#because my policies would all be focused on class issues not left vs right

[alliswyattonthewesternfront]

whenever i'm in the shower, i like to give speeches set in the fantasy world where i win the u.s. election as a third-party candidate. i don't have ambitions of political power on even a local level, it's just an effective way to rile myself up into a full range of motion while exposed to that much heat. good for the muscles. for the joints.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

There’s a lot of news right now about conflicts within the Democratic Party, and similar stories will likely continue to pop up for the next two years. Much of this is normal and unsurprising. The American political system has only two major parties, resulting in those parties being large and internally diverse — a political reporter could write a “Democrats divided” or “Republicans divided” story virtually any day of any year. And the Democrats are in a complicated place politically at the moment, having just won a major election but not the presidency, which would give the party one single person to rally around.

All that said, it’s worth unpacking these divides among elected Democrats. Not because they will necessarily hurt the party in November 2020, but because those divides will explain a lot of what happens day-to-day until the presidential election and potentially afterward. These conflicts are often hard to understand — factions and officials have incentives to obscure both the existence and the specifics of their differences. Many labels have lost their utility by becoming too broad and oversimplified; the term “progressive,” for example, has become virtually meaningless to describe different kinds of Democrats, since politicians as different as Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both define themselves as progressive.

So here’s a short guide to the various factions of the 2019-20 Democratic Party, based on my reporting and conversations with Democratic staffers on Capitol Hill, on the various presidential campaigns and at liberal-leaning activists groups.1 The goal is to better reflect the disagreements playing out among party elites in the real world, which aren’t well captured by “liberal vs. moderate” or other broad terms like that.

We have generally ordered these blocs from most liberal to least:2

The Super Progressives

Very liberal on economic and identity/cultural issues, anti-establishment. (Anti-establishment is a very fuzzy term, but in this piece, what I’m referring to is people who see part of their role as not just attacking Republicans, but also highlighting what they see as shortcomings of the Democratic Party itself.)

Prominent examples: Ocasio-Cortez , Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan

People in this bloc generally see the Democratic Party as too centrist and too cautious. This bloc is pushing for very liberal policies on economics (for example, its members favor a plan that would put all Americans in a Medicare-style system for health insurance). But unlike the next bloc, they are also pushing for very liberal stands on issues around identity and race (they support abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.)

In short, this group represents the most left wing of the modern Democratic Party on both of the main policy areas occupying U.S. politics. Moreover, its members are aggressively pushing their vision even when other Democrats balk.

This is a fairly small bloc in terms of Democratic elected officials–I don’t think any of the current Democratic governors or senators fit into this group.3 That’s partly because policies like abolishing ICE are fairly new, so Democrats who did not run in the 2018 cycle did not have to take a position on them. But it’s also not yet clear that you can win statewide (or nationally) with this kind of across-the-board-very-liberal politics.

The Very Progressives

Very liberal on economic issues, fairly liberal on identity issues, skeptical of the Democratic establishment.

Prominent examples: Bill de Blasio, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.

This group has much in common with the first, particularly on economics. The Very Progressive group’s distinguishing characteristics are being a little less aggressive and less focused on identity issues and a little more willing to play nice with the Democratic Party establishment. 4

I don’t expect Sanders or Warren, for example, to come out in favor of abolishing ICE during their presidential candidacies. (Look for language like “restructuring” or “starting over.”) But people in this bloc are onboard with the economic liberalism of the Super Progressives and are worried the Democratic Party is too cozy with corporate America.

A good illustration of the dividing line between the first two blocs and the rest of the party was the debate over Amazon getting tax breaks from New York for moving part of its second headquarters there. Ocasio-Cortez and Warren were among the most prominent opponents of offering benefits to Amazon, while less liberal Democrats like Cuomo generally are less wary of the Democrats building ties with major corporations.

The Progressive New Guard

Liberal on both economic and identity issues but also somewhat concerned about the “electability” of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence after Barack Obama was elected president.

Prominent examples: Stacey Abrams, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, Beto O’Rourke.

I consider the vast majority of Democratic members of Congress and Democratic governors either in this group or the one that comes next. The people in this group (and the next one) are often reacting to the ideas of the two more progressive blocs instead of really driving the party’s vision themselves. Abrams and O’Rourke, in particular, are talented politicians, but I don’t think either of them has a defined ideology in the way that Sanders does. Booker, in the midst of the 2020 presidential campaign, has embraced Medicare for all and the Green New Deal. But if he is the party’s presidential nominee, I would expect him to hedge on those issues — “I support the aspiration of Medicare for all” or some such — in a way Ocasio-Cortez would not if she were the candidate.

But what makes this group distinct from the next bloc of Democrats is a kind of performative wokeness, both on racial and nonracial issues. Its members are adept at speaking to a Democratic Party that is increasingly a coalition of minorities and whites with liberal views on gender and racial issues. They aren’t dismissive of the young activists pushing the Green New Deal, as some in the next bloc are. And wokeness is also illustrated in how this bloc sees the electorate. The Progressive New Guard wants to appeal to white, working-class swing voters, but it sees another path to Democrats winning in purple states: mobilizing nonwhite voters and white millennials who might not vote at all if the candidate does not inspire them.

The Progressive Old Guard

Solidly center-left on both economic and identity issues, but very concerned about the “electability” of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence before Obama was elected president.

Prominent examples: Joe Biden, Cuomo, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer.

People in this bloc are often considered “moderate,” while those in the previous one are tagged “liberal,” but I’m not sure these two groups have huge policy differences. I’m not convinced, for example, Biden would pick meaningfully different Supreme Court justices than Harris or O’Rourke. But the Progressive Old Guard presents itself much differently than the new guard. The old guard is less willing to placate the party’s most progressive wings. The defining phrase of this group might be “how do you pay for that?” With the Super Progressives and Very Progressives seemingly ascendant, this bloc is deeply concerned about the party going too far left. That’s in part because this bloc, more so than the Progressive New Guard, sees the path to the Democrats winning as largely about wooing white swing voters in the Midwest, not mobilizing nonwhite voters in states like Georgia.

The Moderates

More conservative and business-friendly than other Democrats on economic policies; somewhat liberal on cultural issues; anti-establishment.

Prominent examples: Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia.

Some of the members of this bloc recently voted for a bill to expand background checks for gun purchases, which was championed by Pelosi, but then also supported a GOP-backed amendment to the measure that would alert ICE when an undocumented immigrant tries to purchase a gun. The moderates supporting that idea infuriated both Pelosi (she argued Democrats need to work as a team and not join with the GOP) and Ocasio-Cortez (she objects to empowering ICE.)

But criticism from Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi may be a feature, not a bug, for these members. Many of them represent competitive (purple) districts and states. Some of the Democrats in this bloc may be, in their hearts and minds, just more conservative than other Democrats. But virtually all have a political incentive to play up their differences with Pelosi and particularly Ocasio-Cortez — to tell their constituents essentially, “I’m a Democrat, but not that kind of Democrat.”

Conservative Democrats

Skeptical of liberal views on both economic and cultural issues, often supportive of abortion limits, generally from conservative-leaning areas.

Prominent examples: Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.

This is probably the smallest wing of these six. But it’s an important one. Democrats may need more Democrats in this mold to win any of the three governor races in 2019 (Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi) or to gain seats in state legislatures in the West and the South. This wing, I think, will punch above its weight in the national debate about where the Democrats are headed — because these Democrats will likely be those pushing loudest for it to avoid the policy stands of the Very Progressives and the Super Progressives. And they will have a compelling argument — by being elected, Edwards was able to expand Medicaid to more than 400,000 people in a very red state, a real policy change Ocasio-Cortez can’t make.

Even these categories are broad and imperfect. You could argue for more or fewer and might dispute some of the politicians I have included in the various groups. But I think this captures something essential about what is happening in Democratic politics right now.

I didn’t intend to have six blocs when I started writing this story. But six (two on the left, two in the center and two to the right) is apt in describing where the Democratic Party is right now. The two most liberal groups have a ton of new policy ideas and energy, and they are determined to push the party left. But the Democrats have a majority in the House in part because of moderate Democrats winning in closely contested districts, and the party probably needs more moderate, and even some conservative, Democrats to gain ground in gubernatorial and Senate seats. Trapped in the middle are the party’s congressional leaders and most of its presidential contenders, facing pressure from the party’s left and the right.

Over the next year two years, divides that crop up among Democrats will likely break along some of these factional lines.

[drakus79]

The End of Socialism?

Well I was right in predicting that my prediction will probably be wrong :P

That’s what you call hedging your bets.  So why wait so long for another post?

1. I’m lazy and writing is hard.

2. I wanted to give enough time for things to settle before I posted my thoughts and predictions.

The reactions to Trump winning was amusing to say the least, and I wasn’t even one of his supporters.  It’s still amusing to this day, but we’re all starting to get used to him now and the mass hysteria is starting to subside.  So now that clearer heads can prevail, what does it all mean, and where are we going?

This is something I’ve seen coming for some time, but I think Trump’s speech at the UN clarified it.  And no I’m not talking about “Rocket Man” although, his country is part of the story (and I think “Madman Across the Water” would have been a better nickname).  Anyway, this whole election, everything leading up to it, and these final battles to come are the last gasps of a dying ideology.  Call it what you will Socialism/Marxism/Communism, yes I know they all have different definitions.  But like “conservative” “liberal” “left” “right” these are politically loaded terms that people have attempted, both successfully and unsuccessfully to redefine over the years in an effort to paint “their team” in a better light while denigrating their opposition. 

And Trump is guilty of this too.  Watching him criticize Venezuela for “faithfully implementing socialism” was more than a little bit laughable considering all economies are mixed to some degree, and the USA has fallen significantly in rank on the economic freedom index thanks largely in part to the sort of debt spending policies that Trump is in favor of. ��It is no longer in the top 10 and has been surpassed by “socialist” countries like Canada and Australia.

