted, much more dishonest, and much more corrupt.
But this group of Americans lacks either the judgement to see that truth, or the courage to speak it.
The False Equivalence Trumpists are top-of-mind right now because, we are entering the final month of the presidential campaign with about 6 percent of the voters somehow still undecided. Tragically, these pathologically indecisive Americans could be decisive on November 3rd. The fact that the fate of the nation, and maybe even the planet, falls to this group of Americans is crazy making and terrifying.
In the wake of the George Floyd murder, I’m appreciative that the Minnesota Legislature finally is about to pass some police reforms. But I’m also pretty underwhelmed.
Based on reports I’ve heard, it seems heavy on mandates and light on investments in changing the face of law enforcement. The compromise package that will soon pass includes things such as requiring officers to intervene in cases of abuse, banning choke holds and “warrior training,” and having a better statewide database on abuse cases.
That’s all good stuff, as far as it goes. The problem is, it doesn’t go very far. The New York Times summarizes the debate and the unfinished business:
“Ultimately, legislators could not reach a deal that reconciled the Democrats’ calls for far-reaching changes to police oversight with Republican leaders who supported a shorter list of “common-sense police reforms” that included banning chokeholds in most situations and requiring officers to stop their colleagues from using unreasonable force.
Democrats said the plan passed by the Republican-led Senate consisted of tepid half-steps that were already in place in most law-enforcement agencies and did not rise to the moment’s calls for dramatic action. Republicans balked at the proposals passed by the Democrat-controlled House to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons and put the state’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, in charge of prosecuting police killings.
Republican leaders later said they had agreed to alter arbitration proceedings when officers are accused of misconduct, but Democrats said it was not enough.
All week, state legislators held emotional hearings on proposals to increase oversight of how the police use force and are disciplined; change the process for firing officers; and explore alternatives to policing, such as sending social workers to respond when people in mental distress need help.”
What About Ending Marijuana Prohibition?
I was disappointed that putting the marijuana prohibition question on the ballot wasn’t part of this session focused on preventing future police abuses. After all, the ACLU has documented that marijuana prohibition is a root cause of much racial profiling and police abuse:
A Black person in Minnesota is 5.4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person. Minnesota ranks 8th for largest racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests. In 2018, marijuana possession arrests accounted for 35% of all drug arrests here.
Although the overwhelming majority of Minnesota counties have racial disparities, Goodhue, Olmstead, St. Louis, Ramsey and Carver Counties have the worst records, ranging from Black people being 7.07 times more likely to face arrest than whites in Carver County to 11.19 times more likely in Goodhue County.
It’s clear what we need to do. Let’s take marijuana enforcement off of police officer’s plates, because marijuana is much less dangerous and addictive than legal alcohol, and it’s leading to much police abuse.
I understand this would have been a very tough sell with Senate Republican leadership, but this topic should have at least been part of the discussion. Legislators should have seized this educable moment to further build already strong public support for legalizing marijuana. (KSTP 2018 survey: 61% support marijuana legalization, including 54% of Republicans)
Reforms That Require Substantial Investment
Also missing from the list of reforms are any proposals to professionalize policing that costs more than a nominal amount of money. Spending money is something that both sides avoid, because neither side wants to take the political hit for proposing offsetting spending cuts and/or tax increases.
For instance, how about paying for a rigorous De-escalation and Racial Justice Re-Training Academy, to give every Minnesota law enforcement officer in the state extensive training about how to do their job more respectfully, lawfully, safely, and effectively. How about requiring all officers to subsequently pass a training proficiency test to prove they did more than doze and wise-crack their way through the training?
To keep this re-training top-of-mind and up-to-date, how about also funding biennial supplemental training courses, such as we require for other professions with life-and-death powers (e.g. Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits for medical professionals)?
How about a Police Professionalization Fund to establish financial incentives for local governments that hire college-educated officers and/or officers from under-represented communities?
How about a Hometown Officer Fund to pay for moving expenses for officers who move their home into the neighborhoods they are serving?
(Note, a couple of these good ideas came from Wry World Messrs. Lambert and Austin.)
Think about it. More officers who are college educated people of color whose family lives in the community they serve and have extensive and regular training about how to be a different kind of public servant. All of that coupled with the changes in the current bill would go a long ways toward changing the toxic culture in many law enforcement departments.
But all of those things cost money. The State should be funding them because many unenlightened and/or financially strapped local governments are unlikely to do these things on their own without financial help.
But apparently legislators from both parties still aren’t willing to put their money where their mouths are. So unfortunately there’s much more police reform work to do in the 2021 session.
When it comes to addressing racial equity issues in education, health care, and housing, racism is a barrier. But I would argue that fiscal conservatism is an even bigger barrier.
In Minnesota’s policymaking debates about racial equity, this is the unacknowledged “elephant in the room.” It is what makes all of the hopeful dialogue about addressing racial equity feel hollow to me.
DFL Governor Tim Walz, Speaker Melissa Hortman, and many others deserve a lot of credit for leading on police reform. Despite the failure to pass police reforms during the recent special session, I suspect they’ll eventually enact some police reforms. This is in large part because police reform is relatively inexpensive.
But beyond police reform, I’m pessimistic when it comes to DFLers being willing to address other major forms of systemic racism in society, such as in health care, housing and education.
That’s because most DFLers and all Republicans seem completely unwilling to make the case for higher taxes.
Elected officials need to get courageous and make the case that privileged white people like me need to pay higher taxes in order to build a more equitable state. I’m not naive about this. I’ve worked in and around politics for thirty five years, so I know tax-raising is excruciatingly painful for politicians, particularly in an election year. But if we truly care about making racial justice progress in this agonizing “educable moment,” there truly is no other way.
To cite just one example, Minnesota has long had some of the worst achievement gaps in the nation, gaps that open as early as age one. The roots of k-12 achievement gaps are early education opportunity gaps. Year after year, about 35,000 low-income Minnesota children can’t access the high quality early learning and care programs that they need to get prepared for school. Those 35,000 left-behind low-income kids are the children who are most likely to fall into achievement gaps in the school years and other types of disparities throughout their lifetimes. The lack of new revenue is why our 35,000 most vulnerable children continue to be left behind every year.
Similar tales can be told about many other issues, such as health care and housing. We know what to do in those areas as well, but we don’t do it, because the changes would necessitate requiring Minnesotans to pay higher taxes.
I understand why politicians are afraid of being branded tax raisers. But the inescapable truth is that lawmakers’ long standing insistence on perpetuating the fiscal status quo is perpetuating systemic racism.
So we need to start talking honestly about the fiscal side of these racial justice issues too. Until we do, progressive leaders’ lofty rhetoric about racial justice gains is just idle chatter.
We’re all thinking it, but are afraid to say it out loud. If Trump loses the Electoral College in a close race and refuses to leave the White House on January 20, 2021, claiming he actually won but was cheated, what will the guys in and around the White House with the guns do?
It feels paranoid to even discuss this. This is what people living under dictatorships in Moldova, Sri Lanka, the Congo, and Gambia discuss, not citizens of the self-described “greatest democracy on earth.” America has long have been admired for its ability to follow-up bitter political campaigns with the peaceful transition of power. Our ability to consistently do this is arguably our single greatest achievement as a nation.
But with Trump, we can no longer be sure that the peaceful transition of power will be a given. Keep in mind what Trump’s former right hand man Michael Cohen said: “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power.”
Trump himself, has more than said as much, as documented by The Atlantic:
“In December (2019), Trump told a crowd at a Pennsylvania rally that he will leave office in ‘five years, nine years, 13 years, 17 years, 21 years, 25 years, 29 years …’ He added that he was joking to drive the media ‘totally crazy.’
Just a few days earlier, Trump had alluded to his critics in a speech, ‘A lot of them say, ‘You know he’s not leaving’ … So now we have to start thinking about that because it’s not a bad idea.’
