In the greatest crisis this world has experienced since the world wars, we need leaders who can keep a level head, communicate clearly to the people they're leading, and show compassion and humility. We've seen or heard about the egotistical rantings of the current U.S. president. In stark contrast, it's great to hear from true leaders who exhibit the characteristics I've listed.
The true "leader of the free world," now that the U.S. has a president who's abdicated that role, is perhaps, as noted in New York magazine's Intelligencer, Angela Merkel ("The Leader of the Free World Gives a Speech, and She Nails It"). Give a listen to (or read the subtitles) what she has to say about the crisis to the people of Germany.
"We are a democracy. We don't live by being forced, but by sharing knowledge and collaboration."
As a thought leader in U.S. politics, Bernie Sanders has been promoting a platform that seems like it was custom made for our current situation. That's one reason he comes across so authoritatively in this video.
Saturday, March 21, 2020
Thursday, February 27, 2020
As the Media Struggles with the Rise of Bernie
It's been interesting watching the mass media lately as they contemplate what they should do about Bernie Sanders. The panic and desperation are palpable. Do we assume that he's vulnerable enough that we should continue attacking him relentlessly to try to make sure he doesn't get elected? Or do we pretend "we knew it all along" [that he could win] and try to "get ahead of this thing" by running positive stories about him?
At times it's hard to tell the difference, but in general MSNBC leans a little more toward the right than CNN. While MSNBC maintains its penchant for reactionaries like Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, CNN has brought in more diverse voices like Van Jones and, more recently, Andrew Yang. Both of those gentlemen are friendly to the Sanders cause, at least more so than the folks at MSNBC. On the other hand, in the debates with CNN moderators, Bernie has endured nonstop accusations from the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Chuck Todd, who only seem to know how to ask "Given that your plan is likely to destroy the country, tell us why we should believe you when you say it won't."
Now I definitely can't say I'm an expert on the national news media. Because MSNBC and CNN are only for those willing to pay astronomical cable bills, I only see their coverage through what free clips are available. And I don't usually watch network TV because I don't like cop shows or reality TV series. However, the media are so ever-present and pervasive that one accidentally consumes all sorts of content from many different sources without even realizing it. Also, I have watched almost all of the debates, and it's rare that I miss any story about Bernie, be it positive or negative.
So whether it's through osmosis or intentional consumption, I have actually noticed a subtle shift in coverage of the Sanders campaign. Up until recently, it was rare to see any positive stories from any news outlet that was less edgy than Rolling Stone, or Mother Jones, or Grist. (Yes, I know, calling those sources edgy is stretching the definition of the word.) But recently I've seen positive stories from USA Today, and even CNN just released one of the most touching articles about Bernie supporters that I've seen ('He understands us': Why his supporters are loyal to Bernie Sanders).
I think there's evidence, too, that the broadcast networks might be trying to pull ahead of CNN and MSNBC to be in the vanguard of the media that actually get it through their thick corporate skulls that the survey results are real, and the majority of people in the United States are actually politically progressive. When ABC sponsored the New Hampshire debate, George Stephanopoulos was remarkably even-handed in his treatment of the candidates. After the CBS-sponsored South Carolina debate, one of their post-game panels said almost nothing negative about Bernie, even featuring CBS post-debate poll results that showed Bernie Sanders at the top in nearly every category...and not declaring them illegitimate! I was a bit dumbfounded.
Well, maybe there's hope for MSNBC even. Chris Matthews actually apologized for comparing Bernie's campaign success to the nazi invasion of France--that took real humility. Perhaps some people/news outlets are realizing that if they keep following their outdated biases to the bitter end, they will end up being completely irrelevant. Much of their coverage is already seen as laughable by anyone who's Internet savvy, and the information is out there in plain sight to debunk pretty much any false claim they might try to make.
For more on this topic, also check out Waleed Shahid's opinion piece on BuzzFeed: "Why Pundits Can't Comprehend Bernie Sanders."
At times it's hard to tell the difference, but in general MSNBC leans a little more toward the right than CNN. While MSNBC maintains its penchant for reactionaries like Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, CNN has brought in more diverse voices like Van Jones and, more recently, Andrew Yang. Both of those gentlemen are friendly to the Sanders cause, at least more so than the folks at MSNBC. On the other hand, in the debates with CNN moderators, Bernie has endured nonstop accusations from the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Chuck Todd, who only seem to know how to ask "Given that your plan is likely to destroy the country, tell us why we should believe you when you say it won't."
Now I definitely can't say I'm an expert on the national news media. Because MSNBC and CNN are only for those willing to pay astronomical cable bills, I only see their coverage through what free clips are available. And I don't usually watch network TV because I don't like cop shows or reality TV series. However, the media are so ever-present and pervasive that one accidentally consumes all sorts of content from many different sources without even realizing it. Also, I have watched almost all of the debates, and it's rare that I miss any story about Bernie, be it positive or negative.
So whether it's through osmosis or intentional consumption, I have actually noticed a subtle shift in coverage of the Sanders campaign. Up until recently, it was rare to see any positive stories from any news outlet that was less edgy than Rolling Stone, or Mother Jones, or Grist. (Yes, I know, calling those sources edgy is stretching the definition of the word.) But recently I've seen positive stories from USA Today, and even CNN just released one of the most touching articles about Bernie supporters that I've seen ('He understands us': Why his supporters are loyal to Bernie Sanders).