Source:  http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The US has become significantly more Socialist in the past century.  Just one look at the US debt clock gives you an indication that perhaps maybe we need to reverse course quickly to avoid a monetary crisis:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It has surpassed 20 trillion, already well passed our GDP.  The ones advocating for more expensive social spending, specifically medicare for all (which is our largest budget item) may be unwittingly pushing for a default on the debt and the harshest austerity conditions imaginable.  Think late wave Soviet Union or current day Venezuela but here in the US.  I don’t think that’s what socialists imagine when they advocate for more public spending, but that’s often what they get when there’s not a strong enough competitive free market to support the socialist side of a mixed economy.

So when I say, “the end of socialism” this what I mean.  Socialism, as it has in the past, will be so discredited most likely as a result of socialists getting what they want and it backfiring horribly.  I don’t think the ideology will die off completely though.  It’s been around for as long as civilization has existed, just under the different names.  The Populares were the “socialists” of the Roman Empire after all.  The whole socialist vs. capitalist argument is so tired and old and will never be resolved because you will always find evidence on each side that supports your confirmation bias.

The truth is people in Socialist countries DO live better as long as the people are still wealthy enough to support the social programs and there are few enough corrupt special interest groups taking advantage of the system or bloating up the bureaucracy.  But I'm not sure if you can still call it socialism if most of the population believe that their tax money is well spent and they would voluntarily put their money towards those causes even if the government didn't force them to through taxes.

The way I see it, you can measure how effective your social program is by how voluntary it is.  The most voluntary would be to give directly to those in need without the need of government or any third party organization.  The next level would be through charities or churches.  Another level higher would be through local municipalities or county governments through taxes.  States would be the next level, and the Federal level would be the highest level.  And if we’re taking a global approach having it instituted through a global tax and world government.  With each level comes an increasing degree of bureaucracy and centralization.  The more bureaucratic and centralized it gets, the less trustful people are that their money is being well spent, and there is a higher tendency for the government to resort to the threat of force to tax their citizens.  Thus it becomes less voluntary.  So comparing a small “socialist” state like Norway to the United States is like apples and oranges, since the degree of voluntaryism involved in taxing and funding Norway’s socialist policies is much higher than it is here in the US.

In the US we are nowhere close to having a socialist system that is anywhere near voluntary.  You'll be hard pressed to find anyone on either side of the aisle who skips to the mailbox and happily mails their tax check feeling as though they’ve done a good deed by giving the government their money.  The average middle class family is taxed at 40% of their income between local, state and federal taxes, and that doesn’t include the hidden taxes and fees that are passed down to them whenever they try to buy anything in the “free market”.  At what percentage does taxation become slavery?  60%  70% 80%?  Or do we have to reach North Korea levels and have the government own 100% of property?  The US spends 4 trillion a year, and that's just on the Federal level.  If you throw in state and local budgets it's probably closer 7 trillion. And most of it us funded on debt.  More than 1 trillion has been spent on medicare alone.  That's more than all the European Socialist countries combined.  Yet we get very little in return.

That's because the US actually HAS become socialist.  Very few small businesses make it passed the startup phase anymore, instead they sell themselves to the larger conglomerates that are already embedded in the whole government/corporate super-monopoly that our "free market" has become.  Anyone who's taken one economics class knows that if there's a monopoly that corners the market, prices are going to go up.  Well that's happened in every major established market because the government has become the monopoly, and the big corporations are the parasites that leach off of it.  It's not just the military industrial complex either.  It's almost the entire finance industry, the healthcare industry, the insurance industry, the entertainment industry and main stream media, the auto industry, the construction industry, and pretty much any corporation the government deems "too big to fail".  This is why the average person can't pay for anything in those industries out of pocket anymore without insurance, going into debt, or government assistance.  The USA has essentially adopted a system of corporate communism.

The progressive era at the turn of the century was where the realignment and the trend towards socialism began. Both parties became progressive, and the low tax / small government / anti-central banking classical liberals eventually abandoned the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party had originally inherited the anti-federalist platform from classical liberals like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, but after the civil war, largely influenced by populist and marxist movements of the time, they instead became MORE progressive and MORE federalist than the Republicans, a party that had originally inherited the Federalist platform from classical conservatives like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

The Dem's position as the more federalist and progressive party was solidified with Wilson and later FDR. Wilson's signing of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 cemented the central bank's power, and we've had unprecedented deficit spending ever since. FDR's new deal and his reliance on John Maynard Keynes' economic policies of debt spending and expanding government programs during bust times to get us out out of the Great Depression actually had the reverse effect and really extended the Great Depression an additional decade longer than it should have lasted. It took victory in WWII to finally get us out of it. The rest of the world's economy was shattered and we came out of the war in much better shape comparatively which is why it looks as though spending on the war got us out of the depression.  In truth, we just lost the least. But we never really got out of the debt spending mentality and we allowed the military industrial complex to become a parasite to our increasingly bloated federal government. This has led to other large corporations following suit.  Now the government is one big corporate monopoly.

If you go back to my post where I talked about Strauss and Howe’s Generational Theory, I mentioned that each cycle’s fourth turning focused on resolving a major public problem that had been dogging the nation for that entire cycle.  But every solution creates a new problem, and the next cycle is all about dealing with and ultimately resolving that new problem.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory

During the Revolutionary Cycle, it was getting out from England’s oppressive Imperial Monarchy and establishing a limited government founded on classically liberal principles.  But in order to come to an agreement on the constitution, the founders had to compromise on slavery, and thus the issue of slavery was not resolved until the next cycle.

During the Civil War Cycle, it was about resolving the issue of slavery and reversing course on some of the more extreme aspects of classical liberalism (namely property rights as it pertained to owning slaves and states rights).  But this solution resulted in a much stronger Federal government and a sense of nationalism as well as an explosion of unrestrained capitalism during the Gilded Age.

During the Great Power Cycle, Marxism/Socialism, Populism, and Progressivism took hold both in Europe and the US in reaction to the abuses of unrestrained capitalism during the Industrial Revolution. ��A sense of Nationalism also continued to grow, and a fragile system of alliances resulted in WWI, which in turn resulted in WWII when the National Socialists and International Socialists finally had their disastrous and horribly bloody ideological split.  The National Socialists lost and were discredited with good reason.  But the International Socialists came out looking like the good guys despite being just as totalitarian and we’ve been dealing with them ever since.

The Millennial Cycle has been all about the cold war and dealing with the International Socialists/Marxists/Communists whatever you want to call them.  You had your monsters like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in Russia, China and Cambodia who killed hundreds of millions of people during the first part of the cycle, but now those countries have developed into mixed economies of varying degrees not too different from Western “Capitalist” Democracies.  The only total command economy left is North Korea, and “Rocket Man” seems to be an isolated laughingstock on the world stage.  Just one look at the economic freedom index tells you that NK ranks the lowest.  North Korea is the only country left that institutes full blown socialism.  Until as recently as this summer there were no property rights at all.  It seems that even Kim Jong Un has realized that some degree of free market capitalism is necessary to fund his government programs in the wake of all of the sanctions.  But sadly, the North Korean people are still essentially his slaves.

The socialist ideology has been discredited many times over to a large extent, but it keeps getting redefined and different words get used to try and reframe it.  And even after the Soviet Union fell in 1990, the influence of Marx is still felt strongly in the US.  Socialism even made a bit of a resurgence during Obama’s term as president.  So much so Trump’s election was like a Nationalist over-reaction to it.  For a moment there, in Charlottesville last month,  it seemed like National Socialism and the racism and anti-semitism that came along with it might be making a comeback as young men marched out with tiki-torches.   They even had the confidence that their message would be acceptable enough to the masses that they wouldn’t have to wear KKK masks this time.  But this was not the case.  They were shamed, disavowed, their faces forever enshrined on social media and associated with the hateful ideology they were trying promote and their lives are now ruined. But, the attention was shifted to the “anti-fascists”, who similarly wave communist and international socialist symbols from regimes that also committed acts of genocide.  After Trump’s election their actions were mostly ignored by the media, and there was a lot of pressure from elements of the establishment to NOT disavow them, despite the fact they DO wear masks and aren’t opposed to using violence to promote their political ends.  But that started to change after Charlottesville and they could no longer be ignored.

The writing seems to be on the wall to me.  All of this seems to be a sign that the ideology of socialism/globalism/marxism/communism ... whatever you want to call it, it’s been relabeled, redefined and rebranded so many times ... is coming to an end.  That’s not to say there won’t be an effort to reframe it again as something new in the future though, this tired old argument of more centralization of power vs. less centralization of power never goes away completely ...

[dear-ilenas-friends-blog]

Alright Alright Alright

Let’s unpack some shit today, shall we? Once again, a reminder that I do not care about your feelings. 

Today we chat about Betsy DeVos. Oh yes, the idiot who was recently confirmed as our country’s Secretary of Education. You might be thinking to yourself, “What does the Secretary of Education do?” In layman’s terms, the S.of E. oversees the US Department of Education and also deals with education policies including discrimination in schools, loans for college (and their interest rates), Common core curriculum, testing, you kinda get the picture. Usually, the people put in charge of the Department of Education are...well...familiar with Education. 

Lauro Cavazos, who was the Secretary of Education under both Reagan and H.W. Bush, received his PhD in physiology before going on to being a professor at Tufts University and the Medical College of Virginia. He served as Dean of the Tufts University School of Medicine and as the President of Texas Tech University. Yeah. Experience in education. 

Moving on to the S. of E. under GW Bush, Rod Paige. HUGE SHOCKER! BIG NEWS! He was the first African American to become the Secretary of Education! He went from classroom teacher to school superintendent to college dean, all in Mississippi. He also served on the Board of Education for the Houston Independent School District, and led the district on to be the only one in the country that has ever earned accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (read: it was super safe). Oh and while he was working at the White House, he proposed several amendments for Title IX, or, you know, the thing that lets you ladies play the same sports as men. No big deal or anything. So yeah, education. 