This is how propaganda works. Say something outrageous often enough and soon it no longer sounds shocking.”
One thing is almost certain: Even if Trump suffers a clear defeat in the Electoral College, he will still claim mass cheating. Remember, this is the guy who made the false assertion that “millions” voted illegally in California, and that was after he won the Electoral College.
If he loses the Electoral College, and subsequently faces the prospect of multiple criminal prosecutions as a civilian, his claims of fraud will get even more desperate, expansive, and outrageous. The question is, will armed authorities in and around the White House listen?
(By the way, I’m being vague here, because I’m not sure who would ultimately be responsible for removing the President. Secret Service? U.S. Marshals? The military? We don’t have historical precedence to guide us here. )
Trusted Third Parties Needed
By January 20, 2021 at noon, the Secret Service, U.S. Marshal Service, and U.S. military no longer would be under Trump’s control, unless they decided that Trump’s claims of cheating were correct, and that Trump therefore was reelected and is still their boss.
Will those armed authorities agree with Trump’s claims of election cheating? I’m not sure. “Was Trump cheated in the election or not” is not something that will be easy for armed authorities to judge. After all, they’re not experts in election law or in a position to investigate claims of election fraud.
In trying to sort out the Trump claims of election cheating, I would hope that the guys with the guns will look to third parties who they find credible. The courts obviously will be in play, but that will take quite a bit of time to reach a final decision in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In addition to the courts, we need third parties that can act more quickly than the courts, and be credible with the American people and the armed officials who may need to remove Trump on January 20th.
Bipartisan Presidents Weigh In Jointly
Here’s my hope: We need a bipartisan group of former Presidents from the past three decades to unanimously weigh in on this by mid-November.
Specifically, I propose that Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle (the second in command under George H.W. Bush, because he passed away), and Jimmy Carter privately pledge to each other right now that they will stand together to counter any false claims of mass fraud and publicly affirm the presidential election outcome as soon as it becomes apparent.
I understand that it could be that the election outcome won’t be clear enough for the quintet to make a unanimous declaration, and their decision has to be unanimous for it to carry the necessary weight. In that case, all of this is mute. (I also definitely understand that Trump could easily win reelection, and that it might not even be close enough to be contested.)
But if the bipartisan group can agree on the outcome, they should commit to jointly and publicly announcing the outcome in November, before Trump has a chance to send several weeks to sell his conspiracy claims unrebutted.
Why ex-presidents, and a vice president proxy? First, their political careers are effectively over, so they can’t credibly be accused of wanting to further their political careers. Second, they’re bipartisan, so it will be more difficult for Trump and his cult to marginalize them as a “partisan group.” Third, they have knowledge and credibility on the issue of fair elections, because they’ve worked in that world up close for decades. Fourth, ex-Presidents have extra gravitas, so their announcement will feel weighty, newsworthy, and historic. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the Secret Service and Generals are used to following these former Commanders-in-Chief, and likely have residual respect for at least some of them.
If the nightmare scenario I describe here plays out, an early bipartisan declaration of the past three decades’ ex-Presidents won’t guarantee that the guys with the guns will do the right thing and remove Trump. But it’s the best thing I can come up with to try to avoid an event that could mark the end of democracy in America. For something that historically consequential, we need a plan.
When it comes to handling the coronavirus pandemic crisis, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who issued a stay at home order on March 25, has earned 82% approval ratings, compared to 34% for President Trump, according to a Survey USA/KSTP-TV survey. Up until this point, stay at home orders seem to have actually been a political benefit to leaders courageous and wise enough to invoke them, not a burden. For instance as of early May, only about 20% of Minnesotans wanted the Governor’s stay at home order lifted.
But that is almost sure to change over time. In part because of President’s Trump’s constant call to ease restrictions, and calls for the public to resist them, we’re already seeing Americans getting more antsy, as evidenced by a recent Gallup poll that shows the number of people avoiding small gatherings decreasing by four points among Democrats, 10 points among Independents, and 16 points among Republicans.
Also a Unacast report card measuring social distancing activity, which earlier gave Minnesota an “A” grade, has downgraded Minnesota to a “D-” grade, a crushing blow to the earnest promoters of Minnesota exceptionalism.
Picking up on that sentiment, and following their President’s call to “LIBERATE Minnesota” from pandemic protections, Minnesota House Republicans are increasingly criticizing Walz’s stay at home order, and using a bonding bill as ransom to get it lifted. I’m not convinced “we’re fighting to stimulate the economy by blocking job-creating bonding projects” is the most persuasive argument, but that’s what they’re going with.
So, should Governor Walz further loosen distancing rules? As of May 6, the experts at the Harvard Global Health Institute say that only nine states have done enough to warrant loosening restrictions — Alaska, Utah, Hawaii, North Dakota, Oregon, Montana, West Virgina, and Wyoming. The Harvard analysts find that Minnesota is not one of them, another blow to Minnesota exceptionalism. Specifically, experts find that Minnesota needs to be doing more testing and seeing lower rates of infection from the tests.
There might be some modest steps Walz can take to ease the political pressure and help Minnesotans feel like they’re making progress. I’m not remotely qualified to identify them, but for what little it’s worth here is some wholly uninformed food-for-thought anyway:
For those with low risk factors — people who are young and healthy and are not essential workers — maybe the good Governor could allow masked and socially distanced haircuts. (Can you tell my new Donny Osmond look is starting to get to me?)
For the same group, maybe Walz could allow masked and distanced visits with members of the immediate family — offspring, siblings, and parents. (Can you tell I miss my daughter?)
Those two things seem to be particularly stressful to people. While far from risk-free, they aren’t recklessly risky. These kinds of small adjustments might help people (i.e. me) become more patient and compliant when it comes to more consequential rules.
Overall, Walz should listen to experts and largely keep stay at home orders in place until the experts’ guidelines are met. A new spike in infections and deaths will seriously harm consumer confidence and the economy, and that shouldn’t be risked. At this stage, most Minnesotans are not likely to flock back to bars, restaurants, malls and large entertainment venues anyway, regardless of what Walz allows.
It’s not an exaggeration to say our election system is seriously ill. Hurdle after hurdle exist on the path to voting, and millions regularly choose to sit out the chaos. Layered on top of all of that, we now have a lethal pandemic that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), predicts will make an encore appearance in the fall, precisely when we’re holding one of the most consequential elections in our history.
All in all, it’s not great a look for the self-proclaimed “greatest democracy on earth.”
But suppose someone told us they had developed a magical elixir for our election problems. I’m talking even better than Trump Water™ and hydroxychloroquine. Something to eliminate the most significant hurdles, such as the significant time and timing issues. Something to end waiting in long lines. Something to allow the “new normal” Stay At Home sensibilities to safely coexist with Election Day.
People with an even passing familiarity with this issue understand that we have that magical elixir right under our noses – vote-by-mail, or vote-at-home. Under such a model, voters are sent their ballots in the mail. They don’t have to go to polling places to obtain them. Then, they can return them in person or via mail.
That’s it. No traveling to polling places. No lines. No work schedule conflicts. No child care barriers. No discriminating election judges. No tight time constraints. No requirement to enter a potentially dangerous COVID hot spot. It’s not a panacea, but it would be a significant improvement.
Yeah But
Untested, you say? We have already been doing vote-by-mail successfully for decades. We’ve offered vote-by-mail to millions of soldiers, absentee voters in all 50 states, many voters in California, and all voters in Oregon, Colorado, Utah, and Hawaii.
Vote-by-mail is old news. It is tried-and-true. In places where vote-by-mail is used, there is no great movement to go back to a polling place-centric model, because vote-by-mail works better.