I think there's evidence, too, that the broadcast networks might be trying to pull ahead of CNN and MSNBC to be in the vanguard of the media that actually get it through their thick corporate skulls that the survey results are real, and the majority of people in the United States are actually politically progressive. When ABC sponsored the New Hampshire debate, George Stephanopoulos was remarkably even-handed in his treatment of the candidates. After the CBS-sponsored South Carolina debate, one of their post-game panels said almost nothing negative about Bernie, even featuring CBS post-debate poll results that showed Bernie Sanders at the top in nearly every category...and not declaring them illegitimate! I was a bit dumbfounded.
Well, maybe there's hope for MSNBC even. Chris Matthews actually apologized for comparing Bernie's campaign success to the nazi invasion of France--that took real humility. Perhaps some people/news outlets are realizing that if they keep following their outdated biases to the bitter end, they will end up being completely irrelevant. Much of their coverage is already seen as laughable by anyone who's Internet savvy, and the information is out there in plain sight to debunk pretty much any false claim they might try to make.
For more on this topic, also check out Waleed Shahid's opinion piece on BuzzFeed: "Why Pundits Can't Comprehend Bernie Sanders."
Monday, February 3, 2020
Bernie Sanders Is Damn Electable
This election's democratic presidential race has been fraught with decision anxiety. With 27 candidates to choose from at one point, most of those interested in voting for a democrat have been offered at least a few candidates they'd consider, and probably one that came very close to matching their political preferences exactly. And with a cretinous miscreant as our current president, many of us have naturally thought that our main choice—or second or third choice—candidate was surely likeable enough to win the general election.
But the policies, behaviors, and fortunes of the candidates have been in a state of constant flux. Establishment candidates have started acting more progressive; progressive candidates have been adopting establishment policies; candidates have been announcing late or dropping out of the race early; and the racial, financial, and generational diversity of the candidates has been rapidly diminishing. So from one moment to the next, people have been saying "Wait a minute, I'm not sure I like so-and-so as much as I thought!" or "Well, I guess it's down to my fourth choice."
But, Really, Is That Candidate "Electable"?
In the meantime, just when you think you've finally settled on a candidate or two, the mass media, the pundits, and the democratic establishment in general feel they must constantly interject the question, "But is so-and-so candidate "electable"?" It's maddening. They act as if the ill-defined characteristic of "electability" is the only one that matters, and they insinuate that voters who consider anything other than electability in making their decision are betraying their party and their country, and are both stupid and naive. And one thing that this insistence implies is that the candidate with the best ideas logically can't also be the most electable—somehow the two are mutually exclusive.
So here voters are, stuck with the idea that "I like so-and-so, but I have to vote for this candidate I totally disagree with, or I'll be held personally responsible for destroying the country." This situation might not be so extreme and discordant, if it weren't for the fact that most of the mass media quite often is either misrepresenting or concealing the truth.
Ever Heard of Bernie Sanders?
One prime example of this deception is what is being called The Bernie Blackout. As Nolan Higdon and Mickey Huff reported in their recent arcticle for Truthout entitled "The Bernie Blackout Is Real, and These Screenshots Prove It," with regard to the previous democratic presidential primary, "CNN, Washington Post and The New York Times tacitly admitted their reporting on the 2016 election was inadequate and flawed." Such behavior extended far beyond a refusal to give Bernie Sanders news coverage, even to helping Hilary Clinton cheat in a debate by providing her with the debate questions in advance and to Clinton campaign staff and members of the democratic party leadership actively telling news outlets to kill specific news stories and take or keep certain pundits off the air.
With more candidates in the mix, in some ways the situation has only gotten worse. Not only has Bernie Sanders received less coverage than other candidates, but he has been purposely removed from headlines and lists of top candidates, even when he has topped most or all of the candidates who are listed. For far more detail on the subject, and, believe me, it's downright insidious, I seriously recommend you read Higdon and Huff's article. The amount of misinformation that has occurred is mind-boggling.
The Media's Electability Bugaboo
In a situation that's part and parcel of the blackout I've mentioned, the criteria of "electability" that has been put on such a pedestal by the establishment and the media has been manipulated and even falsified. Throughout the 2016 election, poll after poll showed Bernie Sanders with a higher likelihood of beating Drumpf than Hilary Clinton, but news outlets insisted that it was Clinton who led in that respect.
The current primary has been panning out in a similar way. Up until quite recently, the party line was that Biden was by far the most electable of all the candidates versus the incumbent, and in the end, everyone would have to fall in line behind Biden and vote for him, regardless of his policy proposals and his record. The polls didn't disagree entirely, but they showed Biden as having not a wide margin but only a one or two percent advantage over his closest competitors, a number of whom, including Bernie Sanders in every case, were also projected to defeat Drumpf. Now, however, Biden is falling behind, and the latest poll from Newsweek shows Sanders on top. I haven't seen the response to this poll yet, but will it be accepted by other news outlets, or will they point to previous polls or invent their own polls to say that Sanders is definitely not the most electable?
And what is this vaunted "electability" that they talk about? Is it the nationwide popularity of a candidate and the likelihood that all different types of voters will vote for the candidate? By and large, no. "Electability" for the mass media is the amount of support a candidate will get from the democratic establishment in Washington and other strongholds, who the superdelegates would vote for, or who the DNC wouldn't try to undermine in the primary.
I don't know much about Vox, but based on their articles I've read in the past, I haven't considered them an establishment news outlet. However, in their three-article series on "the best case for each of the top Democratic contenders" in which they state "Vox does not endorse individual candidates," they seem to deal in the same sort of misdirection you might see on MSNBC. In their article "Joe Biden is the only candidate with a real shot at getting things done," Laura McGann gushes for page after page about Biden, sounding more like the president of the Joe Biden fan club than a journalist. In the course of that gushing, she cites endorsements by a number of democratic officeholders and opines that having these endorsements, and other support, in swing states gives Biden the best chance to win.