Margaret Spellings was GW Bush’s second Secretary of Education (two terms, to peeps). A lady! Astounding. Here we go. She worked on the Texas education reform commission and was the associate executive director for the Texas Association of School Boards. She oversaw the No Child Left Behind program (best name ever), and she created the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, which aimed to reform post-secondary (college) education. She wanted more technical and vocational training. The commission also focused on how well high schools were preparing teenagers for college. Once again, education. 

Obama’s first Secretary of Education was Arne Duncan, a product of Harvard University. He was the director of the Ariel Education Initiative, which was a program aimed at mentoring children in Chicago. He also began a charter school and later was named Deputy Chief of Staff for the Chicago Public School’s CEO. As Secretary of Education, he opposed the No Child Left Behind law and also he kinda sucked at his job. Like no joke, he had all the skill and none of the...implementation or ideas. But still, he had a background in education. 

The most recent Secretary of Education (before I talk about Ms. DeVos) was John King Jr. and Oh. My. God. was he cool. He originally taught Social Studies in Boston, and he was the co-director of Roxbury Preparatory Charter School. This school, under his watchful eye, attained the highest state exam scores of any urban middle school in Massachusetts, closed the racial achievement gap, and outperformed students from both middle- and upper-class schools and suburbs. Suck it. He has just about every teacher degree you can have from Yale and Columbia, and (no big deal) is also a Truman Scholar. He was the New York Commissioner for Education before being selected by Barry O as Secretary of State. He helped teachers get more funds utilizing Title II, which also trained them to lead. He worked to get more support for teachers of color. Basically he was an all-around awesome bro, and yeah, has a shit ton of educational expertise. 

And so, here we are. Three weeks into (gag) President Trump’s first term, and he has a new Secretary of Education. Betsey DeVos (Last name pronounced de-Voss - like the obnoxious water that costs you $5 in a CVS but the white people buy it anyway to look cool) ANYWAY, DeVos is a billionaire. Let’s start with that. She served as chair of the Michigan Republican Party from 1992-1997. She and her family have personally given more that $17 million to political candidates (that should ring a bell- it’s sort of bribery - but we’re getting there). She is the chairwoman of the Windquest Group, which privately invests in technology, manufacturing, and clean energy (that’s cool, I’ll give her that). She and her husband are also chief investors in and board members of Neurocore, which offers biofeedback therapy for mental disorders.Now all of this is fine and dandy. Makes Betsy sound wonderful - and maybe she is! But here’s the thing. She is currently our Secretary of Education, and we need to chat about that. 

 There are many issues facing our public school system. Common core, standardized testing, proficiency vs. growth, school shootings, discrimination based on sexual orientation/skin color/literally anything, bathroom rights, you know. Just the usual. So obviously the person who is going to tackle these problems needs to be experienced. 

Unfortunately for Ms. DeVos, she is not. During her confirmation hearing, she (amazingly) said schools need guns for grizzly bear attacks, revealed she had never attended (and her children hadn’t either) any sort of public school, told the senate that she had never had to take out a loan, and also appeared to want to take money away from public schools and give it to charter schools. Okay, what else? Oh, she wants states to decide what is discrimination towards their students (so that bathroom thing that Obama put out? Yeah she was not a fan of treating people decently) This is the woman who would be overseeing the student loan interest rates yet she has no financial background or...loan background...or any background really. Betsy DeVos has lived comfortably because of her money, and she is about to deal with the real world. 

And just to add insult to injury, today (February 10, 2017), she was physically barred from entering a public school by protesters. In the video you can clearly see how absolutely terrified she looks. Reality is setting in. 

So to wrap it up. Secretary of Education needs experience. We have had experienced peeps up until now, where our cheeto-in-chief has nominated and sworn in billionaire lady DeVos. 

Yep. We’re screwed. 

[braindamageforbeginners]

Intermezzo: Writing

Pre-Cycle 11

I will not be writing about my Thanksgiving, again, although I intend to once I can feel my left side (again, nothing bad happened but I’m still amazingly worn-out, which, for neurology patients, is a uniquely terrible feeling because it usually exacerbates your symptoms). However, when I come back and discuss Recent Personal Events, one thing I wanted to cover was the writing process. Or my writing process, anyway.

As usual, I tell most people that even though I might exaggerate some things or clarify details or the sequence of events, I try not to to fictionalize my experiences too much, not only because that would possibly be a disservice for anyone trying to replicate my “results” (again, for the complementary stuff, I do take CDB and a combined THC/CDB edibles for pain/chemover issues, I eat mostly fiber-based stuff, and lots of protein - usually in the form of protein supplements, but I’m not picky; make no mistake, I don’t think those will cure me, but they will enable me to survive the cure by eating, going to the gym, and those other issues that tend to promote health while not simultaneously giving the disease an edge)(also, to my LDS friends who were asking about medical marijuana, the new law says that it’s acceptable for “cachexia” - that’s the wasting that comes from final-stage cancer, by which it has so thoroughly taken over your system, it’s actually stripping you of nutrients - you want it to fight the weight-loss that comes with chemo, especially since even dear ol’ Zofran will make you too queasy to eat regularly); but also because I genuinely don’t have a good enough imagination to improve upon reality. This isn’t to say that I don’t like fiction or that it doesn’t have its place, just that, if you know how to look, you can find stuff that is way, way weirder than fiction. Case in point, my neighbor is a cop (true), owns a bloodhound (sorry, coonhound - I guess it’s bad form to mix up hunting hounds) which he uses to hunt... wild boars, not raccoons (also true). Which he makes into sausage. He also makes his own wine. When I was introduced to his dog, the line used was - and this is verbatim - “He’s named ‘Henry,’ but he prefers ‘Hank.” Let us just pause and appreciate what a glorious universe we live in where that line could be used unironically to describe a dog. All of this is true and not exaggerated - or not consciously exaggerated, anyway. Faulkner himself couldn’t imagine a character that good.

And that’s really how I was trained to write. Even though I’ve had many, many formal classes on writing, they were mostly focused on history, or science, or art/literature discussions - really, I’ve had a fair amount of training as a journalist more than a creative writer (I’m not really sure I’ve taken a creative writing class, come to it). Again, though, sometimes you can, with some research and observation, find something far more interesting than fiction. Which brings us to the main topic; a recent, hilariously bad attempt at contacting a real-life lost tribe. I normally try not to describe current (or even historical) events, but, sometimes, I just can’t help myself. So, before I go on, I will go with my usual warning that this is not a broad endorsement or condemnation of anything other than stupidity and/or incompetence (I have specific opinions that we’ll get into shortly, but, this tale does feature the world’s most disastrous missionary attempt, and that might put people on edge),

So, bit of background, We live in an era where there are almost no blank spaces left on the map. Hell, thanks to Google Earth, we have a few photos of the Area 51 terrain (again true, but it happened almost 10 years ago). However, there are a few left, like the Darien Gap (the undeveloped jungle-y area between Panama and Colombia, inhabited mostly by drug or gun-running operations), the Kibera Slums of Nairobi (by all accounts, an exceedingly dangerous place to go), parts of Beirut and the Gaza strip, and northern Pakistan. I realize it might be a bit of a stretch to cal them terra incognita, but, go ahead, try and get there and back. I’ll wait. There is also North Sentinel Island. That last one has been featured in a few Cracked articles. Now, even though I loved visiting France - and would do so again, especially if I didn’t have to do it as part of a package tour - I have, later in life, developed a much more, shall we say, spartan view of travel. This really kicked into overdrive after going to the Emerald Pool in Dominica, which I would absolutely endorse to anyone who doesn’t mind a few mosquito bites, and is largely protected because it’s way off the beaten path (if I hadn’t gone to grad school in the vicinity, I probably wouldn’t have gone). Even though I love the Met and Times Square, my most memorable stories from my week in New York a few years ago are from venturing out to Brooklyn, to find a little-known nerd bar that was Doctor Who themed (also true; it’s called The Waystation). My favorite spot in Miami was a dive bar in the middle of an upscale neighborhood (it has, sadly, since been demolished). In other words, I prefer those weird, unique places that seem to last only for a minute or two before they implode. Places like that require finding, and, in some cases, some reliable, competent guides or local fixers to get you there and back (well, not to Zeke’s in Lincoln Road, although finding a parking spot was hairy). North Sentinel Island, however, has stayed on my radar for a while, under the “NONO” file, because the minute it opens up for a nanosecond, it will vanish (it’s worth noting that, even though); also because, like traipsing through Waziristan, being the first one there is not a good idea, for reasons we’ll get into very quickly.