Expensive, you say? Without the need for expensive polling place staffing, machines, and infrastructure, vote-by-mail saves between $2-$5 per voter, according to research out of Colorado. Cost considerations shouldn’t be the primary reason we implement vote-by-mail, but they also shouldn’t be a reason that we don’t.
Fraudulent, you say? In the wide swath of America that is already voting by mail, there is no evidence of fraud, and bar code and automated record-matching technology continue to make it more secure than ever. The non-partisan Politifact finds that Trump’s frequent claims of fraud are, well, fraudulent.
This lack of widespread fraud shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, who wants to risk a $25,000 fine, as they have in Oregon, over gaining a single vote, or a few votes, in a pool of millions? As it turns out, almost no one.
Democratic plot, you say? The non-partisan do-gooders at Vote At Home explain this one well:
Utah, the 4th full Vote at Home state, is decidedly “red.” Republicans also dominate Montana and Arizona, where 70% of voters automatically are mailed their ballots as “permanent absentee” voters. Nebraska and North Dakota, also Republican dominated states, have also expanded the use of vote at home options. While Oregon and Washington, the first two states where VAH initially took hold, are today more “blue than red,” both states have elected Secretaries of State who are Republicans – and big fans of this system.
On a more tactical level, the Republican party, whose base is disproportionately elderly, should probably reevaluate this issue in the pandemic era. If I were a Republican turnout strategist, I would worry about depending on their huge block of frightened elderly Americans being willing to bring their over-flowing basket of comorbidities into crowded polling venues during a pandemic.
But you know what? As a Democrat, I want those elderly MAGA-hat wearing seniors to have easy, safe access to voting. I want as many people voting as possible. If my party can’t win a majority of the votes in an election where everyone has an equal opportunity to safely and fairly participate, then my party needs to get it’s ass back to the drawing board to come up with better policy ideas.
Other questions, you say? Read this well-sourced document produced by Vote At Home. Spoiler alert: None of the other excuses hold up to reason or research either.
Don’t Get Your Hopes Up, Yet
The reasons to adopt universal vote-by-mail are patently obvious, and an overwhelming majority of Americans of all political stripes agree. A recent Reuters/Ipsos survey found that nearly three-fourths (72%) of Americans, including about two-thirds (65%) of Republicans, support mail-in ballots to protect voters from respiratory disease.
The experts at the Centers for Disease Control agree:
Encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations. * Encourage mail-in methods of voting if allowed in the jurisdiction.
But as with so many issues with overwhelming majority support – such as expanding access to Medicare, higher taxes for the wealthiest 1% and corporations, background checks for gun purchasers, marijuana prohibition, helping Dreamers become citizens, cutting Social Security and Medicare, higher minimum wage, paid maternity leave, and more – Trump, McConnell and their supporting cast in the U.S. Senate are the barrier. Cue David Byrne: “Same as it ever was.”
None of those things will happen until Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate Majority are removed in the fall. None. In Minnesota, Senate Republicans are similarly promising to block a wise vote-by-mail proposal recently floated by Secretary of State Steve Simon.
So while many people around the world are required to put their lives at risk in armed conflicts to establish or preserve their democracy, millions of Americans in 2020 likewise could be required by Republicans to put their lives at risk in deadly germ-infested schools, churches, community centers, and fire stations to preserve their democracy.
Give me democracy, or give me death? In a vast sea of Trump-McConnell era outrages, forcing Americans into this life-and-death choice on November 3rd may be the most outrageous development of all.
I’ve come to realize that I’ve been partially wrong about Governor Tim Walz. Based on what I had seen pre-pandemic, I had him pegged as a politically cautious guy who inevitably gravitated towards a relatively modest “split-the-difference” caretaker agenda. From a progressive’s standpoint, he seemed like a competent Governor, but far from a bold one.
Often Cautious
After all, prior to the coronavirus pandemic, Walz had exhibited an abundance of caution that wasn’t comforting to progressives. For instance, Walz came into office proposing an exciting MinnesotaCare Buy-In Option for Minnesotans who can’t get health coverage from employers or the government. Progressives cheered. But Walz didn’t seem to fight particularly visibly or hard for it.
Likewise, Walz has expressed support for legalization of marijuana for adults. Again, progressives cheered. But Walz rarely uses anything close to the full measure of his powerful “bully pulpit” and political influence to move public opinion on that key social justice issue.
In the 2019 session, Walz wanted to raise much more revenue to deliver improved services. Instead, he ended up with lower overall revenue. He caved relatively quickly to Republican demands and walked away without one penny of the gas tax increase he sought, while giving Republicans an income tax cut and a 10% cut in the provider tax, which is needed to fund health care programs.
At a time when DFLers controlled the House and the Governor’s office, the GOP-controlled Senate somehow was given a”no new taxes” outcome that would make Tim Pawlenty proud, and Governor Walz declared victory.
Why has Walz been so cautious? My theory is that he is so infatuated with his “One Minnesota” sloganeering from his 2018 campaign that he has been afraid to challenge conservatives and moderates in rural areas of the state.
Bold On Pandemic Response
However, lately Walz has been under heavy fire from those rural Minnesotans about his wise decision to close bars and restaurants statewide. Since most Minnesota counties still have few or no coronavirus cases, the bar and restaurant closures strike short-sighted rural Minnesotans as overkill, and Republican politicians are always all too happy to encourage rural victimhood and resentment.
“While we understand the necessity of Governor Walz to lead in this time of crisis, that leadership should not be unilateral and unchecked,” (Republican Senate Majority Leader Paul) Gazelka said in a statement.
Several lawmakers, all Republicans, have expressed concerns about the impact of Walz’s orders on small businesses in their towns in Greater Minnesota.
“The governor’s order puts these small businesses in an impossible position,” state Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, said in a statement addressing the closings in the hospitality industry. “These small businesses, and their many hourly wage earners, will undoubtedly suffer because of this order. I urge the governor to reconsider the financial impact of his order on small business owners that concurrently has the potential to make them criminals for simply trying to earn a living.”
To his credit, on pandemic response issues Walz has consistently put public health above politics. He understood that ordering closures on a partial county-by-county basis would be unfair and ineffective. After all, irresponsible citizens in counties were restaurants and bars were closed would simply travel across county borders to eat and drink out, which would create new pandemic hot-spots in previously uncontaminated Minnesota counties.
Thanks to Walz’s leadership, on March 24 Minnesota ranked in the top ten of states with the most aggressive policies for limiting the rapid spread of coronavirus. A lot has changed since these rankings came out, but Walz seems very likely to issue a shelter-in-place order sometime this week, which should keep Minnesota relatively high in the rankings.
It would be tempting for Walz to view restaurant and bar closing through a short-term political lens, as the Governors in red states such as Wyoming, Mississippi, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Missouri seem to be doing. It would be easier to keep some or all of Minnesota’s bars and restaurants open, and let other states leaders do the heavy lifting when it comes to pandemic management.
But Walz isn’t taking that politically expedient approach, and the economic and political fallout from all of this could potentially cost him his political career.
I certainly hope that doesn’t happen, but if it does, it’s a relatively small price to pay to prevent Minnesota hospital patients from suffering the kind of horrific meltdowns being seen in Italy, where physicians are reportedly forced to deny care to suffocating people over 60 because of lack of medical capacity.
Trying to avoid scenes like that are well worth whatever political price Walz pays. Here’s hoping that the newly self-quarantined Governor stays healthy, and that a plurality of Minnesotans will eventually appreciate his impressive display of political courage at this crucial moment in Minnesota history.
The 2020 elections are the most important elections of my lifetime, and potentially the most important in American history. Will we replace the most corrupt, bigoted, and incompetent President of our times, and his shameless congressional enablers, or will we go further down the road to authoritarianism and corporatism? That sounds melodramatic, but given what we’ve learned about Trump over the last three years, it’s not an exaggeration.
The stakes are high, so liberals need to step up their game.