In stark contrast, one can only surmise from Matthew Yglesias's tepid Vox piece "Bernie Sanders can unify Democrats and beat Trump in 2020" that Yglesias picked the short straw, then reluctantly ground out a piece that contained a small percentage more positive comments than negative ones...though even that seems up for debate. Giving Vox the benefit of the doubt for a moment, beyond the writer's obvious lack of enthusiasm, perhaps one issue is that these articles were written in a series rather than all at once, and maybe that's why they're not comparable. Still, you'd think that in such a series, you'd have easy points of comparison between the articles to help readers compare the candidates (by the way, the second article in the series was on Elizabeth Warren), but in at least one major respect, that's not the case: Yglesias doesn't write a single word about Sanders' performance in the 2016 primary.
The media is always talking about the swing states and citing them as the key to winning an election against Drumpf. If they're so important, then Yglesias seriously dropped the ball. McGann, who also seems a bit culpable, claims "Biden [the current establishment democrat] consistently holds the highest margin in swing states" such as Michigan and Wisconsin, but she fails to mention the fact that Bernie Sanders (the progressive democrat) beat Hilary Clinton (the establishment democrat) in those two states, both of which Trump won when pitted against Clinton. Yglesias, on the other hand, doesn't even mention the concept of a swing state or any of Sanders' wins in 2016, despite the fact that he won the 2016 democratic primary in five of the swing states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.
I always approve of online articles when they include notes about revisions and corrections that were made based on new information that came to light—that bespeaks a certain amount of journalistic integrity. Given that the Vox series is supposed to provide direct comparison between what have been the top three candidates, I would think that the gushing in the Biden piece would prompt a similarly enthusiastic revision of the Sanders and Warren pieces. That hasn't happened. But, now playing devil's advocate, or perhaps just being realistic, with Biden falling in the polls, one might come to the conclusion that the excessive enthusiasm in the Biden article—and its timing just before the Iowa caucus—is there because the article is meant to boost his candidacy, rather than to objectively describe his chances in the election or his "electability."
Electability for the People
Ask the average person on the street what electability means, and their first answer is likely to be "whoever will beat Trump," given what they've been force-fed by the media, but if you allow them to continue, they're likely to talk about someone they can trust, someone they like, someone who has good policies, or someone who's looking out for them.
If we're to believe Hilary Clinton, no one likes Bernie Sanders, but if we're to believe the primary results from 2016, at least 13 million Americans who voted in that election might kinda like him...at least more than they like Hilary. Even right after the 2016 election, when some democrats were blaming Sanders for Hilary's losing, polling showed that Sanders was the most trusted politician in the country. All other polls on that topic since then have echoed that sentiment, such as the 2017 Harvard-Harris poll discussed in Mother Jones that "found almost 60 percent of Americans view the Vermont senator favorably. Among certain demographics, the progressive politician’s ratings are even higher: 80 percent of Democratic voters, 73 percent of registered black voters, and 68 percent of registered Hispanic voters view Sanders favorably.
At the same time, signature programs that Sanders is driving are supported by the majority of Americans. For example, a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation reaffirms its findings starting in 2016 that most Americans are in favor of Medicare For All. The poll shows that 56% overall are in favor, and, more importantly in this primary, 77% of democrats are in favor. Making public colleges free and eliminating student debt garnered 58% support overall in a Hill-Harris poll in September, and 72% of democrats were on board.
And what about the Green New Deal? It seems that people might kind of like that idea too, based on the poll discussed in the Grist article "Poll: The Green New Deal is as popular as legalizing weed." According to writer Zoya Teirstein, "The plan enjoys wide popularity among almost all demographics.... 63 percent of national adults think the climate proposal is a good idea, while 60 percent of registered voters (the folks who are capable of actually putting politicians in office who will make the green dream a reality) support it. A whopping 86 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Independents are in favor of the plan."
I don't know about you, but if a presidential candidate is the most trusted politician in the entire country, is viewed favorably by the majority of the people in the country, and has based their campaign on policies that are overwhelmingly popular with members of their political party, I would tend to think that candidate is pretty damn electable.
But the policies, behaviors, and fortunes of the candidates have been in a state of constant flux. Establishment candidates have started acting more progressive; progressive candidates have been adopting establishment policies; candidates have been announcing late or dropping out of the race early; and the racial, financial, and generational diversity of the candidates has been rapidly diminishing. So from one moment to the next, people have been saying "Wait a minute, I'm not sure I like so-and-so as much as I thought!" or "Well, I guess it's down to my fourth choice."
But, Really, Is That Candidate "Electable"?
In the meantime, just when you think you've finally settled on a candidate or two, the mass media, the pundits, and the democratic establishment in general feel they must constantly interject the question, "But is so-and-so candidate "electable"?" It's maddening. They act as if the ill-defined characteristic of "electability" is the only one that matters, and they insinuate that voters who consider anything other than electability in making their decision are betraying their party and their country, and are both stupid and naive. And one thing that this insistence implies is that the candidate with the best ideas logically can't also be the most electable—somehow the two are mutually exclusive.
So here voters are, stuck with the idea that "I like so-and-so, but I have to vote for this candidate I totally disagree with, or I'll be held personally responsible for destroying the country." This situation might not be so extreme and discordant, if it weren't for the fact that most of the mass media quite often is either misrepresenting or concealing the truth.
Ever Heard of Bernie Sanders?