North Sentinel Island is home to a completely uncontacted tribe. And they (the Sentinelese) are super-murder-y. This is an island in the middle of the Indian Ocean - so it’s not like you’d bump into it on the way to Monte Carlo, so I can understand the appeal and mystique right away. The tribe in question hasn’t had contact with the outside world for... well, my sources differ, but since we’ve had records in the area, certainly. If they came over when the aboriginal tribes of Australia migrated from Asia (that’s a weird anthropological riddle unto itself, but we’ll talk about it another day), 30,000-40,000 years wouldn’t be out of the question, although, again, my data on this subject is from anthropologists and/or travel writers, which aren’t exactly “hard” sciences. That’s like “Skull Island” in Kong. Except scarier, because, what do have definitive, written records of, is a very, very hostile environment combined with the Home Owner’s Association from Hell. Literally every single account of the place involves the natives - or the terrain - killing and driving back any outside force. For all of our recorded history. The most recent recordings we have are from fishermen who go near the island, being harassed and shouted at by the inhabitants; that was twenty years ago. None of this is not an exaggeration, although that’s all from secondhand sources, at best (and I’m not going out there), and I’m trying to provide the sort of context I use to figure out if something’s interesting or not. If you’re like me, you’re getting an odd tickling sensation at the top of your spine that indicates something far more interesting than fiction is in the offing. Because no one has any real contact with the Sentinelese (well, no one’s coming forward, anyway), even though most experts think they’re related to other tribes in the chain (which may not mean much - as Maarten Troost points out, some of these islands can be such dangerous, divided places that over a dozen completely different languages were spoken on a single island), they’re also all completely susceptible to modern germs. Which is another one of life’s delightful oddities to consider that a used Kleenex might wipe out the scary natives (well, it would be more delightful if we weren’t celebrating that one time the European powers successfully used that approach to colonize the Americas and utterly decimate the locals long before most had even seen a white man). The Indian Government - who has jurisdiction over the area - has declared it off-limits to anyone without special government clearances and permission. Which I think is fine and agree with, but, I also think it’s to ensure that the Sentinelese don’t get access to boats and decide to expand the neighborhood. Again, we are talking about a people who the British Crown thought it wasn’t worth the risks to actively conquer, and we all know Queen Victoria’s life expectancy was dependent on how many countries her own occupied (okay, so that’s not true, but if you compare how long she reigned vs how many places she claimed ownership of, there’s an odd correlation). Like the other places on my list of “Don’t Ever Go There/Travel Musts,” it combines seclusion with danger, and I’d think the Indian Government might be as effective at banning travelers to it just by ignoring it and discouraging commercial activity in the area. Telling people not to go there or do something isn’t always the wisest policy, as Adam and Eve can attest. At the same time, 30000 years?! The last time they had contact with the rest of the species, we were eating Mammoths. And they’ve been actively resisting/killing everyone else for that long (okay, terminal cancer patient moment, there’s a bit of me that’s shouting.”I hope they never give in!”).

So, the second part of this drama involves organized religion. I will try not to get into my snide, militant agnostic (the older I get, the more I think it utter arrogance to claim absolute certainty - one way or another - about anything, let alone deities), but it will, at points, be somewhat unavoidable, because it’s both too amusing, and because someone claiming to represent God made something of a boo-boo that might endanger our bloodthirsty paleolithic friends there. Or, worse, give them access to boats. So, to all my religious friends, I don’t have any particular problems with your beliefs, as long as you aren’t doing anything horrible with them (like the Catholic Church and that long-running problem regarding pedophilia in the employees)(also, to all my friends who got in touch about the recent legislative/ballot measures, even though I love you all and your church, I hate to  say it, but it���s not like your church would be above the sort of greed and corruption that plagues any institution run by humans, and I’d be immediately suspicious of the stock portfolio or intentions of any authority figure who tells you how to vote), but, at the same time, historically, religion has not always been, shall we say, totally beneficial to every situation. Which is important in this context because some nitwit recently tried to make contact with the Sentinelese in order to convert them. That was his stated intention; if I were inclined to be cynical, I’d point out that visiting Skull Island would be the travel story of a lifetime, and, as a species, we are amazingly good at rationalizing selfish motives to unselfish ones; and I see lonely, desperate people in the chemo ward every Tuesday who’d probably love to talk to you about beliefs (in other words, if you’re actually serious about converting someone, there’s far more receptive and easily-accessible groups than the Lost Atlantis Colony). This is particularly important because John Chau’s method of first contact was also uniquely unsubtle, and had a depressingly predictable (albeit amusing, if you have my twisted sense of humor) outcome.

Just as I kind of have to give props to the Sentinelese for utterly committing to their way of life, I have to admit that religion has - mostly for the better - evolved with us. It’s had to - we started off painting on walls in France in the hopes it’d control aurochs, and now it’s an entity in the modern array of nation-states. In order to do that, it’s had to reign in that impulse to spread the word of God at the end of a sword, and use much more subtle techniques. Again, that sort of sentiment isn’t something you think about until you see the world’s most convoluted form of suicide in action.

And I bring this up because, when I thought about it, if I decided to visit Mega Murder Island (and I’m not sure I would, since I still have strap on an ankle brace any time I think I’m going to need to move at more than two miles an hour, and I still haven’t survived any of my other “Amazing/Awful Travel Destinations”) there might be a few ways I’d go about it, 1. Go back to school and study anthropology and/or linguistics (as needed) and become a Noted Figure in the field, and get official public permission/funding for such a project. 2. Hire a PMC or similar mercenary group to storm island and force my way into the interior at gunpoint (not recommended, this was the approach the British took in the 19th century and they still didn’t subdue the natives). 3. Make friends/contacts among similar tribes in the island chain, in the hope that one of them would offer an “in,” 4. Very quietly organize some sort of quiet, covert expedition to reconnoiter the island while avoiding the Sentinelese in hopes of parlaying that information into a better strategy later, also while staying alive.

It’s not often you get John Chau’s approach, which is to bribe local fisherman to take you within kayak-range of the shore, and read the gospel to the natives, loudly, and then, after a while, paddle back to the waiting fishermen. Let us just pause - again - and appreciate that the same way you ask for directions in Helsinki or St. Petersburg when you have a clumsy phrasebook was the chosen method of contact by a modern human to people whose customs and culture would - if the estimates are correct - completely predate the Lascaux cave paintings. Again, to put it into context, to paraphrase Dan Carlin of “Hardcore History,” it’s a little hard to understand or empathize with writers from 500 BC, because the values and beliefs of the time are so out-of-sync with modern thought. And now imagine a culture that branched off from the rest of us over ten times earlier than that. Predictably, like every other time the outside world has tried to intrude on their island, the natives killed him. I guess  the moral of the story is that Jesus won’t interfere on your behalf if ten minutes’-worth of research on a smart phone would inform you that, hey, maybe going to visit the uber-hostile cavemen isn’t a good idea. Another dream deferred, perhaps, but such is the price of remaining not-killed-by-obviously-not-friendly locals. Yes, my finding this darkly hilarious is probably callous on my part, but, at the same time, in the wake of Honnold ascending El Cap unaided, I’m thinking we, as a society, need to have a discussion about the difference between a calculated risk, and recklessness. Also, as mentioned, life is frequently weirder than fiction, and if you develop an instinct for that (and it’s very easy to do), there’s really no need to agonize over character motivation or plot. 

[ixvyupdates]

Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Most Effective Cabinet Member? The Answer May Frighten You.

Two winters ago, Kaitlyn Kirk, one of my premier students, came into the library with her eyes glued to her phone. Headphones in, she sat down focused on what I thought was “Fortnite” or “Game of Thrones.” When our class began in the back of the library, she remained locked into her screen. I lightly tapped her shoulder, and I noticed she was streaming CNN’s coverage of the Betsy DeVos hearing.

“Mrs. Caneva, listen to this. She just said that schools should have guns because there could be bear attacks.”

Kaitlyn laughed and then said, “She’s not going to last.”

During that initial Senate hearing, Democratic senators repeatedly questioned her on her stance on measuring student proficiency vs. growth, serving students with disabilities, equality in school accountability and guns in schools. Her answers revealed a glaring lack of knowledge of educational issues, understanding of federal and local educational policies and general preparedness for the hearing at hand. Soon afterwards, her questionable “60 Minutes” appearance solidified her substandard readiness to become secretary of education.

However, fast-forward to the present day, and last she has. The duration of her term has stood the test of time, even after an awful beginning. She has been surrounded by cabinet members whose odd behaviors in personal spending of federal funds range from items like overpriced furniture to first-class flights.  Although the government is using federal funds of nearly $8 million to protect her, DeVos has remained almost entirely free of such accusations.

She has also outlasted male cabinet members who President Donald Trump touted rather loudly about during his campaign and transition—former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price—as well as other high-standing Trump officials such as former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and former National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.And with current Ambassador the U.N., Nikki Haley, gracefully stepping aside, DeVos remains one of the few consistent fixtures in President’s Trump cabinet that is operating more like a Lazy Susan instead of a standard stronghold.

With more pertinent issues dominating the news cycle, it may be pressing to point out what DeVos and her education department are even up to these days. After all, DeVos’ Department of Education does not even have a layman’s education agenda like former President George W. Bush had with No Child Left Behind or former President Barack Obama had with Race to the Top.

Although she has recently toured Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana under the title “Rethinking Schools,” it is unclear if this is the name of her agenda or just her tour. The cloudiness of this missing education agenda is alarming as it signals a lack of vision and focus, but it also is strategic and leaves nothing to scrutinize.

As a teacher during both the Bush and Obama administrations, both policies had an impact in my district, school and classroom. Under No Child Left Behind, more and more professional development for me as a teacher became data- and achievement test-driven.

Under Race to the Top, I saw firsthand the explosion of charter schools in neighborhoods that didn’t have students to fill the schools which led, in part, to nearly 50 schools being closed in Chicago in 2013 under Mayor Rahm Emanuel—Obama’s former chief of staff. But under Trump’s administration via DeVos it is difficult to tell if I will feel the impact of DeVos’ major initiative, simply because there isn’t an initiative.

Outside of a major vision, DeVos and the Department of Education, in fact, have been up to a great deal in working to create or dismantle controversial education policy. They have lifted protections for the rights of transgender students to use the bathroom of their choosing.

According to The New York Times, she is constructing rules on campus sexual assault that would benefit the accused and protect universities. Time and time again she has stated that having guns in schools is up to school districts, the states and Congress, never outright stating a federal opposition to guns in schools just that federal funding would not be used for such a program. She attempted to roll back Obama-era guidelines that safeguard students from loan fraud—a lawsuit that she and the Department of Education recently lost.

Looking at just those policies—transgender bathrooms, campus sexual assault, guns in schools, student loan fraud—one can see how these are tertiary topics that came second during the Bush and Obama administrations to a primary educational focus.

Yes, those decisions, if successful, will negatively impact a great amount of students and raise moral and ethical questions about the Department of Education’s beliefs surrounding transgender students, victims of sexual assault, school shootings and student loans. But DeVos’ greatest strength, whether she knows it or not, is that not having a stated, focused agenda means she cannot have a great impact on the majority of public schools across our nation. For that, and for now, I am grateful.

Photo by Gage Skidmore, CC-licensed.

Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Most Effective Cabinet Member? The Answer May Frighten You. syndicated from https://sapsnkraguide.wordpress.com

[nicholemhearn]

Racial Attitudes and Political Correctness in the 2016 Presidential Election

Since the 2016 election, I have reviewed nearly every academic article containing the name “Donald Trump.” This huge literature has plenty of disagreements—but the dominant findings are clear: attitudes about race, gender, and cultural change played outsized roles in the 2016 Republican primaries and general election, with economic circumstances playing a limited role.

Media coverage of this research has often framed it as a victory for those who argue “Trump supporters are racist and sexist” over those who argue “Trump supporters are left behind economically.” Conservative scholars and commentators have criticized this research as hopelessly biased and have often tried to revive the economic story. But another strain of conservative explanation for Trump’s support—one that is focused on aversion to “political correctness”—turns out to be quite close to the racial and cultural explanations.

Beneath the divide lurks a consensus: Many people dislike group-based claims of structural disadvantage and the norms obligating their public recognition. Those voters saw Trump as their champion. The 2016 election produced greater candidate and voter division around the celebration of diversity and accepted explanations for group disparities. Trump and Clinton extended the influence of these factors, but they had long been rising in importance in dividing the American parties.

Naming and Shaming

This hidden consensus is obscured due to semantics. The names of common scales of survey questions used to predict Trump support tend to irk conservatives:

“Racial resentment,” an aspect of “symbolic racism,” is measured by asking for agreement or disagreement with statements like “Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class” or “Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.”

“Hostile sexism” is measured with agreement or disagreement with statements like “when women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against” or “women are too easily offended.” The related “modern sexism” scale taps similar attitudes.

“Authoritarianism” is measured with questions asking respondents to choose between pairs of parenting values such as “independence” vs. “respect for elders” or “self-reliance” vs. “obedience.”

Thus, in a crude popularization, respondents who favor obedient children and individual-level explanations for economic disadvantage could easily be labeled racist, sexist authoritarians. The questions would no doubt be labeled and interpreted differently if academia (and the media) were composed of more conservatives and fewer liberals.

Yet these question scales are reliable and valid. Scholars have worked for decades to differentiate them from general ideological views. They help predict lots of attitudes, including support for Trump. These attitudes are far more explanatory than direct measures of bias, though traditional racism and sexism (and white identity) also explain some votes. Studies finding influential perceptions of white or male discrimination are actually based on relative comparisons with disadvantaged groups.

Scholars have a tendency to imply that the liberal ends of these scales are normal and look for deviation from them, such as by measuring “denial of discrimination.” But one could equivalently restate common findings in the other direction. People who reflexively believe claims of discrimination because they perceive structural barriers for disadvantaged groups were more likely to support Hillary Clinton, as were those favoring permissive parenting.

Structural Discrimination Perceptions

Liberal pundits and scholars see evidence of structural group disadvantages and long-term effects from discrimination. Failure to acknowledge discrimination thus seems to blame the victim based on negative stereotypes. Since public opinion is notoriously inconsistent and contradictory, however, we cannot impute opinions beyond the endorsed sentiments.

The influential attitudes are not simple manifestations of racism and sexism. Political sophistication leads to lower scores on the racial resentment scale because sophisticates tend to make global attributions regarding social outcomes, allowing them to associate anything with broader sociopolitical causes. White and black Americans, moreover, understand the racial resentment scale differently, and many minorities score high on it. Only overt racism predicts whether whites discriminate and whether they have racially biased evaluations of others. Racial resentment does not predict either.

The liberal side of the scales may also represent biased thinking. Liberals perceive more racism and sexism than racial minorities and women say they experience. Experiments show that liberals perceive tests where men or whites perform better as less credible than equivalent tests showing women or minorities doing better, even though conservatives rate them equally credible. Liberals are thus predisposed to believe discrimination is the cause of disadvantaged group disparities.

Seeing these attitudes as more than simple bias may help understand Trump support across genders and races. Although women were less likely to support Trump than prior Republican candidates, “hostile sexism” and “racial resentment” had similar effects on male and female voters. Trump gained minority vote share (compared to Mitt Romney, who had to face Barack Obama) and some Obama-Trump voters were racial minorities. But minority vote choice was also partially driven by attitudes toward diversity and value change. Racial and gender attitudes are related to broader cultural views (such as agreement that “the American way of life is threatened”) that are widely subscribed to by Americans across social groups.

Evidence of economic effects on Trump support has been based on relating voting trends and economic performance across geographic areas, such as counties. But these findings may still be explained by cultural views. Shocks from Chinese imports, for instance, drive negative attitudes towards minorities more than attitudes toward free trade. Geographically, high Latino-growth areas were more likely to move toward Trump. Voters were especially sensitive and emotionally responsive to claims of an impending American white minority. The voters most enthusiastic about Trump early in the campaign were those highest in “racial resentment.” And even Bernie Sanders supporters who defected to Trump tended to stand out for their low perceptions of discrimination rather than for their economic views.

Reconciling Explanations Based on Political Correctness

Research on “political correctness” advances a similar cultural story with a conservative spin. Asking about statements that might be offensive to particular groups increased support for Trump. His supporters were more fearful about restrictive communication norms. Beliefs that political norms around offensive speech silence important discussions and prevent people from sharing their views are widespread, particularly among conservatives. Many conservatives say they cannot discuss topics like gay rights, race, gender, or foreign policy for fear of being called racist or sexist. Opposition to political correctness thus incorporates aversion to norms toward discrimination claims. When voters begin to question society’s norms, they can see candidates (even those who lie regularly) as more authentic truth tellers when they subvert those norms.

Questions tied to political correctness could tap the same underlying views as those explicitly about racial and gender discrimination. For example, conservatives might favor statements like “Police officers and soldiers are too worried about offending minorities to do their jobs effectively” or to disagree that “Men are responsible for making sure their statements to women are not perceived as offensive or inappropriate.” The findings so far do not imply that the specific questions asked are the only or best way to tap the underlying important attitudes. My own work finds that racial attitudes are related to broader sentiments about celebrations of diversity and the undermining of traditional American values.

Associations between all of these views and Trump support should not be taken as unidirectional and causal. There has been no increase in “racial resentment” for 30 years. It is instead increasingly associated with most other political attitudes, increasing among Republicans and decreasing among Democrats. Politically-aware partisans are most likely to sort into their majority party viewpoint on racial attitudes. Panel studies show reciprocal causation, with prior partisanship driving racial views more than the reverse. In this election, like others, the vast majority of partisans supported their own party’s candidate—and many adopted the views of their party’s standard-bearer as their own.

Vote choice predictions used for other elections were still substantially improved by adding racial attitude measures. Even those sentiments measured before Trump’s rise predicted future attitudes toward him. But there have now been more changes in racial attitudes among Democrats than Republicans, suggesting that reactions to Democratic elite messages and the campaign context were also driving views.

The Racial Context of Trump’s Rise

When racial and gender views are invoked to explain Trump support, the campaign context usually referenced is Trump’s own statements—and there is no shortage of material. He first rose to political prominence by championing the “birther” issue (the idea that Obama might be ineligible for the presidency because he was born in Kenya). He began his campaign by claiming that Mexico was sending “rapists” to enter the country illegally. He later attacked a federal judge of Mexican heritage as inherently biased, the textbook definition of racism. On gender, he called Clinton a “nasty woman” and was caught on an old Access Hollywood video bragging about sexual assault. According to the common view, he made the subtext of prior campaigns the text and turned dog whistles into blowhorns. Running after the first racial minority president and against the first female nominee made his statements particularly salient.

But it is not clear that Trump’s direct statements were responsible for activating voters’ cultural views. His negative statements about minority groups were recognized by voters—but not positively. In open-ended responses, “racist” was the number one negative thing said about Trump even among Republicans. And a surprisingly high proportion of Trump voters said they did not like him personally, often citing his language.

In paid advertising, it was the Clinton campaign that repeatedly raised these issues and endlessly replayed Trump’s statements. That made their ad campaign a vast historical outlier compared to prior elections; Clinton talked a lot less about policy issues and a lot less positively overall. Clinton raised the salience of norms about off-limits race and gender discourse, believing it would help her win votes (but may have also activated views of political correctness). Clinton talked far less about class, discounting “the rich vs. the middle class” message that has been a Democratic staple for generations. As a result, class attitudes had no effect in 2016, even though they had been dominant in 2012.

Far more often than his explicit racial statements, Trump incorporated rhetoric combining conservative sentiments with symbols that invoke racial attitudes. He mentioned “illegal” and “criminal” more than prior campaigns and exceeded Richard Nixon levels of “law and order” rhetoric, which had been effective in the past at marrying racial attitudes with broader ideas about liberalism. Meanwhile, seeing an advantage over Sanders with black voters in the Democratic primary, Clinton toured the country with the “mothers of the movement” who had lost children to police violence. Opinions of police use of force were related to Trump and Clinton support early in the campaign and law enforcement became an important Trump constituency, boosting Republicans.

Trump took advantage of a moment of rising racial conflict. As he began to campaign in 2015, there had been a large upsurge in attention to the Black Lives Matter movement, protests of police violence, and campus protests of discrimination. The Baltimore Freddie Gray protests and riots before his announcement, and the Ferguson anniversary protests after it, stimulated widespread media attention and public interest. A San Francisco shooting death that summer was used to (erroneously) blame “illegal immigrants” for rising crime in some cities. Later in 2015, a campus hunger strike at the University of Missouri stimulated similar racial protests at other universities. That December, fourteen people were killed in San Bernardino, California, igniting a debate about immigrant radicalization and neighbors’ fear of stereotyping.

Conservative media covered the escalating series of events continuously and sensationally, connecting them with a crisis atmosphere and rising minority group demands. Conservatives linked their views of universities and cities as coddling protesters and criminals, in their minds both stifling viewpoints and promoting disorder. Trump took advantage of the backlash against perceived new demands for cultural reorganization to redress discrimination.