This isn’t about trashing liberals. Liberals have done a lot of great things for America. At a time when all of these things were quite unpopular, liberals had enough vision, courage, and commitment to pass Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the minimum wage, marriage equality, civil rights, voting rights, environmental protections, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
But we grassroots liberals also can be also our own worst enemies. To win in 2020, we need to make five New Years resolutions to do better than we did in 2016.
STOP THE PETTY, PERSONAL ATTACKS. With hundreds of substantive reasons to criticize Trump and his lackeys, there is no reason to stoop to snotty attacks about personal issues like the President’s complexion, hair, waistline, hand size, penis size, verbal slips, and misspellings. The same goes for personally insulting his supporters.
Among the moderate swing voters who will decide the outcome of this election, those kinds of personal shots inadvertently create sympathy for Trump and others who don’t deserve swing voters’ sympathy. I get that they are cathartic, and sometimes tongue-in-cheek. But they’re also and self-defeating in the end, and therefore self-indulgent, so liberals need to get better at taking a pass on the personal shots.
STOP THE CANNABILISM.
Liberals also need to be mindful of Ronald Reagan’s 11th
Commandment, “thou shall not speak ill of other Republicans.”
I understand the temptation to wage civil war. My top presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, has already dropped out of the race, and my second choice, Cory Booker, doesn’t look like he will last much beyond Iowa. Having to go to Plan C is deeply disappointing to me. Having to go to Plan D, E, F, G, H, I, J, or K, a distinct possibility in a field this large, likely will be even more disappointing to me.
In the end, I realize that I am unlikely to be in love with my Democratic Party nominee. But if I can’t be with the one I love, honey, I’ll love the one I’m with. Unless we learn something dramatically scandalous about one of the Democratic candidates in the coming months, I’m pledging to myself that I won’t trash other Democratic candidates, vote for a third party candidate, or sit out the election. For a long time, I’ve even been making monthly donations to the eventual nominee, whomever that ends up being, via the Unify or Die fund.
All liberals should make a resolution to forgo intra-party cannibalism, because it greatly increases the chances that we have four even more catastrophic years with the most corrupt, bigoted, and incompetent President of our times. That can’t happen, so we all have to suck it up and pledge to support the candidate that prevails in the nominating process.
STOP THE SHINY OBJECT CHASING. We all know that President Trump is going to do and say hundreds of things before the election that are mock-worthy and outrageous, but probably are not issues that are going to sway swing voters or motivate non-voters. Every moment we spend talking about those side issues –say, a funny golf story, a boneheaded gaffe, a stupid joke at a rally, a silly exchange with an athlete or celebrity–is a moment we’re not talking about issue differentiators that are more likely to influence voting decisions.
What Trump actions are more deserving of our focus? His giving lavish, deficit-spiking tax cuts to the wealthy. His separating young children from parents and caging them. His taking birth control and other types of reproductive health care away from women. His blocking legislation to control pharmaceutical prices. His cowardly refusal to cross the NRA to support common sense gun safety laws. His erratic Russian-friendly foreign policy decisions in dangerous places like Iran, Syria, the Ukraine, and North Korea. His repeated attempts to repeal Affordable Care Act protections, such as preexisting condition protections for 133 million Americans.
Polls show those kinds of issues work against Trump with swing voters and non-voters, so those kinds of issues should be the primary focus of conversations at the break room, bar, barbeque, or online chat.
With such a steady stream of Trump’s outrages, it’s difficult to not take the bait from the ever-outrageous tweet stream. I’m far from perfect on this front. But we liberals have to get better about focusing on the issues that matter the most to swing voters and non-voters, and that means shrugging off a lot of the side issues.
FOCUS ON ROOT CAUSES. When deciding how to spend time and resources, liberals should also consider focusing on the root causes of Trump’s electoral success. For instance, rather than only supporting individual candidates, consider supporting groups like Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight 2020 and the ACLU. Those groups are battling Republicans’ relentless voter suppression efforts aimed at people of color, which threaten to swing close elections to Trump and his political toadies now and for decades to come.
Ensuring that every vote counts and voting is easier will help progressive local, state and federal candidates up and down the ballot. It will help preserve our representative democracy for future generations. Supporting those groups isn’t as obvious to most of us as supporting parties and candidates, but it’s every bit as important.
SPEAK OUT EARLY AND OFTEN. Speaking out against Trump and Republicans in person and on social media is frowned upon by Americans who are “non-political,” ignorant, and/or in denial about what is happening to America. That can make speaking out about Trump unpleasant and exhausting. Goodness knows, no one relishes being called, gasp, “political,” and being accosted by trolls.
But in America today, we have politicians who are all too willing to separate brown-skinned kids from their parents and put them cages indefinitely. We have politicians trying to repeal health protections for 133 million Americans. We have a party that gave a massive, deficit-ballooning tax gift to the wealthiest 1% at a time when we have the worst income inequality since 1928 and record deficits. We have a President taking birth control and other reproductive rights away from women. If we don’t vote out this crew, we could easily have much worse developments on the horizon in a second, even more unhinged Trump term.
All of which is to say one person’s “politics” is another person’s life, livelihood, and rights. A while back, writer Naomi Shulman helped put this issue in proper perspective for me:
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mother was born in Munich in 1934, and spent her childhood in Nazi Germany surrounded by nice people who refused to make waves. When things got ugly, the people my mother lived alongside chose not to focus on “politics,” instead busying themselves with happier things. They were lovely, kind people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away.”
I’m not saying liberals have be jerks and nags to their friends and relatives. We don’t have to be the turd in the punch bowl. In most cases, we should be calm, respectful, factual and measured when we speak out, even when the respect isn’t deserved and returned, because that’s usually the best way to win hearts, minds, and votes.
But we do have to speak out, because silence implies consent. As Martin Luther King famously said of another movement in another time:
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
The same is true of the movement to save America from Donald Trump and his Republican enablers. I’m about as conflict averse as they come, but unfortunately that excuse just is not going to cut it with so many lives hanging in the balance.
So my fellow liberals, this New Years Eve raise a glass of your favorite truth serum, and make some challenging resolutions that nudge you outside of your comfort zone. Your country needs you now more than ever.
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.” – Walter Scott
And so it goes with congressional Republicans defending President Trump’s indefensible arms-for-dirt bribery scheme.
They can’t possibly defend it on the substance, because the substance doesn’t pass the smell test with 70 percent of Americans. At the same time, they can’t fathom not defending Trump, because they live in fear that he might mean-tweet and primary them back to, gasp, civilian life.
Therefore, they use a constantly changing array of truly preposterous defenses to get through the humiliating interviews they’re forced to do. The defenses are maddening and highly entertaining, and these are a few of my favorites:
Top 10 Worst Defenses
Transparency! Righteous congressional Republicans stormed a secure committee room and dramatically demanded public hearings!
But when televised public hearings were launched a few days later, the same Republicans suddenly switched to demanding “an end to the media circus!”
Hearsay! This one was very hot this week. Trump defenders demanded that they hear from someone who directly saw the bribery. “Hearsay,” they say.
Of course, there are several problems with that. First, the White House-verified call record clearly documents the bribery, directly in the President’s own words. It’s not hearsay, it’s Trumpsay.
Second, nonpartisan, decorated combat war veteran Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was on the infamous call, and he’ll be testifying soon.
Finally, Trump apologists also say it’s perfectly fine for Trump, Mulvaney, Bolton, and others, who do have firsthand knowledge of the bribery, to refuse to testify about what they observed. You can’t try to have it both ways and be expected to be taken seriously.
Whistleblower! They’re outraged that someone blew the whistle on the bribery, and demand that he be publicly pilloried, even when the law says he is guaranteed anonymity and protection, and even after a long list of named, credible, nonpartisan officials are publicly confirming everything about which the whistleblower was whistling.
