Tag Archives: elections

Political Rants

Time to do that thing we’ve got to do

Has it been a year already? Mother of pearl. Election day is almost upon us, and the pundits are out in force, telling us what to expect, handicapping races, reminding us of historical trends, etc. We are defenseless against their onslaught of conventional wisdom! How can we stop the madness?

Well, as you can see, I’ve been watching (or at least listening to) way too much cable television. Every election is unique, as much as the talking heads want us to think otherwise. And while I know many of my friends on the left don’t like to focus on voting, I still feel strongly that we need to take the time to do it if only to stop the reactionaries from running everything into the ground.

Anyway, for those who are interested, here are my thoughts on this year’s elections.

Ballot measures in New York

Like most years, I wasn’t aware of any of the ballot measures in New York State this year until a handful of days ago. My sense is that three of them are no-brainers. Ballot measure #2 is a constitutional amendment that gives New Yorkers the right to clean air and clean water. Can’t argue with that. Measures #3 and #4 are about election law, the first eliminating the waiting period on registration (allowing for same-day registration) and #4 loosening the restrictions on absentee voting. Again, all good.

Measure #1 is kind of a mixed bag, but I think on balance it’s worth supporting. It would allow the legislature to pass a redistricting plan with a simple majority rather than 2/3. In a state run by Democrats, I think that’s a good idea, given that Congressional Democrats will be losing seats in red states like Texas. (Fixing gerrymandering has to happen on a national level; until then, no unilateral disarmament, please.)

Measure #5 is about access to lower courts in New York City in civil cases. I don’t have a strong grasp on the implications of this one, so I can’t really recommend one way or the other, but I am likely to support this as well.

Yes, Virginia, there is an election

One of the things pundits love telling us is that Virginia always chooses a governor from the party that did not win the White House in the previous year’s election. This year, Republicans are hitting hard on what they now call “critical race theory” in public schools, depicting red-faced parents scared of having their children read Toni Morrison. Democrats, on the other hand, are running Terry McAuliffe, who is …. Terry McAuliffe.

Okay, I know it’s hard to get enthusiastic about an old Clinton money-man like McAuliffe. The thing is, we don’t have the luxury of relying on enthusiasm every time an election comes up. I know you’re probably sick of hearing me say it, but we neglect voting at our own peril. We’re living with the results of having sat out multiple elections in sufficient numbers to ensure the victory of reactionaries. Trump was a manifestation of that failure, and the Republican party is the party of Trump – not because he took it over, but because it created him as a national figure.

Don’t say uncle

There’s no question but that the Biden budget agenda is not sufficient. And yet, it’s better than what it would have been had we not pushed Bernie to the front of the pack. And there’s no question but that the leadership of the Democratic party is fucking things up across a range of issues. But that’s because we haven’t elected enough progressives.

The fact is, we’ve got more progressives in Washington now than we’ve ever had previously, and it shows. And instead of getting frustrated over how difficult it is to pass meaningful legislation, we should redouble our efforts to expand those numbers in the next election cycle, and the one after that, and the one after that.

Yes, we need to do a lot, lot more than just vote. But we need to vote every freaking time, particularly now that we are seriously under the climate change gun. There’s simply no choice.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

There’s nothing new under the gun

There’s a real sense of frustration in center-left circles in the United States. It’s understandable why. The president has proposed a massive bill that will fund a host of badly needed programs. These are priorities the progressive wing of the party has long championed, so in that respect alone, the very fact of this reconciliation bill is a kind of victory.

Now passage of this landmark legislation depends on approval by a 50-50 Senate, which means somehow convincing the likes of Joe Manchin and Kirsten Synema to vote for it. It is aggravating to watch two self-aggrandizing senators block a bill that has the support of a vast majority of Americans. But that aggravation is nothing new. And I think, despite the drawbacks, we have come a long way over the decades.

The majority that wasn’t

It’s best to remember that we’ve been in worse places before. Back in January 2009, when the financial crisis was in full swing, the Democrats had just sworn-in huge majorities in both houses of Congress. They had a filibuster-proof 60 Senators (for a brief time) and 255 members of the House. So, the sky was the limit, right?