Trump voters thus perceived rising crime alongside demands to limit police actions that hurt minorities, rising terrorism alongside norms against singling out Muslims, and declining opportunities for men alongside expectations to avoid mistreating women. Clinton voters saw rising diversity and increasing openness to people of all types being threatened by a backward-looking and shame-worthy candidate. Both perceptions were responses to the central messages of the candidates and the context of the campaign.

Reconciling Cultural Views of 2016

A lot of energy has been invested in understanding Trump support, even though he got fewer votes than Clinton nationally and won mostly the same voters as prior Republican candidates. But history rides on such contingencies as the decisions of a small share of voters in the upper Midwest. The popular interpretation of elections is also critical for future politics. That makes the expanding academic field of Trump studies important to get right.

I am not an expert on racial or gender attitudes, only a close reader of the literature who is more sensitive to conservative complaints about its popularization (given underrepresentation of conservatives in academia). Interested readers should consult great recent research from experts. Racial and gender attitudes are uniquely important, and not simply manifestations of general conservatism.

The long-term economic fortunes of rural areas and the relative economic standing of the white working class may, of course, still influence the development of the racial and cultural attitudes that were influential in 2016. But neither views of voters’ individual or community economic performance nor voters’ expectations about their economic prospects seem to have had much influence in 2016.

Beneath the mocking of “economic anxiety” as an explanation for Trump support lies copious evidence that attitudes toward group disadvantage and diversification were especially important in 2016 and had been rising in importance in prior elections. Conservatives may not like survey scales with pejorative names, but they should stop insisting that economic factors were more important than racial and cultural attitudes. Liberals, in turn, should stop assuming that Trump’s racist and sexist remarks directly won over racist and sexist voters. The messages sent by both campaigns as well as the news surrounding the election raised the salience of attitudes toward discrimination claims and norms surrounding political discourse. Recognition of these patterns can enable shared understanding of the 2016 election across the ideological divide.

The post Racial Attitudes and Political Correctness in the 2016 Presidential Election appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/racial-attitudes-and-political-correctness-in-the-2016-presidential-election/

[trendingnewsb]

The 2020 Democratic race is underway. Here are 5 takeaways

Washington (CNN)Democrats got their first side-by-side view of the biggest names vying to lead the party — and potentially its ticket against President Donald Trump in 2020.

More than a dozen senators, governors and House members got their first chance to flash their personalities, policy platforms and cases against Trump in front of a largely establishment audience at an “Ideas Conference” hosted by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress.

Here are five takeaways from the first potential candidate showcase of the 2020 election cycle:

The problem with focusing on Trump

Democrats sense that they’re in the middle of a drop-everything moment, where nothing matters more to their voters than fighting Trump with everything they’ve got.

But those who want to lead the party in 2020 and beyond know they need to offer an optimistic and policy-focused message of their own, too.

The problem is, the transition from issuing dire warnings about the immediate emergency to selling a vision for a post-Trump America isn’t a smooth one.

The messaging challenge facing Democrats was on display Tuesday. Most speakers simply attacked Trump at the outset of their remarks, and then — with no real transition — moved on to the policy topic they’d been assigned for the day.

Two senators seen as 2020 presidential prospects did try, though, to offer a cohesive vision.

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker cast Trump as another of the “demagogues” — Joseph McCarthy and Father Charles Coughlin were others he cited — that have been obstacles to overcome in the arc of history.

“I want to fight in this climate. I want to dedicate myself,” Booker said. “But we cannot just be a party of resistance — we’ve got to be a party that’s reaffirming the American dream.”

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren made a much more Trump-focused case.

She cast Trump’s sharing of highly sensitive intelligence with Russian officials and his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey as symptoms of a political elite run amok.

“Concentrated money and concentrated power are corrupting our democracy and becoming dangerously worse with Donald Trump in the White House,” she said.

The ideas on display here were broadly familiar. Many of the key talking points echoed the core principles that guided Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They spoke soberly about technocratic solutions to all manner of economic displacement. Trump was dismissed as a craven bully.

“We can’t allow Twitter wars to become shooting wars,” former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said to applause. Close your eyes, change a sentence here and there, and it could have been the late summer of 2016.

The touchier policy questions roiling the left in the Trump era were mostly glossed over. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper spoke with conviction, but the particulars — “Investment in education has got to be all the way from birth through higher education” — were gauzy and familiar. The repeated nods, over and again, to coal miners felt like clumsy lip service. (The whiplash came when Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley suggested, to cheers, that the US “put every coal electricity generating plant into a museum by the year 2050.”)

The 2020 anti-Trump messaging test drive

It’s 42 months from Election Day 2020 — but Democrats seen as presidential prospects used the first “cattle call” of the new cycle to take their best shots at Trump.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand focused on Monday night’s report that Trump had shared classified information with Russian officials in the Oval Office last week. “Last night’s reporting has taken us to a whole new level of abnormal. The President is truly creating chaos,” she said.

For Warren, it was all economic inequality, all the time.

“The swamp is bigger, deeper, uglier and filled with more corrupt creatures than ever before in history,” Warren said.

“The CEO of Exxon-Mobil is now the secretary of state. Goldman Sachs now has enough people in the White House to open a branch office,” she said. “Do you get the feeling that if Bernie Madoff weren’t in prison, that he’d be in charge of the SEC right now?”

Sen. Kamala Harris, a California freshman who many Democrats see as a rising star, harshly criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ push for harsher sentences for drug-related crimes — and accused Trump and Sessions of “reviving the failed war on drugs.”

Another Harris swipe at Trump carried racial, geographic and urban vs. rural implications. “We need this administration to understand that if they care about the opioid crisis in rural America as they say they do, they have also got to care about the drug-addicted young man in Chicago or East LA,” she said.

The names you didn’t hear

Specifically: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Tuesday’s event was an opportunity for new Democratic leaders to take the stage without a former president or presidential candidate seizing the limelight. But it was impossible to ignore the shadow those figures still cast over their party.

Clinton’s name rarely came up — but occasionally, Democrats did take implicit shots at her 2016 campaign.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar pointed out that Clinton’s campaign did not pay attention to rural towns.

“Winning candidates do that,” she said.

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock — a two-time statewide winner in a place Trump cruised — faulted the party for what he called an over-reliance on analytics and its focus on turning out the base.

Democrats should worry more, he said, “about really offering voters a reason to vote for a Democrat for president.”

“From my perspective, Democrats need to do a better job of showing up, making an argument — even in places where people are likely to disagree,” he said.

Not all the cattle showed up for this ‘call’

If this was Democrats’ first semi-formal gathering of potential 2020 nominees, it was an incomplete one.

To the extent Tuesday’s speakers were competing, it was to define their particular styles and cadences. The room was full of friends. When Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime party fundraiser and Clinton super supporter, delivered his spirited argument about the importance of redistricting reform, his exaggerated drawl drew only warm smiles.

Warren, who probably tracks as far left as anyone of the keynote speakers, delivered the most round and polished remarks. Her decision to so vocally support Clinton in 2016 seems to have won her the trust of the party’s liberal professional class.

But even as the politicians preached inclusion, it was, perhaps oddly, the panel titled, “The Resistance,” that spoke in the harshest terms about the absent “cattle.”

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas dismissed “that grassroots Bernie (Sanders) thing” as a corrosive element that would forestall Democratic victories, even suggesting the Berniecrat call to win over working class whites was a cover — “code,” he called it — for uglier ambitions.

“There’s a changing of the guard in progressive leadership to one where women and marginalized communities are centered. It doesn’t mean they’re part of the party anymore, they’re leading it. And there is some resistance among some corners of that, and you see it in things like people saying, ‘Well we need to reach out to working class people,'” Moulitsos said. “Because, you know, none of us know any working class people in our communities.”

Sanders was not present because CAP, as a spokeswoman explained, did not offer invitations to anyone who had previously run for president.

Still, the absence of anyone — Warren aside — who might feasibly win his and his supporters’ enthusiastic support gave the event a narrower feeling.

Few new ideas on health care

Democrats here were prepared to fight and die in defense of Obamacare. Activists and organizers onstage and off pointed to the Republican bill as the party’s ticket back to a House majority.

The language was stark. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the Republican bill “deadly” and “the most damaging bill for women in legislative history.”

Of all the issues coming down the pike, health care is “the huge one,” Indivisible Project co-founder Leah Greenberg told CNN before her panel discussion.

And still, the elephant in the room went unaddressed. Through a full day of speeches, group discussions, and one-on-one chats, the question of what, specifically, Democrats would pursue and sell voters — beyond preserving and beefing up the ACA — went unanswered.

Single-payer health care, or “Medicare-for-all,” a demand of the progressive left movement led by Sanders, never came up. No one for, no one against — though by its absence, the message was clear. Democrats in Washington, and those who perhaps aspire to careers in the city, are still choosing caution.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, praised Warren for her “big ideas” on job creation, and shouted out Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley for their ambitious infrastructure programs.

But he conceded that health care would be a tougher nut to crack.

“It will take discipline,” he said, “for progressives to pivot to offense and use the oxygen in the room to educate Americans about Medicare for All and big-picture themes like taking on the insurance industry monopolies.”

There is still more than a year until the midterm elections, and maybe a little while longer before big decisions are made ahead of the party’s presidential primary, but the health care divide isn’t going away.

And like any other fight among mostly like-minded people, the longer it lingers, the nastier the eventual reckoning.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2pUMsa0

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2qQaAQ3 via Viral News HQ

[cgprieto]

Through the Venezuelan looking glass: a look at Trump and his opposition.

Comparing U.S. President Donald Trump and the late-Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is something I have purposely avoided doing since last November. Ideologically, they are polarly different leaders. However, the similarities of their populist tactics can be read here (or watch be comically explained here).

As a Venezuelan, I grew up knowing Chavez was a terrible president. I swam through a sea of rampant corruption, saw failed policies receive more fundings rather than reforms. I lived through the shaping of a financial bubble built on massive economic wealth caused by unprecedented oil prices. These are things that most educated middle class knew.