This initially might have had some political traction when the whistleblower was standing alone, but after all of this corroborating testimony, it makes no sense.
Incompetence! This one is especially delicious. Lindsey Graham and others have continually asserted that Trump and his team couldn’t possibly have committed bribery, because, well, they’re obviously far too inept to commit bribery.
“What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward the Ukraine, it was incoherent … They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.”
While incompetence is always a plausible theory when it comes to Trump and his team, corruption is actually the one skill Trump that very clearly has mastered throughout his life.
Also, the White House’s own call record plainly shows Trump’s bribery: After the military aid is mentioned, Trump immediately followed up with “I would like you to do us a favor, though.”
Failed Crime=No Crime! Media darling Nikki Haley is among those who have said Trump is innocent of bribery because his bribery efforts failed after the bribery scheme exposed.
Thousands of prisoners whose criminal endeavors were unsuccessful wish mightily that this was somehow a legitimate defense. It is not.
Impeachment=SERIOUS! Many say that impeachment is only for serious offenses and this clearly isn’t a serious offense.
I’m not sure I can think of a more serious example of presidential abuse of power than this: Illegally redirecting hundreds of millions of congressionally dedicated U.S. tax dollars to bribe a desperate foreign leader — who is under attack by Russia, a sworn enemy of the U.S., and has thousands of his troops’ lives and his nation’s existence on the line — to dig up political dirt on his opponent and interfere in an American election.
That’s pretty much a greatest hits of impeachable offenses in that run-on sentence, and it doesn’t even mention the cover-up — altering and burying records, witness tampering, and refusing to honor subpoenas. Anyone who thinks that isn’t serious isn’t a serious person.
Tradeoffs=Normal Foreign Policy. White House Chief of Staff Mick “Get Over It, He Did It!” Mulvaney is among many Republicans who shrug this off by noting that trade-offs are proposed all the time in the course of foreign policy.
The problem, of course, is that when Trump said “I would like you to do us a favor, though” the rest of his White House-verified call record made it clear that the “us” in that sentence was actually “me.” That is, the bribed “favor” wasn’t for America as a whole, it was for Trump’s personal political gain.
That’s foreign bribery, not foreign policy.
Corruption-Fighting! While Trump has never shown any interest whatsoever in rooting out corruption in corrupt nations like Russia, North Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or others that he regularly praises, his apologists swear that he is absolutely passionate about rooting out Ukranian corruption. Right.
The White House’s call record showed that the only alleged “corruption” Trump mentioned was something that just happened to benefit him personally, not corruption broadly.
But Biden! In a reprise of “but her emails,” this may be the Republicans’ favorite defense. When their interviews are melting down, they spew unsubstantiated Biden corruption conspiracy theories.
First, Biden’s effort to remove a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was not corrupt. It was official U.S. foreign policy that was done in broad daylight, and was supported by allies around the world.
Second, if an American feels a fellow American has broken the law, the only acceptable response is to report it to American law enforcement officials, not to illegally redirect tax dollars to bribe a foreign leader to effectively play the role the FBI and/or CIA should be playing.
Democracy! Many claim that impeachment is anti-democratic, since Trump was elected in 2016 and is up before the voters again in just one year.
The obvious problem with that defense is that Trump is using tax dollars to bribe foreign officials to rig said election. With foreign interference potentially rigging the election in favor Trump, stopping him through impeachment could be the only real option for Americans to hold him accountable.
Bonus Round
Oh wait, that’s ten? Already? I can only have ten? Well, if I could have more, I’d add this one to the list.
Less Outlandish! The Republicans’ lawyer Steve Castor half-heartedly tried this breathtakingly moronic defense:
“This irregular channel of diplomacy (conducted by non-government official Rudy Giuliani), it’s not as outlandish as it could be, is that correct?”
Well, yes, Mr. Castor, I guess it might have been slightly more outlandish if the bribery had been carried out by a nude Roger Stone sporting a Carmen Miranda-style fruit hat, but…
Good grief. When “not as outlandish as it could be” is the best your high-priced lawyer has, it’s pretty safe to say you’re in deep doo-doo.
In Their Partial Defense
Probably the most political palatable defense would be “bad, but not quite impeachable.” That defense is not the least bit substantively defensible, but it at least has a little political traction. After all, the matter of what is considered impeachable can be a bit murky and saying “bad, but…” at least shows Republicans are not shrugging off the whole thing.
But the thin-skinned authoritarian won’t allow his toadies to utter the “bad, but” part, so they are left to humiliate themselves for our entertainment. Pass the popcorn, please.
Throughout her career, Senator Amy Klobuchar has always stuck to political “small ball,” refusing to use her carefully hoarded political capital to fight for the proposals that will take patience to enact, but will make the biggest difference for struggling Americans. The Star Tribune explains:
But as Klobuchar pursues the pragmatic politics of constituent service and bipartisan dealmaking, she faces some frustration on the left, particularly among gay activists and environmentalists who see her playing it safe in the middle of the road.
“There are big, fundamental system change issues we have to address,” said Steve Morse of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, which has battled Klobuchar over climate change legislation and her support for a new Stillwater bridge over the St. Croix River. “Dealing with swimming pools is good and important to families, but it doesn’t change the big drivers of our society.”
So, last night it was hardly surprising to see Klobuchar taking cheap shots at Senator Elizabeth Warren over Warren’s championing of for Medicare for All, which will obviously be challenging to pass in the near term.
“The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is whether it can actually get done.”
Bam! Klobuchar is likely high-fiving her (ducking) staffers this morning. She’s in the news! She’s finally relevant!
But from a progressive standpoint, here’s the fatal flaw with Klobuchar’s lifelong approach to leadership. Once upon a time, the following things were all considered by moderates like Klobuchar to be “pipe dreams not plans,” or things that Klobuchar would not deem worthy of a fight because, in their day, they didn’t immediately have the votes to pass: Medicare, civil rights, voting rights, minimum wage increases, and marriage equality, to name just a few.
Those things just happen to be some of the crowning policy achievements of the modern Democratic Party, and they never would have been enacted if progressives with political courage hadn’t fought for them at a stage when the votes weren’t there.
Senator Klobuchar’s biggest problem isn’t that she has a sordid record of being immature and cruel to staff, as disturbing as that is to those of us who believe that character is revealed by how you act when no one is watching. Klobuchar’s even bigger problem is that she will never be the kind of courageous leader who fights the most consequential fights for ordinary families, when the fight is not yet politically advantageous to her in the short-term.
As for Medicare-for-All, 247 independent economists recently are on the record countering Klobuchar’s criticism that Senator Warren’s approach will cost too much. Those economists find that Medicare-for-All will cost Americans less than the current corporate-driven system protected by Klobuchar, not more.
In the letter, the economists underline the savings of the multi-payer insurance system in the United States, especially compared to other countries. “Public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for health care,” the letter states, “but of reducing total health care outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently.”
Economic analyses by the Mercatus Center and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, for example, have projected the Medicare for All would reduce total national health care costs by hundreds of billions of dollars each year while simultaneously guaranteeing safe, therapeutic health care for every person in the United States.
Senator Klobuchar is smart and does her homework, so she understands this truth. She also understands that if the votes aren’t immediately there for Medicare-for-All, Democrats will adjust, and try to enact Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It or Obamacare improvements until the votes for Medicare-for-All do exist. She knows that’s how legislative strategy works.
But Klobuchar, hovering at just 2% in an average of national polls, is obviously desperate. So last evening, she went with a self-serving cheap shot over the truth, and advocated the easy policy path over the more impactful policy path. To Minnesota progressives, that sure sounds familiar, which may explain why she is running in fourth place in her home state.
The Generals really do love to refight the last wars, don’t
they?
Aging generals reliving the glory days of Bill Clinton’s political wars are advocating for the blueprint that worked for Clinton in 1991. That is, they want Democrats to nominate a moderate Governor from a red state who offers a modest agenda, namely Montana Governor Steve Bullock.