One prime example of this deception is what is being called The Bernie Blackout. As Nolan Higdon and Mickey Huff reported in their recent arcticle for Truthout entitled "The Bernie Blackout Is Real, and These Screenshots Prove It," with regard to the previous democratic presidential primary, "CNN, Washington Post and The New York Times tacitly admitted their reporting on the 2016 election was inadequate and flawed." Such behavior extended far beyond a refusal to give Bernie Sanders news coverage, even to helping Hilary Clinton cheat in a debate by providing her with the debate questions in advance and to Clinton campaign staff and members of the democratic party leadership actively telling news outlets to kill specific news stories and take or keep certain pundits off the air.
With more candidates in the mix, in some ways the situation has only gotten worse. Not only has Bernie Sanders received less coverage than other candidates, but he has been purposely removed from headlines and lists of top candidates, even when he has topped most or all of the candidates who are listed. For far more detail on the subject, and, believe me, it's downright insidious, I seriously recommend you read Higdon and Huff's article. The amount of misinformation that has occurred is mind-boggling.
The Media's Electability Bugaboo
In a situation that's part and parcel of the blackout I've mentioned, the criteria of "electability" that has been put on such a pedestal by the establishment and the media has been manipulated and even falsified. Throughout the 2016 election, poll after poll showed Bernie Sanders with a higher likelihood of beating Drumpf than Hilary Clinton, but news outlets insisted that it was Clinton who led in that respect.
The current primary has been panning out in a similar way. Up until quite recently, the party line was that Biden was by far the most electable of all the candidates versus the incumbent, and in the end, everyone would have to fall in line behind Biden and vote for him, regardless of his policy proposals and his record. The polls didn't disagree entirely, but they showed Biden as having not a wide margin but only a one or two percent advantage over his closest competitors, a number of whom, including Bernie Sanders in every case, were also projected to defeat Drumpf. Now, however, Biden is falling behind, and the latest poll from Newsweek shows Sanders on top. I haven't seen the response to this poll yet, but will it be accepted by other news outlets, or will they point to previous polls or invent their own polls to say that Sanders is definitely not the most electable?
And what is this vaunted "electability" that they talk about? Is it the nationwide popularity of a candidate and the likelihood that all different types of voters will vote for the candidate? By and large, no. "Electability" for the mass media is the amount of support a candidate will get from the democratic establishment in Washington and other strongholds, who the superdelegates would vote for, or who the DNC wouldn't try to undermine in the primary.
I don't know much about Vox, but based on their articles I've read in the past, I haven't considered them an establishment news outlet. However, in their three-article series on "the best case for each of the top Democratic contenders" in which they state "Vox does not endorse individual candidates," they seem to deal in the same sort of misdirection you might see on MSNBC. In their article "Joe Biden is the only candidate with a real shot at getting things done," Laura McGann gushes for page after page about Biden, sounding more like the president of the Joe Biden fan club than a journalist. In the course of that gushing, she cites endorsements by a number of democratic officeholders and opines that having these endorsements, and other support, in swing states gives Biden the best chance to win.
In stark contrast, one can only surmise from Matthew Yglesias's tepid Vox piece "Bernie Sanders can unify Democrats and beat Trump in 2020" that Yglesias picked the short straw, then reluctantly ground out a piece that contained a small percentage more positive comments than negative ones...though even that seems up for debate. Giving Vox the benefit of the doubt for a moment, beyond the writer's obvious lack of enthusiasm, perhaps one issue is that these articles were written in a series rather than all at once, and maybe that's why they're not comparable. Still, you'd think that in such a series, you'd have easy points of comparison between the articles to help readers compare the candidates (by the way, the second article in the series was on Elizabeth Warren), but in at least one major respect, that's not the case: Yglesias doesn't write a single word about Sanders' performance in the 2016 primary.
The media is always talking about the swing states and citing them as the key to winning an election against Drumpf. If they're so important, then Yglesias seriously dropped the ball. McGann, who also seems a bit culpable, claims "Biden [the current establishment democrat] consistently holds the highest margin in swing states" such as Michigan and Wisconsin, but she fails to mention the fact that Bernie Sanders (the progressive democrat) beat Hilary Clinton (the establishment democrat) in those two states, both of which Trump won when pitted against Clinton. Yglesias, on the other hand, doesn't even mention the concept of a swing state or any of Sanders' wins in 2016, despite the fact that he won the 2016 democratic primary in five of the swing states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.
I always approve of online articles when they include notes about revisions and corrections that were made based on new information that came to light—that bespeaks a certain amount of journalistic integrity. Given that the Vox series is supposed to provide direct comparison between what have been the top three candidates, I would think that the gushing in the Biden piece would prompt a similarly enthusiastic revision of the Sanders and Warren pieces. That hasn't happened. But, now playing devil's advocate, or perhaps just being realistic, with Biden falling in the polls, one might come to the conclusion that the excessive enthusiasm in the Biden article—and its timing just before the Iowa caucus—is there because the article is meant to boost his candidacy, rather than to objectively describe his chances in the election or his "electability."
Electability for the People
Ask the average person on the street what electability means, and their first answer is likely to be "whoever will beat Trump," given what they've been force-fed by the media, but if you allow them to continue, they're likely to talk about someone they can trust, someone they like, someone who has good policies, or someone who's looking out for them.
If we're to believe Hilary Clinton, no one likes Bernie Sanders, but if we're to believe the primary results from 2016, at least 13 million Americans who voted in that election might kinda like him...at least more than they like Hilary. Even right after the 2016 election, when some democrats were blaming Sanders for Hilary's losing, polling showed that Sanders was the most trusted politician in the country. All other polls on that topic since then have echoed that sentiment, such as the 2017 Harvard-Harris poll discussed in Mother Jones that "found almost 60 percent of Americans view the Vermont senator favorably. Among certain demographics, the progressive politician’s ratings are even higher: 80 percent of Democratic voters, 73 percent of registered black voters, and 68 percent of registered Hispanic voters view Sanders favorably.