In this same period, I also saw Chavez’ party win a dozen of elections in all levels of government over fourteen years. The only premise required: to side with El Comandante.

During those years, many people took to blame the country’s ignorance and the welfare state feeding into a “deeply rooted” sense of laziness as the reasons for Chavez’ unstoppable popularity. I believed (and still believe) that this was an important factor to his success. But I also acknowledged that there was something missing in the way the opposition fought against him, though I could never identify it.

My mother always had a simpler view: the Venezuelan people are dumb, and thus easily convinced. “Chavez would have never happened in a first world country,” she said.

I left Venezuela almost five years ago, and I moved to Washington D.C. two weeks before the 2016 Presidential election. I have followed the rise of Trump since his flashy announcement in 2015, and it has been by looking at this country’s behavior that I have finally understood the mistakes of the Venezuelan opposition.

My mother was wrong. No country is above a Chavez figure, because no country is above fear and resentment.

In the following lines, I will try to point out mistakes that Americans need to stop making in order to prevent Trump from growing at the pace Chavez did. Actions that not only kept the Venezuelan opposition from promoting change, but ones that allowed install Chavez’ dictatorship. These mistakes, I believe, will only strengthen Trump’s presidency, and convince his supporters that there is truth in his message.

Understand this is unprecedented.

Trump’s populist tactics are an unprecedented phenomenon in America. All the rivals he has faced (the Republican establishment, the Democratic party, critical media, etc.) have misunderstood the nature of his popularity. They have tried all traditional strategies in the books (fact-checking, negative propaganda, character shaming) to lower his approval, and to “open the eyes” of Trump supporters.

Trump’s message, essentially, consists in validating beliefs deeply rooted in rural America: immigrants are a risk, diversity is favoring minorities, old-bully America was the great country we need to become again.

The president’s strategies are anything but a novelty, but to insist in countering his actions without treating the issues he is speaking to is to fall into his trap. By diminishing the concerns he expresses, Trump’s opposition is only connecting his supporters closer to his mighty figure.

An example of this mistake:

The issue: Americans fear ISIS and the possibility of them entering America as refugees.

The action: Trump proposes a ban on refugees because the system is unreliable.

The reaction: repulsion of Trump’s proposal, highlighting the reasons why it isn’t just and why it wouldn’t work, and the consequences it would bring to the refugees, mocks and jokes about the idiocy of the decision.

The result: those same Americans that fear ISIS and their entering the country will focus on Trump’s proposal solving their concerns, even if acknowledging the flaws, because he is acknowledging their fears, and offering strong actions.

An alternative:

The issue: Americans fear ISIS and the possibility of them entering America as refugees.

The action: Trump proposes a ban on refugees because the system is unreliable.

The reaction: show that ISIS is not entering America because of extreme vetting is already happening. Propose alternative solutions to the issue, while putting under the right perspective the seriousness of the concern. Show all the measures already in place.

The result: those Americans that fear ISIS attacks feel their concerns are being heard. Public opinion may change towards the threat, and president Trump is unable to appropriate that concern, as Trump detractors have spoken to their concerns and shown that things are being done.

The example (even if over-simplistic) shows a mistake made time and time again: from late-night shows, to mainstream media coverage, to political parties. In deciding to attack Trump for his proposals, rather than speak to issues he has appropriated, millions of votes are handed to Trump’s fear-monger.

Forget about his lies, and focus on how to connect with the people that believe him.

The struggles of lower-middle class Americans are real, and they extend beyond races and state borders. These struggles and concerns built Bernie Sanders’ unprecedented social movement.

It is no coincidence that Hillary Clinton lost to Sanders in Wisconsin, Minnesota, or West Virginia. Beyond the proposals of one candidate or the other, Clinton (and by extension, the Democratic establishment) was irreparably disconnected from the blue-collar concerns.

Trump spoke to the people with these concerns. Most importantly, he spoke in extremely appealing terms. And while his rivals were too busy believing that dismantling his proposals would lose him votes, he achieved a deeper polarization.

It is time to stop feeding into this polarization, and reconnect the Democratic party to lower-class America.

Stop showing off.

Everyone has concerns towards X and Y decision, and everyone has an opinion on every single scandal and why that scandal should be the last one for Trump supporters to tolerate. But that will not happen. The power of propaganda is that it can turn anything around, and it will end up making Trump stronger.

Trump needs an enemy. He needs someone to blame for twisting his words. Stern criticism against his proposals is key to his popularity. While thorough and massive critical thinking is key in analyzing policy, when applied to a populist, it only strengthens his “Us vs. Them” message.

Late-night shows, with their flashy stars playing games and sharing their perfect, funny lives, are already distanced from the lower- and middle-class America as it is. Add to the equation the mockery that is shown every night on every network (just hop from Colbert to Fallon, to Meyers, to Noah), and their attention is gone.

Insulting and shaming isn’t just the cheap thing to do, it is also counterproductive. Calling Trump supporters uncivilized, misogynistic, and racistd only drives them further apart. Fair criticism becomes null, and it is only received by like-minded people. Jokes and mockery builds more walls than bridges.

Don’t become that enemy. Don’t just criticize and show off that you know more than the average Trump supporter. The well of knowledge has been poisoned, and it is tainting everyone: from mainstream news organizations to Hollywood stars and producers, to scientists and academics.

Instead, engage with Trump supporters. Actually engage. Look from their perspective and try to find points of agreement, or at least to understand their concerns. On this point, I’ve found billionaire Mark Cuban to be an interesting Tweet-tivist to look at. He has praised some of the president’s choices (from his own perspective), while criticized from a practical - not a moral - perspective other decisions. In short: “I'm not a liberal,I'm not a conservative, I'm a rich motherfucker trying to do what I believe is in the best interests of the country i love” - Mark Cuban 

Organized protest is a double-edged sword.

This point speaks particularly loud to Venezuelans. The last powerful tool the Venezuelan opposition had against the regime was street demonstration. By flooding the streets of Caracas, the opposition achieved to apply strong pressure to the government, and progress was made… until it got cheapened.

Eventually, protests were called so often - and with such vague goals - that people lost motivation, the government lost the fear to the protests, and opposition leaders lost momentum.

Trump knows this. Most importantly, so does Stephen Bannon. Protests like the Women’s march are powerful demonstrations of civic union and resistance to potential policies, but they only achieve so much.

Worse, America suffers from a demonstrated illness: money speaks louder than people - and this one is not Trump’s fault. Still, that does not mean that protesting achieves nothing, but it is important to recognize its true impact.

The moderate chaos that demonstrations cause is, to autocrats’ inner circles, another enemy to blame for an ineffective government. Fake news outlets will need to blame others for the flaws in Trump’s administration, and protesters will be one of the easiest targets.

Worst of all, protests and discontent take too much news space. They are not only direct, picturesque and full of voices (i.e. the best mix for TV newscasts), but they are also usually focused on the smaller picture.

In Venezuela, news shows focused on crime, corruption, and inflation, while the government appropriated the judicial branch, bought the military, and intervened every government office with Cuban intelligence. The result? a full-blown dictatorship, now with no powerful media to counter it. I know it’s hard to imagine, but the United States may be down a not-so different path.

Democrats need a clear, productive agenda.

There is an important dilemma going on within Democratic circles: should they treat Trump’s administration with the obstructionist attitude Republicans treated Obama?

To answer to this, I’ll look back at Venezuela. At the beginning of Chavez’ presidency, the opposition’s strategy to destabilize the government was to sabotage, to attack the democratic process, and to look for international support. They backed out of a whole legislative process, hoping that international bodies would intervene. They also called for an oil strike hoping to cause economic distress that would turn the lower class against the government.

The result? Chavez supporters stuck closer to the president and applauded extreme government measures. Not only was Chavez able to blame mistakes of his government to the sabotage, but he was also capable of restructuring the nationalized oil industry, and to sweep in the legislative elections. From those mistakes by the opposition came the core of Chavez’ power.

If Democrats take the same obstructionist attitude towards Republicans, not only will they achieve nothing (as they’re not majority in either level of the legislative branch), but they will also expose themselves to become an ever-easier target to blame for Trump’s ineffectiveness.

Instead, it is time to fight for those Trump supporters. To show that they care to make their lives better more than they care about the principles and values we hold as priorities in the bigger cities. It is time stop looking at the red states with disdain, as “deplorables”, and start convincing them that the Democratic party is the best choice for them.

[ixvyupdates]

Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Most Effective Cabinet Member? The Answer May Frighten You.

Two winters ago, Kaitlyn Kirk, one of my premier students, came into the library with her eyes glued to her phone. Headphones in, she sat down focused on what I thought was “Fortnite” or “Game of Thrones.” When our class began in the back of the library, she remained locked into her screen. I lightly tapped her shoulder, and I noticed she was streaming CNN’s coverage of the Betsy DeVos hearing.

“Mrs. Caneva, listen to this. She just said that schools should have guns because there could be bear attacks.”

Kaitlyn laughed and then said, “She’s not going to last.”

During that initial Senate hearing, Democratic senators repeatedly questioned her on her stance on measuring student proficiency vs. growth, serving students with disabilities, equality in school accountability and guns in schools. Her answers revealed a glaring lack of knowledge of educational issues, understanding of federal and local educational policies and general preparedness for the hearing at hand. Soon afterwards, her questionable “60 Minutes” appearance solidified her substandard readiness to become secretary of education.

However, fast-forward to the present day, and last she has. The duration of her term has stood the test of time, even after an awful beginning. She has been surrounded by cabinet members whose odd behaviors in personal spending of federal funds range from items like overpriced furniture to first-class flights.  Although the government is using federal funds of nearly $8 million to protect her, DeVos has remained almost entirely free of such accusations.

She has also outlasted male cabinet members who President Donald Trump touted rather loudly about during his campaign and transition—former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price—as well as other high-standing Trump officials such as former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and former National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.And with current Ambassador the U.N., Nikki Haley, gracefully stepping aside, DeVos remains one of the few consistent fixtures in President’s Trump cabinet that is operating more like a Lazy Susan instead of a standard stronghold.