“…there’s a distinctly Bill Clinton–esque sensibility to many Democratic Party veterans urging Bullock to stick with his presidential campaign, despite his failing to make the September debate stage and remaining, at best, in the margin of error of most polls. They see another popular, moderate governor of a small, conservative-leaning state who started his campaign late and is being written off, and they don’t just feel nostalgic—they feel a little déjà vu. They insist they are not being delusional. Paul Begala, the former Clinton strategist and current CNN pundit, earlier this week went on Twitter to encourage people to donate to Bullock’s campaign.
For several reasons, nominating Bullock would be a mistake.
WRONG IDEOLOGY. While Bullock offers a modest moderate agenda that fits the Clintonites’ dusty blueprint, survey research is showing that America is much more progressive in 2019 than it was in 1991. In fact, Vox recently reported that University of North Carolina James Stimson says America is more liberal than it has been in six decades:
“Public support for big government — more regulation, higher taxes, and more social services — has reached the highest level on record in one of the most prominent aggregate surveys of American public opinion.
“The annual estimate for 2018 is the most liberal ever recorded in the 68 year history of Mood,” (Stimson) wrote. “Just slightly higher than the previous high point of 1961.”
Similarly, The American Prospect recently published a long list of recent poll findings from a variety of polling firms showing that Americans overwhelmingly want liberal policies, not a re-run of Bill Clinton’s cautious “third way,” “triangulated,” Dick Morris-shaped policies.
WRONG PROFILE. Like Bill Clinton, Steve Bullock is a white male, which in 1991 was pretty much the only profile for presidential candidates that anyone could imagine being effective. But Barack Obama broke that barrier, and the electorate is much more diverse in 2019 that it was in 1991. The Democratic party is even more racially and ethnically diverse than the nation as a whole, and much more female-heavy. CNN explains:
Over the past decade, the electorate in the Democratic presidential primary has grown more racially diverse, better educated and more heavily tilted toward female voters, an extensive new CNN analysis of exit poll data has found.
Party strategists almost universally expect those trends to persist, and even accelerate in 2020, as minority, white-collar and female voters continue to recoil from President Trump. Just two of the demographic groups most alienated from Trump — white women with college degrees and African-American women at all education levels — could compose as much of two-fifths of all Democratic primary voters next year, the CNN exit poll analysis suggests.
Those trends are not exactly crying out for Democrats to nominate yet another white male. To beat Trump, Democrats need a nominee who can appeal to women, and generate historically high turnout from traditionally under-voting groups, such as people of color and young people. A moderate white male is hardly the ideal profile to inspire those key voting blocs.
WRONG GUY. Performance matters, not just profile, and Bullock’s performance has been underwhelming to the electorate. The reason Bullock is no longer on the debate stage is because he simply didn’t stand out to voters when he was on the debate stage. Therefore, even in relatively moderate, white Iowa, Bullock is polling at a paltry 0.07 percent.
While Bullock and the Clintonites like to lecture progressives on the importance of choosing an “electable” candidate who can beat Trump, electability is best shown, not told. Bullock seems like a decent guy, but in sharp contrast to Bill Clinton, he simply isn’t proving that he can excite the electorate.
WRONG AGENDA. Finally, the Clintonites are wrong about nominating a moderate because our 2019 problems require much bolder solutions than our 1991 problems required. For instance, at a time when the planet faces an existential climate change crisis, we can no longer nibble around the edges. We need major changes as soon as possible, and the biggest obstacle to those changes are powerful oil and coal lobbyists and donors.
Facing this stark reality, Governor Bullock remains true to Montana’s Big Coal and Big Oil, as Huffington Post reports:
“(Bullock’s record as Governor) includes protecting the state’s coal industry and railingagainst Obama administration greenhouse gas limits and a moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands. He supported the development of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and blasted President Barack Obama for his decision to block the project in 2015. He voiced “deep concern” about the Obama administration’s proposed hydraulic fracturing regulation in 2013, aimed at better protecting water resources.
Climate change isn’t just any issue. Scientists say we have about a decade to dramatically change course before we hit a catastrophic tipping point. With the planet in crisis, Begala and the Clintonites should think twice about pushing the most pro-fossil fuels candidate in the field.
Whether driven by ego or inflexible thinking, the Clintonites recycling their simplistic “nominate a moderate red state Governor” formula is a bad idea. Bullock had his shot. Now he should drop out of the overcrowded presidential race and head home to win Democrats a Senate seat.
Democratic presidential candidates have been having a white hot debate about whether to support Medicare-for-All, which would move people onto Medicare and eliminate private health insurance plans, or a Medicare buy-in option, which would allow Americans to choose between government-run Medicare and corporate-run health plans.
Substantively, Medicare-For-All is Best
Substantively, Medicare-for-All makes more sense. Going to a government-run single payer system would be the fastest and most effective way to cover all Americans, reduce administrative overhead, stop excessive profiteering, reduce medical costs, make the American economy more competitive, incentivize better health care best practices, and produce better outcomes.
Compared to health systems used by other developed nations that are to varying degrees more like Medicare-for-all would be, the current U.S. system is worst.
Yes, a large tax increase would be needed to finance Medicare-for-All, and Democrats should be honest about that. At the same time, Americans would no longer be paying premiums, deductibles and copays. Many Americans who have subsidized employer-based coverage should see higher pay as employers are freed of that enormous expense. Because of these kinds of issues, 200 independent economists recently signed a letter stating that Americans would be paying less overall with a single government-run system than they pay under the current system, not more.
Politically, Medicare Buy-In Option Is Best
Politically, however, a Medicare buy-in option makes much more sense. Because many Americans get extremely nervous about not having the option to stick with their familiar private health plan, about 75% of Americans support a Medicare buy-in option compared to about 56% who support Medicare-for-All. Given how difficult it will be to defeat Trump in 2020 and pass something in the Senate in 2021 and beyond, political marketability and sustainability is no small consideration.
Harris’s Hybrid
After initially indicating support for Medicare-for-All, Senator Kamala Harris yesterday proposed a thoughtful hybrid approach. While Harris still calls her proposal “Medicare-for-All,” it’s more accurate to call it “Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It,” since it allows Americans to choose private plans that are required to have the same benefits as Medicare. After a 10-year phase-in to limit transition-related bumps, all Americans would have the kind of coverage Medicare currently offers, with some coverage upgrades.
This approach would achieve much, but not all, of the substantive benefit of Medicare-for-All, and it has enormous political advantages over Medicare-for-All. Importantly, when Trump and the corporate insurance interests attack “government-run health care that takes away your insurance coverage,” those critics can be disarmed with very simple and compelling rebuttals: “If you don’t like it, you don’t have to choose it.” “If it’s as bad as they claim, no one will choose it.”
Those simple, powerful rebuttals, which can only be used with a buy-in option, de-fang the “they’re taking away your health insurance” bite.
Progressive critics like Sanders are criticizing the Harris plan as too “moderate.” It certainly is moderate compared to the Sanders Medicare-for-All plan. But when compared to ACA repeal/Trumpcare, where 20 million lose their coverage and all Americans would lose popular and effective ACA protections, the Harris proposal represents huge progress. Also, the Harris plan offers an important quantum leap forward from the current ACA-driven system.
Importantly, the Harris proposal offers Americans a consumer-driven path to the future. When given a choice, it’s very likely that most Americans will choose the cheaper and better Medicare option over corporate care. Corporate care won’t be competitive with Medicare, because of its higher overhead and the need to make profits. But giving all Americans the ability to comparison shop and vote with their feet is key, so that Medicare-for-All eventually comes to American by popular mandate, rather than government mandate. Taking that consumer-driven approach ultimately will make Medicare-for-All more politically durable.