At the same time, signature programs that Sanders is driving are supported by the majority of Americans. For example, a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation reaffirms its findings starting in 2016 that most Americans are in favor of Medicare For All. The poll shows that 56% overall are in favor, and, more importantly in this primary, 77% of democrats are in favor. Making public colleges free and eliminating student debt garnered 58% support overall in a Hill-Harris poll in September, and 72% of democrats were on board.
And what about the Green New Deal? It seems that people might kind of like that idea too, based on the poll discussed in the Grist article "Poll: The Green New Deal is as popular as legalizing weed." According to writer Zoya Teirstein, "The plan enjoys wide popularity among almost all demographics.... 63 percent of national adults think the climate proposal is a good idea, while 60 percent of registered voters (the folks who are capable of actually putting politicians in office who will make the green dream a reality) support it. A whopping 86 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Independents are in favor of the plan."
I don't know about you, but if a presidential candidate is the most trusted politician in the entire country, is viewed favorably by the majority of the people in the country, and has based their campaign on policies that are overwhelmingly popular with members of their political party, I would tend to think that candidate is pretty damn electable.
Monday, July 29, 2019
A Really Informal Ranking of the Democratic Presidential Candidates
You’ve probably heard a lot of people say that we have to be careful in this presidential campaign, because there’s a definite risk that if it gets too heated or dirty, it could cause a rift in the party or, even worse, could reduce voter turnout and easily hand the election over to 45 for another term. That is definitely a legitimate concern, and the risk is already there even without considering the election, thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her old guard’s insistence on attempting to quash the progressive movement, which threatens to, heaven forbid, actually revitalize the democratic party.
Watching the NBC debates on June 26 and 27 made the risk more palpable for me and got me thinking that I needed to do something. Like in other states, Massachusetts has recently seen some lobbying by activist groups to establish ranked-choice voting for elections. I started to think that maybe that concept could help us out in this situation. If it would be possible to bring democratic voters around from thinking “this person or no one” to “I’d prefer this person, but I’d be willing to consider the others in this order,” we would be much more likely to maintain party unity and also present a unified face to the rest of the population. Such a stance would not only increase the likelihood of good democratic voter turnout, it would create a more attractive option for independents, the undecided, and even people who voted for 45 before but are having second thoughts this time around.
To help encourage this way of thinking, I’d like to set an example by providing my own ranking. Although I’m electing to do so, I should issue the caveat that I’m not super knowledgeable about all of the candidates, so, for example, at this point I can’t judge them about a policy decision they made 10 years ago or a vote they made in 2000. My ranking is based just on what I happen to know about the candidates already from news reports and knowledgeable friends, and more so on how the candidates comported themselves and what they expressed in the two debates in June.
I urge others to follow my example and make up your own lists to help try to minimize the divisiveness and perhaps hone your own thinking a little. And feel free to tell me why you think I should change my ranking. I could definitely use more information.
Hopefully we’ll all get a little more information from the upcoming CNN debates on July 30th and 31st.* Maybe after that my rankings will see some revision.
*Note: I’m only going to rank the candidates who qualified for the July debates, although I’m leaving out that Bullock guy, whoever he is.
July 26 Debate
Participants: New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Former Housing Secretary Julian Castro. New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio. Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney. Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Washington Governor Jay Inslee. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke. Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan. And Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Video: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-video-democratic-presidential-debate-night-1-62758981769
Full Transcript: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-first-democratic-primary-debate-2019-n1022816
July 27 Debate
Participants: Colorado Senator Michael Bennet. Former Vice President Joe Biden. South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. California Senator Kamala Harris. Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. California Congressman Eric Swalwell. Author Marianne Williamson. And former tech executive Andrew Yang.
Video: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-video-democratic-presidential-debate-night-2-62848069759
Full Transcript: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-2019-democratic-debate-night-two-sortable-topic-n1023601?icid=canonical_related
Watching the NBC debates on June 26 and 27 made the risk more palpable for me and got me thinking that I needed to do something. Like in other states, Massachusetts has recently seen some lobbying by activist groups to establish ranked-choice voting for elections. I started to think that maybe that concept could help us out in this situation. If it would be possible to bring democratic voters around from thinking “this person or no one” to “I’d prefer this person, but I’d be willing to consider the others in this order,” we would be much more likely to maintain party unity and also present a unified face to the rest of the population. Such a stance would not only increase the likelihood of good democratic voter turnout, it would create a more attractive option for independents, the undecided, and even people who voted for 45 before but are having second thoughts this time around.
To help encourage this way of thinking, I’d like to set an example by providing my own ranking. Although I’m electing to do so, I should issue the caveat that I’m not super knowledgeable about all of the candidates, so, for example, at this point I can’t judge them about a policy decision they made 10 years ago or a vote they made in 2000. My ranking is based just on what I happen to know about the candidates already from news reports and knowledgeable friends, and more so on how the candidates comported themselves and what they expressed in the two debates in June.
I urge others to follow my example and make up your own lists to help try to minimize the divisiveness and perhaps hone your own thinking a little. And feel free to tell me why you think I should change my ranking. I could definitely use more information.
Hopefully we’ll all get a little more information from the upcoming CNN debates on July 30th and 31st.* Maybe after that my rankings will see some revision.
*Note: I’m only going to rank the candidates who qualified for the July debates, although I’m leaving out that Bullock guy, whoever he is.