Wrong. Somehow they managed to negotiate the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act down to a ridiculously small size, even though they needed not a single Republican vote to pass it. The final bill was nearly 1/3 tax cuts and far smaller than was needed to put the economy back on track. In other words, they negotiated themselves out of an effective stimulus and reconstruction package.

Barry and the half-nelson

Then there was the Affordable Care Act marathon. That was thousands of hours of committee work, whittling down the legislation to meet an arbitrary cost standard set by the GOP. So the best we could do on health care was whatever policy we could squeeze through the little tin horn that was Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, the Joe Manchin of his day.

Now, you may ask yourself, with 60 or near-60 votes in the Senate, why did they need to observe these restrictions? I think the answer is pretty simple: the Democratic Party was a lot farther to the right in those days, on balance. They and their president were happy to settle for glorified RomneyCare. They were happy to contemplate a “Grand Bargain” that would have gutted Social Security.

The new way to be

Honestly, the overwhelmingly Democratic 111th Congress would never have even contemplated some of the provisions in the current Reconciliation bill. Opposition to the Child Tax Credit, paid family leave, etc., would have been larger than two senators. That’s because progressives have, in essence, won many of these arguments, thanks to the determined efforts of Senator Sanders and others on the inside, and movements like Occupy Wall Street, BLM, and others on the outside.

Think about it: we are really just a whisker away from some of the most progressive policy changes since the start of the neoliberal era. The whole thing could still go up in smoke, but this is closer than we’ve ever been, and it’s not only tremendously popular but backed by 96% of the Democratic caucus AND the president.

So, we’re making progress. Slower than we like, but progress none the less.

lu u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

No shortcut.

There’s been a lot of push back from the left this week on the Biden Town Hall, and with good reason. While he presents as an affable old grandpa, his conception of policy is locked into the 1990s in a lot of ways. When he thinks he’s leaning to the left, he means the “left” of three decades ago – the liberal cohort that thinks in terms of community policing, mild reforms, drug rehabilitation programs, etc. Whereas even the mainstream Democratic party has moved on from many of these centrist notions of change, the leftward movement appears to have escaped the notice of President Biden. For the time being, he is riding on a wave of relief that Donald Trump is no longer (a) President, (b) in our faces every single day, or (c) on Twitter. I’m sure millions of people are happy that the current president is not ordering an angry racist mob into the Capitol building. But that, while necessary, is of course far from sufficient.

His position on student debt illustrates this insufficiency to a tee. Biden keeps confusing, probably deliberately, the temporary suspension of interest payments (which he has ordered) with elimination of interest on student debt (which he has not ordered). He vaguely promises $10K in debt relief, but both he and his spokesperson keep suggesting that this is something Congress should take up. To be clear, he has the authority to do this himself. And if he can do $10K, he can do more. But Biden seems to think that there’s a fairness issue involved here. He tends to couch it in terms of not wanting rich people to get the benefit, which brings us back to Biden’s (and most centrist Democrats’) preference for “targeted” programs. In other words, we need a new, overly complicated, dedicated administrative infrastructure to achieve the recapture of funds that our already-existing tax system could accomplish with very little adjustment.

Of course, this problem is more about us than it is about Biden. We’ve got Biden as president – and lackluster officeholders all the way down the line – because we didn’t organize enough people and ultimately bring them around to supporting progressive, even radical, change. In a very real sense, we get the politicians we deserve, and we shouldn’t expect better if we’re not doing the hard, long-term work of building change from below. Organizing is about more than electing people, obviously, but one of the by-products of successful organizing is a better grade of politician. I think we’ve seen that in some of the more progressive Congressional candidates, like Rashida Talib, Cory Bush, AOC, and others. I’m pleasantly surprised when candidates of their stripe are successful, largely because I know that in my own area of the country very little organizing is taking place – that’s why we now have the return of our erstwhile Republican Congressmember, Claudia Tenney, who beat out Anthony Brindisi by a mere 109 votes. Brindisi was part of the “problem-solver” conference and there were few Democratic members farther to the right, but in the end it wasn’t enough.

You see, a little more organizing would have given us those 110 votes to return a centrist to Congress. And a lot more organizing might have resulted in sending an actual progressive to Congress, to say nothing of actual mutual aid benefits for the people in our district. So, what are we waiting for?

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.