Though I don’t know all the details yet, I like the general balance Senator Harris has struck. Obama’s former chief Medicare/Medicaid administrator Andy Slavitt said it well:
“Sen. Harris’s plan balances idealism and pragmatism. It says in effect: We have a mandate to get everyone affordable health care and put people over profits — but we don’t need to tear down the things people have and they like in order to do it.”
That’s what Democrats need: Idealism to stay true to their progressive values and excite lightly voting Democratic constituencies such as young people and people of color and pragmatism to smooth over political and logistical challenges and win over critically important moderate swing voters.
On the first night of the first round of
debates among Democratic presidential aspirants, Julián Castro, who was
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration, had a
spotlight-grabbing moment when he upbraided fellow Texan Beto O’Rourke for not
supporting his plan to end criminal penalties for undocumented immigrants
crossing our southern border from Mexico.
On the second night, when a different 10 hopefuls
fanned across NBC’s Wheel of Fortune stage, the impact of Castro’s
attack was obvious. Aked if they backed Castro’s plan, nine candidates raised
their hands. All 10 said they would back federal health subsidies for
undocumented immigrants, an idea President Barack Obama nixed a decade earlier.
The candidates’ stampede to out “left” each
other reached its most bizarre point when Castro volunteered that his universal
healthcare plan would cover abortions, including abortions for trans women. At
least this would not be a benefit that would significantly affect the deficit.
Since those nights, one of the hottest topics
among the commentariat has been whether Democrats are going to blow their
opportunity to dethrone President Trump by catering to their most progressive
constituents.
Writing in The Atlantic, Peter Beinart asked, “Will the Democratic Party go too far?”
“I’ll vote for almost any Democrat, but lurching left won’t beat Trump,” read the headline on a USA Today editorial by Tom Nichols, a national security professor at the Naval War College and a self-identified “Never Trump”-er.
“Democratic candidates veer left, leaving
behind successful midterm strategy,” read the headline on a Washington Post analysis
piece by Michael Scherer, one of its national correspondents.
Hogwash, say others,
among them Keith A. Spencer, writing in Salon.com about “hard evidence” that supposedly
proves a centrist Democrat will belly flop in 2020.
Other op-ed’s have warned
Democrats to beware of Republican trolls trying to trick them into pursuing
foolish moderation.
So, what are Democrats to
do?
Well, what if they
borrowed a phrase from “A Clockwork Chartreuse,” Loudon Wainwright III’s
tongue-in-cheek paean to an anarchist: “Let’s burn down McDonald’s/Let’s go
whole hog.”
Here are few things Democratic candidates can advocate at the next round of debates – July 30 and 31, CNN — if they really, really want to test the notion that the way to deny Donald Trump a second term is not moderation but a triple jump to the left. In no particular order:
Claiming “originalist” interpretation, ban private
ownership of all firearms designed after 1789, the year the U.S. Constitution
was ratified.
Ban bacon and big-ass pick-up trucks.
Remove slave owners’ heads from Mt. Rushmore.
Outlaw Mountain Dew.
Expand national park acreage to include Texas.
Along with abolishing private health insurance and
replacing it with Medicare for All, reimburse patients for parking at hospital
ramps.
Mandatory kale consumption.
Stop construction of Trump’s wall; commence
construction of automated “people mover” walkways.
Change national anthem to Neil Diamond’s
immigrant-friendly “(Coming to) America.”
Abolish apple pie as the national dessert. I’m thinking rhubarb.
Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He’s a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (200-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune (1986-2000). He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” which is scheduled for publication fall of 2019 by Skyhorse.
I’m a big fan of Governor Walz’s proposal to give Minnesotans a new MinnesotaCare (MNCare) buy-in option. If it passes, it would be a signature part of his legacy as Governor. But he has a lot of work to do before he gets it passed, and he should start by wiping the slate clean and dropping the name “ONECare.”
To be clear, the name ONECare is hardly the biggest problem Walz faces. The much bigger problem is an army of well-connected health care lobbyists and industry-employed donors pushing legislators to stick with a status quo that reimburses the industry at higher rates than MinnesotaCare, an argument that legislators who are serious about cost-containment must reject.
To pass this proposal, the Governor is going to need to use his political capital and get a lot more personally engaged in the fight than he has been so far.
But the name ONECare certainly doesn’t help the cause, a cause I’ve been supporting over and over, and it’s easy and painless to fix.
When selling ideas and policies, words matter a lot. Think “estate tax” versus “death tax.” “Tort reform” versus “lawsuit abuse reform.” “Medicare-for-all” versus “single payer.” We’ve seen it over and over: Words impact clarity and emotions, and clarity and emotions impact voting behavior.
For three primary reasons, the brand ONECare doesn’t help Walz to convince anyone to enact perhaps the most important policy proposal on his agenda, and instead inadvertently hurts it a bit.
ONECare DOESN’T DESCRIBE, OR DISARM MOST DAMAGING CRITICISM. I prefer the very boring, literal name “MinnesotaCare buy-in option.” I know, I know, it obviously isn’t very lyrical or concise, but it instantly explains the patient benefit, and that’s the most important advocacy need.
This is a concept that almost no one understands, so they need a concise description. ONEcare is not the least bit descriptive. If a Minnesotan heard ONECare come up in a shorthand way, they would have no idea what is being discussed, and very likely would assume you were talking about a corporate health plan.
After 27 years in existence, “Minnesota Care” has a bit of brand equity, and “buy-in option” explains the concept much more clearly than “ONEcare.”
Even more importantly, “MNCare buy-in option” also shines a bright spotlight on that key word “option.” The word “option” disarms the most potent critique of the proposal, the false claim that Minnesotans will be forced to use “government-run health care” against their will.
In a year when Medicare-for-All is being lambasted on the national stage for being mandatory and coercive, it’s critically important to be repeatedly stressing the disarming key message that this is merely another “option” for Minnesotans to take or leave. Stressing that selling point in the name is the best way to achieve that kind of repetition.
ONECare SOUNDS VERY CORPORATE, WHEN IT’S THE ANTITHESIS OF CORPORATE. Also, ONEcare sounds very much like a corporate health care brand. In fact, if you search the internet for “onecare,” numerous private health ventures pop up.
Adopting a corporate-sounding brand name confuses and sullies an initiative that’s actually all about providing an option for relief from corporate insurance. That makes no sense.
ONECare IS TOO WALZ-CENTRIC AND PARTISAN IN TONE. Finally, ONEcare politicizes the proposal by using a derivative of Walz’s 2018 campaign theme “One Minnesota.” ONEcare comes across like a partisan advertisement, as opposed to a sincere effort to help Minnesotans get cheaper and better health care coverage.
Governor Walz likely intended ONEcare to be unifying – “we’re ‘one Minnesota’ and this gives everyone the same option in all parts of the state, including areas where there are few options.” I get that. But the fact that the “One Minnesota” sloganeering was so central to Walz’s recent election campaign makes ONEplan feel like it belongs to one political tribe only, instead of something that people of all political stripes should support.
Again, dropping the ONECare name obviously isn’t going to guarantee passage. For that to happen, legislators are going to need to have more courage, and Governor Walz is going to need to really use his political capital to fight for this. But dropping “ONECare” will help make their explanation of this excellent idea feel a bit more clear, direct, disarming, and apolitical.
Among political reporters and pundits, the fashionable take on Democratic presidential candidates is that they’re recklessly veering too far to the left, consequently putting their chances of defeating Donald Trump at risk. That critique is all the rage.
“But the Democrats are in danger of marching so far left that they go over a cliff. That’s not just my view. Mainstream reporters, who tend to be less sensitive to liberal positions that match their personal views, are openly acknowledging and debating the dramatic shift. It was even on the front page of The New York Times.”