With more pertinent issues dominating the news cycle, it may be pressing to point out what DeVos and her education department are even up to these days. After all, DeVos’ Department of Education does not even have a layman’s education agenda like former President George W. Bush had with No Child Left Behind or former President Barack Obama had with Race to the Top.

Although she has recently toured Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana under the title “Rethinking Schools,” it is unclear if this is the name of her agenda or just her tour. The cloudiness of this missing education agenda is alarming as it signals a lack of vision and focus, but it also is strategic and leaves nothing to scrutinize.

As a teacher during both the Bush and Obama administrations, both policies had an impact in my district, school and classroom. Under No Child Left Behind, more and more professional development for me as a teacher became data- and achievement test-driven.

Under Race to the Top, I saw firsthand the explosion of charter schools in neighborhoods that didn’t have students to fill the schools which led, in part, to nearly 50 schools being closed in Chicago in 2013 under Mayor Rahm Emanuel—Obama’s former chief of staff. But under Trump’s administration via DeVos it is difficult to tell if I will feel the impact of DeVos’ major initiative, simply because there isn’t an initiative.

Outside of a major vision, DeVos and the Department of Education, in fact, have been up to a great deal in working to create or dismantle controversial education policy. They have lifted protections for the rights of transgender students to use the bathroom of their choosing.

According to The New York Times, she is constructing rules on campus sexual assault that would benefit the accused and protect universities. Time and time again she has stated that having guns in schools is up to school districts, the states and Congress, never outright stating a federal opposition to guns in schools just that federal funding would not be used for such a program. She attempted to roll back Obama-era guidelines that safeguard students from loan fraud—a lawsuit that she and the Department of Education recently lost.

Looking at just those policies—transgender bathrooms, campus sexual assault, guns in schools, student loan fraud—one can see how these are tertiary topics that came second during the Bush and Obama administrations to a primary educational focus.

Yes, those decisions, if successful, will negatively impact a great amount of students and raise moral and ethical questions about the Department of Education’s beliefs surrounding transgender students, victims of sexual assault, school shootings and student loans. But DeVos’ greatest strength, whether she knows it or not, is that not having a stated, focused agenda means she cannot have a great impact on the majority of public schools across our nation. For that, and for now, I am grateful.

Photo by Gage Skidmore, CC-licensed.

Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Most Effective Cabinet Member? The Answer May Frighten You. syndicated from https://sapsnkraguide.wordpress.com

[trendingnewsb]

The 2020 Democratic race is underway. Here are 5 takeaways

Washington (CNN)Democrats got their first side-by-side view of the biggest names vying to lead the party — and potentially its ticket against President Donald Trump in 2020.

More than a dozen senators, governors and House members got their first chance to flash their personalities, policy platforms and cases against Trump in front of a largely establishment audience at an “Ideas Conference” hosted by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress.

Here are five takeaways from the first potential candidate showcase of the 2020 election cycle:

The problem with focusing on Trump

Democrats sense that they’re in the middle of a drop-everything moment, where nothing matters more to their voters than fighting Trump with everything they’ve got.

But those who want to lead the party in 2020 and beyond know they need to offer an optimistic and policy-focused message of their own, too.

The problem is, the transition from issuing dire warnings about the immediate emergency to selling a vision for a post-Trump America isn’t a smooth one.

The messaging challenge facing Democrats was on display Tuesday. Most speakers simply attacked Trump at the outset of their remarks, and then — with no real transition — moved on to the policy topic they’d been assigned for the day.

Two senators seen as 2020 presidential prospects did try, though, to offer a cohesive vision.

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker cast Trump as another of the “demagogues” — Joseph McCarthy and Father Charles Coughlin were others he cited — that have been obstacles to overcome in the arc of history.

“I want to fight in this climate. I want to dedicate myself,” Booker said. “But we cannot just be a party of resistance — we’ve got to be a party that’s reaffirming the American dream.”

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren made a much more Trump-focused case.

She cast Trump’s sharing of highly sensitive intelligence with Russian officials and his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey as symptoms of a political elite run amok.

“Concentrated money and concentrated power are corrupting our democracy and becoming dangerously worse with Donald Trump in the White House,” she said.

The ideas on display here were broadly familiar. Many of the key talking points echoed the core principles that guided Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They spoke soberly about technocratic solutions to all manner of economic displacement. Trump was dismissed as a craven bully.

“We can’t allow Twitter wars to become shooting wars,” former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said to applause. Close your eyes, change a sentence here and there, and it could have been the late summer of 2016.

The touchier policy questions roiling the left in the Trump era were mostly glossed over. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper spoke with conviction, but the particulars — “Investment in education has got to be all the way from birth through higher education” — were gauzy and familiar. The repeated nods, over and again, to coal miners felt like clumsy lip service. (The whiplash came when Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley suggested, to cheers, that the US “put every coal electricity generating plant into a museum by the year 2050.”)

The 2020 anti-Trump messaging test drive

It’s 42 months from Election Day 2020 — but Democrats seen as presidential prospects used the first “cattle call” of the new cycle to take their best shots at Trump.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand focused on Monday night’s report that Trump had shared classified information with Russian officials in the Oval Office last week. “Last night’s reporting has taken us to a whole new level of abnormal. The President is truly creating chaos,” she said.

For Warren, it was all economic inequality, all the time.

“The swamp is bigger, deeper, uglier and filled with more corrupt creatures than ever before in history,” Warren said.

“The CEO of Exxon-Mobil is now the secretary of state. Goldman Sachs now has enough people in the White House to open a branch office,” she said. “Do you get the feeling that if Bernie Madoff weren’t in prison, that he’d be in charge of the SEC right now?”

Sen. Kamala Harris, a California freshman who many Democrats see as a rising star, harshly criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ push for harsher sentences for drug-related crimes — and accused Trump and Sessions of “reviving the failed war on drugs.”

Another Harris swipe at Trump carried racial, geographic and urban vs. rural implications. “We need this administration to understand that if they care about the opioid crisis in rural America as they say they do, they have also got to care about the drug-addicted young man in Chicago or East LA,” she said.

The names you didn’t hear

Specifically: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Tuesday’s event was an opportunity for new Democratic leaders to take the stage without a former president or presidential candidate seizing the limelight. But it was impossible to ignore the shadow those figures still cast over their party.

Clinton’s name rarely came up — but occasionally, Democrats did take implicit shots at her 2016 campaign.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar pointed out that Clinton’s campaign did not pay attention to rural towns.

“Winning candidates do that,” she said.

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock — a two-time statewide winner in a place Trump cruised — faulted the party for what he called an over-reliance on analytics and its focus on turning out the base.

Democrats should worry more, he said, “about really offering voters a reason to vote for a Democrat for president.”

“From my perspective, Democrats need to do a better job of showing up, making an argument — even in places where people are likely to disagree,” he said.

Not all the cattle showed up for this ‘call’

If this was Democrats’ first semi-formal gathering of potential 2020 nominees, it was an incomplete one.

To the extent Tuesday’s speakers were competing, it was to define their particular styles and cadences. The room was full of friends. When Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime party fundraiser and Clinton super supporter, delivered his spirited argument about the importance of redistricting reform, his exaggerated drawl drew only warm smiles.

Warren, who probably tracks as far left as anyone of the keynote speakers, delivered the most round and polished remarks. Her decision to so vocally support Clinton in 2016 seems to have won her the trust of the party’s liberal professional class.

But even as the politicians preached inclusion, it was, perhaps oddly, the panel titled, “The Resistance,” that spoke in the harshest terms about the absent “cattle.”

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas dismissed “that grassroots Bernie (Sanders) thing” as a corrosive element that would forestall Democratic victories, even suggesting the Berniecrat call to win over working class whites was a cover — “code,” he called it — for uglier ambitions.

“There’s a changing of the guard in progressive leadership to one where women and marginalized communities are centered. It doesn’t mean they’re part of the party anymore, they’re leading it. And there is some resistance among some corners of that, and you see it in things like people saying, ‘Well we need to reach out to working class people,'” Moulitsos said. “Because, you know, none of us know any working class people in our communities.”

Sanders was not present because CAP, as a spokeswoman explained, did not offer invitations to anyone who had previously run for president.

Still, the absence of anyone — Warren aside — who might feasibly win his and his supporters’ enthusiastic support gave the event a narrower feeling.

Few new ideas on health care

Democrats here were prepared to fight and die in defense of Obamacare. Activists and organizers onstage and off pointed to the Republican bill as the party’s ticket back to a House majority.

The language was stark. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the Republican bill “deadly” and “the most damaging bill for women in legislative history.”

Of all the issues coming down the pike, health care is “the huge one,” Indivisible Project co-founder Leah Greenberg told CNN before her panel discussion.

And still, the elephant in the room went unaddressed. Through a full day of speeches, group discussions, and one-on-one chats, the question of what, specifically, Democrats would pursue and sell voters — beyond preserving and beefing up the ACA — went unanswered.

Single-payer health care, or “Medicare-for-all,” a demand of the progressive left movement led by Sanders, never came up. No one for, no one against — though by its absence, the message was clear. Democrats in Washington, and those who perhaps aspire to careers in the city, are still choosing caution.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, praised Warren for her “big ideas” on job creation, and shouted out Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley for their ambitious infrastructure programs.

But he conceded that health care would be a tougher nut to crack.

“It will take discipline,” he said, “for progressives to pivot to offense and use the oxygen in the room to educate Americans about Medicare for All and big-picture themes like taking on the insurance industry monopolies.”

There is still more than a year until the midterm elections, and maybe a little while longer before big decisions are made ahead of the party’s presidential primary, but the health care divide isn’t going away.

And like any other fight among mostly like-minded people, the longer it lingers, the nastier the eventual reckoning.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2pUMsa0

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2qQaAQ3 via Viral News HQ