My Ranking:
- Bernie Sanders
- Julian Castro
- Corey Booker
- Kirsten Gillibrand
- Andrew Yang
- Elizabeth Warren
- Kamala Harris
- Beto O’Rourke
- Pete Buttigieg
- Marianne Williamson
- Bill De Blasio
- Michael Bennett
- Jay Inslee
- Tulsi Gabbard
- Joe Biden
- Tim Ryan
- John Delaney
- Amy Klobuchar
- John Hickenlooper
For More Information:
July 26 Debate
Participants: New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Former Housing Secretary Julian Castro. New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio. Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney. Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Washington Governor Jay Inslee. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke. Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan. And Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Video: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-video-democratic-presidential-debate-night-1-62758981769
Full Transcript: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-first-democratic-primary-debate-2019-n1022816
July 27 Debate
Participants: Colorado Senator Michael Bennet. Former Vice President Joe Biden. South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. California Senator Kamala Harris. Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. California Congressman Eric Swalwell. Author Marianne Williamson. And former tech executive Andrew Yang.
Video: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-video-democratic-presidential-debate-night-2-62848069759
Full Transcript: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-2019-democratic-debate-night-two-sortable-topic-n1023601?icid=canonical_related
Friday, December 30, 2016
A Christmas Card for the Apocalypse
Before this year (and hopefully after it, too), I was pretty dedicated in my efforts to send out as many holiday cards as possible at the end of each year. For me, during most of my adult life, the holidays have been a time to acknowledge my gratitude to the friends I've seen that year, apologize to those I couldn't see, and wish everyone well for the coming year, usually with an optimism that the upcoming year really could be pretty good for just about everyone I was sending a card to. However, this year has had me in a quandary. Yes I want to thank the friends I saw for the great times we had together, yes I want to apologize to those I wasn't able to see, and yes I really do want to wish everyone the best. But I'm having a problem with that last item. Oh, the wish part is there, I guarantee that, but the optimism that the year really could be pretty good for most people? Not this time.
When I thought about having cards printed up with a smiling photo of my girlfriend and I on some vacation somewhere, and then opening card after card and having to sincerely wish each person well, when I was uncertain that wellness would be likely for any number of us, I just couldn't bear the thought. I felt like anything I could possibly write would be at least A) hypocritical, or B) totally unfestive. How much bad karma would I accumulate in writing a hundred or so unfelt sentiments or dirgelike prophecies? And when they received my cards, how many recipients would be searching for the Unfriend button, so to speak, either online or in the real world?
The fact is that this year the holiday season for me has been overshadowed with a foreboding, a feeling that after that ball drops on New Year's Eve comes the beginning of the end, at worst, or, at best, challenging changes and a lot of struggle. This comes only a few months after a daydream I had, in which I was thinking how great it will be to retire early, go live on a farm and spend all day digging in the dirt, and finally relax and just not have to worry about anything. Well, so much for that. Sure, there have been elections during my lifetime that have left me disappointed, disgusted, or disillusioned, but none of them has ever made me think I have to consider the possibility of life as we know it ending...until now. It's not safe to assume the best without preparing for the worst—or something to that effect—and the worst case scenario given the most recent election is one that is difficult to contemplate.
A good friend of mine once told me that the purpose of science fiction is to prepare people for what is to come, and I can't help feeling that my most useful frame of reference here is the future depicted in The Terminator. Far from digging in the dirt and relaxing, the future I can't help seeing now will mean donning protective gear every day before I walk out the front door, being constantly alert to every possible threat from every direction, not trusting those who are supposedly sworn to protect me, desperately trying to read between the lines of the propaganda to try to uncover the truth, and eking out a meager existence unless someone decides I should be one of the privileged few. Man, this is not what I signed up for when I turned 50! (Okay, I haven't just described being hunted by robots amid total decimation, so that world is not identical to the Terminator world, but close enough.)
That pretty much coincides with the worst case scenario, although I guess the worst-er scenario would involve all of us—poof—up in smoke. Nothing to worry about after that I guess.
The prospect of the best case scenario certainly is not encouraging. In the best case scenario, pretty much all of our civil rights will be under threat, our right to healthcare will be in danger, our ability to feed and house ourselves will be challenged, our planet will be baked and poisoned, resources we have taken for granted will be cut off or privatized for profit, we won't know which news media we can trust.... Oh wait, that's the world we live in right now. So I guess the best case scenario is that things won't get any worse than they are already, at least as they have been outlined by those who are about to take control of the country I live in, the ol’ U.S. of A.
Of course, I don’t know what’s going to happen—none of us do. Sure there are infinite possible scenarios: the president succeeds and completes our conversion into a corpocracy (or a coprocracy, which would be something altogether different...or perhaps exactly the same); the president is impeached, and the vice president completes our conversion into a theocracy; the democrats figure out some way to hamstring the republicans, and we spend another four or eight years with a government that can’t accomplish anything except finding more undeclared wars to fight to feed the companies in the military-industrial complex; so many people take to the streets that it starts shutting down the normal daily operation of the country; the country has its first military coup; everyone from Latin America leaves the country, and it collapses; aliens invade from outer space!
Whatever the prospect, I have been unable to muster up any “holiday spirit” this year, beyond my ingrained need to constantly sing Christmas songs to myself during the entire month of December, and that has meant not sending out holiday cards. I feel like I’ve let down the people who had gotten used to seeing our smiling mugs once a year on a piece of cardstock, and I regret missing the chance to make an annual connection with people in a time when connecting is becoming of dire importance.