“The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing sweeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of political backlash. But with moderate Democrats repeatedly drowned out or on the defensive in the debates, the sprint to the left has deeply unnerved establishment Democrats, who have largely picked the party nominees in recent decades.”
“That sound you heard in Miami on Wednesday evening? El partido demócrata dando un fuerte giro a la izquierda. The screech of a Democratic Party swerving hard to the left. As the first 2020 Democratic debate wrapped here, there was a palpable sense that the 10 contenders on stage were reflecting the sentiments of the most liberal corners of the party.”
Yes, Democrats are more liberal than they have been in my lifetime. Yes, it’s possible that they could eventually go too far. But I disagree with the punditosphere that Democrats have hit that point.
Why Moving Left?
The explanation of aghast pundits has been that Democrats are supporting progressive policies for two primary reasons:
Echo Chamber Parrots. First, they argue that Democrats are more liberal because they spend too much time in self-reinforcing “echo chambers” — social media and cable news channels where like-minded ideologues radicalize each other and get isolated from opposing viewpoints. Pundits say candidates spend too little time in the habitat of “real people,” which they usually identify as Mayberry-esque Main Street cafes.
Liberal Bidding War. Also, pundits explain that Democrats are now more liberal because they’re desperately trying to out-liberal each other to court ultra-liberal primary and caucus voters.
These are both very real occupational hazards for politicians, and valid contributory factors for the shift to the left. I don’t disagree with them, but they’re not the only explanations.
Democrats Are Listening To Americans
Many reporters and pundits are missing or under-emphasizing another explanation that is at least as important,:
Listening To Americans. Democrats are moving left because they are actually listening to Americans.
Democrats are not just marching in lockstep with Rachel Maddow, Moveon.org, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, and Bernie Sanders. They’re not just trying to one-up each other. They’re also reading the survey research.
The American Prospect recently compiled a long list of recent survey polls showing overwhelming majorities of Americans embracing a broad range of progressive attitudes and policies, excerpted below. Remember, the following is dozens of independent statistically significant surveys speaking, not the liberal American Prospect magazine speaking:
The Economy
82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.
78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry.
Inequality
82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.
66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.
72 percent of Americans say it is “extremely” or “very” important, and 23 percent say it is “somewhat important,” to reduce poverty.
59 percent of registered voters—and 51 percent of Republicans—favor raising the maximum amount that low-wage workers can make and still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, from $14,820 to $18,000.
Taxes
76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.
60 percent of registered voters believe corporations pay too little in taxes.
87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.
67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.
Minimum Wage
54 percent of registered voters favored a $15 minimum wage.
63 percent of registered voters think the minimum wage should be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.
Workers’ Rights
74 percent of registered voters—including 71 percent of Republicans—support requiring employers to offer paid parental and medical leave.
78 percent of likely voters favor establishing a national fund that offers all workers 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.
Health Care
60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
60 percent of registered voters favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.”
64 percent of registered voters favor their state accepting the Obamacare plan for expanding Medicaid in their state.
Education
63 percent of registered voters—including 47 percent of Republicans—of Americans favor making four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free.
59 percent of Americans favor free early-childhood education.
Climate Change and the Environment
76 percent of voters are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about climate change.
68 percent of voters think it is possible to protect the environment and protect jobs.
59 percent of voters say more needs to be done to address climate change.
Gun Safety
84 percent of Americans support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
77 percent of gun owners support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
Criminal Justice
60 percent of Americans believe the recent killings of black men by police are part of a broader pattern of how police treat black Americans (compared with 39 percent who believe they are isolated incidents).
Immigration
68 percent of Americans—including 48 percent of Republicans—believe the country’s openness to people from around the world “is essential to who we are as a nation.” Just 29 percent say that “if America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation.”
65 percent of Americans—including 42 percent of Republicans—say immigrants strengthen the country “because of their hard work and talents.” Just 26 percent say immigrants are a burden “because they take our jobs, housing and health care.”
64 percent of Americans think an increasing number of people from different races, ethnic groups, and nationalities makes the country a better place to live. Only 5 percent say it makes the United States a worse place to live, and 29 percent say it makes no difference.
76 percent of registered voters—including 69 percent of Republicans—support allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children (Dreamers) to stay in the country. Only 15 percent think they should be removed or deported from the country.
Abortion and Women’s Health
58 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
68 percent of Americans—including 54 percent of Republicans—support the requirement for private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control.
Same-Sex Marriage
62 percent of Americans—including 70 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans—support same-sex marriage.
For people who suffered through eras when the NRA, the Catholic Church, the health insurance lobby, the Moral Majority, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and trickle downers like Reagan, Gingrich and Bush dominated politics and policymaking, these findings are pretty stunning.
Make no mistake, America has changed. A solid majority of Americans now are supportive of left-leaning policies, whether or not they self-identify as “liberal.” In a representative democracy, public opinion is supposed to have a powerful impact on candidates and policymakers, and it is.
“Scaring the Independents”
“Harumph,” say the grizzled veteran pundits and reporters. Hubris-laden Democrats are going to scare away the Independent voters and be responsible for four more years of Trump.
That’s certainly a danger, and an important thing to monitor in coming months. But remember, all of those polls listed above have a representative number of Independent voters in their samples, and breakouts show that on most issues a solid majority of Independents also are backing very progressive policy positions.
In addition, when you look at how Independent voters are currently leaning, they are leaning in the Democrat’s direction by a net nine-point margin.
Obviously, these polls are just a snapshot in time, so Democrats could still lose Independent voters after they are exposed to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of attacks. However, it’s worth noting that, after watching Democrats being lambasted for embracing progressive positions in recent years, Independents are still leaning fairly decisively blue.
Expanding the Electorate
Finally, let’s not forget that it will be easier for Democratic candidates to win if they can expand the electorate. That is, Democrats need to make the overall size of their electorate larger than it has been in past presidential election by motivating and activating the parts of their coalition that have traditionally voted in relatively low numbers, such as low-income people, people of color and young people. Even just a few percentage points improvement with those groups could impact the outcome of the 2020 elections up and down the ballot.
Positions in the “mushy middle” — ACA stabilization tweaks, incremental tax reform, inflation adjustments only to the minimum wage, semi-punitive immigration law changes, Pell Grant adjustments, etc. — probably won’t particularly motivate and activate these important voters.
Bolder progressive policies — Medicare-for All, Medicare buy-in option, repealing Bush and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy to fund help for struggling families, increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour, family medical leave benefits, bold immigration law changes, higher education loan forgiveness — might.
Short-term Needs. So even if supporting progressive policies were causing Democrats to lose amongst Independent voters — and remember, so far the data seems to indicate that they aren’t — there is an argument for Democratic candidates to take those progressive stands anyway, in order to keep young people, poor people, and people of color from sitting out election day in large numbers, or backing a left-leaning third party candidate.
Long-term Needs. Appealing to those lightly voting groups with progressive policies is also important for the long-term future of the Democratic Party, not just the 2020 election. That’s because people of color are the fastest growing portions of the population, and today’s young people obviously will be voting for many years. Making those groups into committed members of the Democratic coalition would pay long-term dividends.
More Room To Grow. Still, some maintain that voter turnout is going to be so large in 2020, due to the polarizing nature of President Trump, that the size of the electorate will be maxed out without having to motivate lightly voting groups with progressive policies.
But when you look at the dramatically lower than average turnout figures for loyal Democratic constituencies in 2018, when their turnout levels were actually very high compared to 2014, it’s clear there is still much room for growth with these groups. For instance, 36% of young people voted in 2018, compared to 53% of the total population. Again, even an increase of a point or two in some of these categories could be decisive.
Who’s Out of Touch?
So yes, Democrats have indeed moved left in recent years. That much is obvious. But given this consistent stream of survey research from a wide variety of sources, I can’t agree with those who conclude that Democratic candidates are the ones who are “out of touch” with the pulse of the American people.