But perhaps some people will read this, and to those people I say: I wish you strength in the coming year, I wish you courage, I hope you don’t get totally screwed over, I hope you can eke out some happiness even if things get hellishly crappy, and I encourage you to connect with and stay close to your friends, family, and community. Hopefully we’ll all get through this together and not feel like we should have joined Bowie, Prince, and all those other folks who checked out in 2016.
When I thought about having cards printed up with a smiling photo of my girlfriend and I on some vacation somewhere, and then opening card after card and having to sincerely wish each person well, when I was uncertain that wellness would be likely for any number of us, I just couldn't bear the thought. I felt like anything I could possibly write would be at least A) hypocritical, or B) totally unfestive. How much bad karma would I accumulate in writing a hundred or so unfelt sentiments or dirgelike prophecies? And when they received my cards, how many recipients would be searching for the Unfriend button, so to speak, either online or in the real world?
The fact is that this year the holiday season for me has been overshadowed with a foreboding, a feeling that after that ball drops on New Year's Eve comes the beginning of the end, at worst, or, at best, challenging changes and a lot of struggle. This comes only a few months after a daydream I had, in which I was thinking how great it will be to retire early, go live on a farm and spend all day digging in the dirt, and finally relax and just not have to worry about anything. Well, so much for that. Sure, there have been elections during my lifetime that have left me disappointed, disgusted, or disillusioned, but none of them has ever made me think I have to consider the possibility of life as we know it ending...until now. It's not safe to assume the best without preparing for the worst—or something to that effect—and the worst case scenario given the most recent election is one that is difficult to contemplate.
Science Fiction
A good friend of mine once told me that the purpose of science fiction is to prepare people for what is to come, and I can't help feeling that my most useful frame of reference here is the future depicted in The Terminator. Far from digging in the dirt and relaxing, the future I can't help seeing now will mean donning protective gear every day before I walk out the front door, being constantly alert to every possible threat from every direction, not trusting those who are supposedly sworn to protect me, desperately trying to read between the lines of the propaganda to try to uncover the truth, and eking out a meager existence unless someone decides I should be one of the privileged few. Man, this is not what I signed up for when I turned 50! (Okay, I haven't just described being hunted by robots amid total decimation, so that world is not identical to the Terminator world, but close enough.)
That pretty much coincides with the worst case scenario, although I guess the worst-er scenario would involve all of us—poof—up in smoke. Nothing to worry about after that I guess.
The prospect of the best case scenario certainly is not encouraging. In the best case scenario, pretty much all of our civil rights will be under threat, our right to healthcare will be in danger, our ability to feed and house ourselves will be challenged, our planet will be baked and poisoned, resources we have taken for granted will be cut off or privatized for profit, we won't know which news media we can trust.... Oh wait, that's the world we live in right now. So I guess the best case scenario is that things won't get any worse than they are already, at least as they have been outlined by those who are about to take control of the country I live in, the ol’ U.S. of A.
Of course, I don’t know what’s going to happen—none of us do. Sure there are infinite possible scenarios: the president succeeds and completes our conversion into a corpocracy (or a coprocracy, which would be something altogether different...or perhaps exactly the same); the president is impeached, and the vice president completes our conversion into a theocracy; the democrats figure out some way to hamstring the republicans, and we spend another four or eight years with a government that can’t accomplish anything except finding more undeclared wars to fight to feed the companies in the military-industrial complex; so many people take to the streets that it starts shutting down the normal daily operation of the country; the country has its first military coup; everyone from Latin America leaves the country, and it collapses; aliens invade from outer space!
Deck the Halls...
Whatever the prospect, I have been unable to muster up any “holiday spirit” this year, beyond my ingrained need to constantly sing Christmas songs to myself during the entire month of December, and that has meant not sending out holiday cards. I feel like I’ve let down the people who had gotten used to seeing our smiling mugs once a year on a piece of cardstock, and I regret missing the chance to make an annual connection with people in a time when connecting is becoming of dire importance.
But perhaps some people will read this, and to those people I say: I wish you strength in the coming year, I wish you courage, I hope you don’t get totally screwed over, I hope you can eke out some happiness even if things get hellishly crappy, and I encourage you to connect with and stay close to your friends, family, and community. Hopefully we’ll all get through this together and not feel like we should have joined Bowie, Prince, and all those other folks who checked out in 2016.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Clinton’s Conflict of Interest: The Proof Is Not the Point
Another special guest post by H. Flannery
In the recent Democratic debate on April 14th in New York, CNN reporter Dana Bash posed this question to Senator Bernie Sanders:
“Senator Sanders, you have consistently criticized Secretary Clinton for accepting money from Wall Street. Can you name one decision that she made as senator that shows that [s]he favored banks because of the money she received?”
After Sanders’ response, in which he talked about how the giant banks still aren’t broken up after the crash of 2007 even though they are actually larger and even more heavily invested in derivatives now than they were then, Hillary Clinton said, “Well, you can tell, Dana, he cannot come up with any example, because there is no example.”
And something has been bothering me about the ineffective responses that Sanders and his supporters have been providing to answer that assertion.
Corruption is a sneaky animal. When your eyes are open to it, it is easy to see. But it is notoriously hard to prove, either logically or legally. Finding a direct, causal link between gifts of money and the actions of the recipients of that money is very difficult. When attorneys want to charge corporate officials for bribery, for example, they often have to resort to charging them for violating accounting laws by improperly labeling transactions for the money received, since they can’t prove where the money came from or went to, or whether it was used to influence a decision.
This difficulty was experienced by federal prosecutors, for example, when they tried unsuccessfully to prosecute former President Bill Clinton for bribery after he pardoned commodities trader Marc Rich on the president’s last day in office in 2001. Rich had been indicted on 65 criminal counts, including tax evasion, wire fraud, and racketeering. Clinton pardoned him not long after his wife, Denise Rich, had given a million dollars to the Democratic Party—including $100,000 for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and $450,000 for the Clinton presidential library. But, as the Wall Street Journal reported at the time:
“In the case of Mr. Clinton's pardon of fugitive tax-evader Marc Rich, prosecutors already have proof of a “quo” (the pardon) and a “quid” (huge contributions to the Clinton presidential library by ex-wife Denise Rich). Their challenge is proving the elusive “pro”—that the pardon was given in exchange for those contributions, or other things of value.”
And when it comes to political campaigns, the fact that it is difficult to provide direct proof of corruption is precisely why enormous campaign contributions are so dangerous. They create an inherent conflict of interest, whether or not the politician immediately acts to do something their donors ask for. And they should be limited precisely because they are so insidious, and because their effects are not necessarily identifiable in terms of a direct quid pro quo.
No one knows this better than John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court justice who wrote the dissenting opinion in the now infamous Citizens United decision. In his opinion, he wrote (the bolding is mine):
“On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress’ legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an ‘undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment’ and from creating ‘the appearance of such influence’, beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships...
“Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf. Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics. It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA, a record that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions, lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other’s backs—and which amply supported Congress’ determination to target a limited set of especially destructive practices.”
Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article for The Intercept in which he came closer to explaining this than anyone I have seen or heard recently. In his article, “To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument,” Greenwald talks about how Democrats had formerly been arguing against the Citizens United decision because they understood that the presence of large sums of special interest money in campaigns inherently created the potential for malfeasance:
“The crux of the Citizens United ruling was that a legal ban on independent corporate campaign expenditures constituted a limit on political speech without sufficient justification, and thus violated the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. A primary argument of the Obama Justice Department and Democrats generally in order to uphold that campaign finance law was that corporate expenditures are so corrupting of the political process that limits are justified even if they infringe free speech.”
Now, he says, Clinton’s campaign is arguing the opposite: that campaign contributions do not inherently corrupt the process, and that even if you receive large contributions from special interests, there is no reason to think that your actions will be affected by those gifts. This is the opposite of what the Obama campaign and much of the Democratic base have been accepting as understood since the court’s decision in 2010.
But the more important point here is that the Clinton campaign’s “prove it!” argument is deliberately trying to derail our natural suspicion of the corrupting influence of big money. They are trying to make us forget that the most dangerous aspects of corruption are its insidiousness and its subtlety; that in politics there is not necessarily a direct, identifiable link between money and action; that, as Justice Stevens said, corruption operates along a spectrum—from small advantages such as greater access, to large advantages such as helping to write legislation.
The reason that we are justifiably suspicious about large sums of money influencing the actions of politicians is not always because we can point to a specific action taken (or not taken) by a politician directly because of contributions made to them by outside interests. It is because the very act of accepting large sums of money from outside interests creates a conflict of interest that is inherently corrupting. And the outside interests certainly hope that their gifts do affect politicians’ behavior; that is, after all, why they are giving the money in the first place.
Transcript of the debate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/transcript-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/
Difficulty of proving corruption in public officials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_public_corruption_in_the_United_States
WSJ article about Marc Rich:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB983494389378921301
Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX
Greenwald’s article:
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/
Friday, April 8, 2016
Which Presidential Candidate Is Most Like Jesus?
I’m not a religious type of guy, but when I was out running today, I started thinking about some religious people I know and some of the comments they’ve made about the different candidates for president in this election. I know that for some of them, in some way I may not understand, their religion may be a major factor in who they will vote for or have voted for. One big reason why I don’t understand is because the candidates they like, either by their acts or by what they say, seem to not display the characteristics that one would normally consider to be exemplary of a person of faith. But I guess the people I know are willing to overlook this situation because those candidates say they’re religious or mention god periodically whenever they speak publicly.
Well I don’t think it’s a good idea to vote for a candidate just because they say they’re religious; I think the candidate should actually personify the ideals of your religion. For Christian religions, which we would be made to believe represent a large portion of the United States, the standard that is held above all others, the standard by which one can really judge a person, would be Jesus, right? As I’ve heard people, and seen T-shirts, say, “What would Jesus do?” The implication is that if you are in a situation and act in the same way Jesus would, then you are AOK.
So I thought to myself, “Well, which candidate is most like Jesus?” The answer seemed pretty clear to me. Let me give you a few hints:
1. He wants to kick usurers out of the temple.
2. He wants sick people—all sick people—to have access to healing.
3. He preaches acceptance of all types of people and welcomes them to his movement.
4. He’s rebelling against an unpopular, some say oppressive, establishment.
5. The Pope likes him.
6. He’s Jewish.
Well I don’t think it’s a good idea to vote for a candidate just because they say they’re religious; I think the candidate should actually personify the ideals of your religion. For Christian religions, which we would be made to believe represent a large portion of the United States, the standard that is held above all others, the standard by which one can really judge a person, would be Jesus, right? As I’ve heard people, and seen T-shirts, say, “What would Jesus do?” The implication is that if you are in a situation and act in the same way Jesus would, then you are AOK.
So I thought to myself, “Well, which candidate is most like Jesus?” The answer seemed pretty clear to me. Let me give you a few hints:
1. He wants to kick usurers out of the temple.
2. He wants sick people—all sick people—to have access to healing.
3. He preaches acceptance of all types of people and welcomes them to his movement.
4. He’s rebelling against an unpopular, some say oppressive, establishment.
5. The Pope likes him.
6. He’s Jewish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)