Electability

What does electability mean? Electability is defined as,”capable of being elected (as to public office).” But that definition leaves a lot to be desired. Capable does not tell us anything about probability. It does not tell us what makes one candidate more likely to be elected than another candidate. It does not answer the question of what the voters want.  Polls asking questions about issues do not tell us what the voters want either because the Republicans gained control of both the house and the senate even when all of the polls showed that a majority of the voters disagreed with Republicans on most of the issues. Yet here we have a large number of pundits insisting that we think about electability and guard against going too far to the left. But what is too far left and who should define that for us. Obviously the people who most want to define far left are people on the far right. Then there are the so called moderates who are far too inclined to let the far right right define what is far left and then wring their hands over people accepting that definition.

What should now be obvious to everyone in this age of Trump is the undisputed fact that normal has failed. Moderation did not prevent globalization from turning blue collar workers into economic road kill. So now angry, destructive, and ignorant are the rule rather than the exception. The question is what are we going to do about it? I will submit to you that we cannot give these angry people more of the same. We cannot tell them we will take a bipartisan approach to governing when everyone knows we cannot achieve that because of the intractability of a Republican Party that appeals to its nihilistic base by obstructing everything positive and by threatening to blow up the government? In other words, candidates running as unifiers who say they will work across the aisle strain credulity regardless of how much people say they want to end the gridlock in Washington. The bottom line is that in an era of extremes moderates are too wishy washy and timid to bring about the bold changes we need to make.

The best advice I have heard given to prospective candidates is to be yourself. It is now time for the Democratic Party to be itself. Franklin Roosevelt made the Democratic Party the party that comes up with bold solutions and fixes seemingly impossible problems. Yes I know people are frightened by change, but when you are drowning you know you cannot stay where you are even if the idea of moving scares you.  And too many people are under water right now, both figuratively and literally. The problems we face are greatly exacerbated by a corrupt, incompetent, and compromised President, but he is not the root cause of those problems. Thus while we must remove him from office in order to deal with our problems, his removal alone will not solve those problems. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are correct when they talk about the need to make big systemic changes. It is going to take a bold and sustained effort to save the middle class and keep good, hard working people from becoming homeless and hungry. Of course the Republicans will scream socialism and will froth at the mouth over the alleged destruction of capitalism. It is also certain that the Republicans will be aided and abetted by pundits who are already asking Bernie, Elizabeth and others if they are capitalists.

When John Hickenlooper was first asked if he was a capitalist he refused to answer, saying he did not like labels. I remember thinking at the time that I agreed with him about labels but that his answer was going to bite him in the butt. My answer to that question would have been: “It depends on how you define capitalism. If you mean the sort of social Darwinism that destroys competition in the market place, exploits workers, and charges what the market will bear for shoddy and often unsafe products my answer is no. If you mean a capitalistic system that has regulations protecting and promoting fair competition, labor, and consumers my answer is yes.” But I have to say that Bernie also had a good reply to that question. He said: "Do I not consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little, by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't." Now that is how you answer the Capitalism question. To put it in sound bite form you can say, “I am a capitalist by any reasonable definition of the term.”

I should add here that any progressive candidate other then Bernie, who openly calls himself a socialist, can also turn accusations of socialism against Republicans. Remember they called both Roosevelts socialists even though Teddy was a Republican. They also called Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and virtually every labor leader a socialist. Furthermore what Republicans oppose as socialistic programs are such things as Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment insurance, the Minimum Wage, and every other progressive program benefiting anyone who is not a billionaire. As an aside I have to say I admire Bernie's courage for calling himself a socialist and defending the label by pointing out that socialism as he uses it does not mean nationalizing everything.


If you are wondering whether I would vote for a moderate Democrat if one is nominated the answer is yes. I would vote for anyone other than Trump, but I really believe it would be a mistake to nominate a moderate. You cannot excite the base by running as Republican lite, and most of the democrats who did well in the mid-term elections did not run as Republican lite. Sorry Joe, but if the moderates had not failed we would not have President Donald Trump. We have to be who we are at our best. We have to think big. We have to be bold and kick ass for the good of this country and its citizens!

Stand Up For The Constitution!

On March 9, 2009 I wrote and posted a piece entitled, “Obama v. The Dixiecans,” in which I said in part:

“Rather than helping to cure the economic malaise, the Republicans have dusted off their credo from the days of the Great Depression: 'If you can’t sit at the head of the table, piss in the soup!' The obstructionist tactics they employed at that time helped President Franklin Roosevelt get elected to four consecutive terms. And what did the Republicans learn from that? Well, they introduced the Constitutional Amendment that now prevents any President from getting elected to more than two terms.”

The post from which the excerpt quoted above was taken was born out of anger and frustration over the fact that there were too many people, including Barack Obama, who were ignoring all of the evidence and acting as if the latest iteration of the far right Republicans who had gained control of the Republican Party could actually be persuaded to accept the responsibility the loyal opposition has to put the vital interests of this great country ahead of partisan political interests. Predictably all of President Obama's reasonable efforts to reach comprises with Speaker Boehner were in vain. Thus we experienced two government shut downs and a refusal to raise the debt ceiling that resulted in a downgrading of America's credit rating. Meanwhile, in the Senate, Mitch McConnell was misusing the filibuster to block as much legislation as possible and to prevent the confirmation of as many judges and cabinet members as possible. Indeed Mitch McConnell's stated goal was to make Barack Obama “a one term President.”

I was so angry that I wrote another post entitled, “Kick Harry Reid.” Why was Harry Reid not fighting back? Why was he letting the Republicans pervert the filibuster into the tool of an unprincipled, and obstructionist minority that was conflating partisan concerns with legitimate interests? As I warned at that time: “it is downright delusional to think that the filibuster will be available in the future when the Democrats might want to prevent the Republicans from doing something outrageous. The Republicans have no qualms about changing any rule that seems inconvenient to them.” Unfortunately I was far too prescient. Harry Reid finally used the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster in regard to the confirmation of cabinet members and judges, but he preserved the filibuster in regard to supreme court justices in the mistaken belief that Republicans would also want to preserve the filibuster in order to keep some balance on the court. Do I need to remind you that Mitch McConnell would not even hold a confirmation hearing for anyone Obama appointed to the Supreme court, or that he, McConnell, did away with the filibuster in order to appoint far right reactionaries to the highest court in the land?

To those of you who are foolish enough to think anything has changed let me remind you that Mitch McConnell is now calling himself the grim reaper of the “Democratic socialist agenda,” which apparently includes Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, the Affordable Care Act, and every safety net or piece of progressive legislation passed or proposed during or after Roosevelt's New Deal. The really distressing part of that is that McConnell is actually representative of the Republican party today. The reason why I am saying this is because there are too many Democratic candidates who are naively talking about being unifiers who can work with members of a party that is is so unprincipled and full of hate that it has become, to use the vernacular, bat shit crazy! Come on people, it is not Just Trump who is a grave threat to our Constitution and our most cherished traditions it is also what is left of the Republican Party.

What is clearly needed now is not a conciliator but a warrior, a leader who will stand up for the constitution and the people of this nation. Do not misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not advocating the sort of negative campaign Republicans use to rile their base. We need a positive agenda. We need a candidate proposing bold policies and legislation to rest control of this country from an oligopoly that is quickly turning into an oligarchy and is using its power to tighten its death grip on the economic well being of an imperiled middle class. We need a persuasive leader who can convince us that we can buck the odds stacked against us by such powerful economic forces, and that we can restore the American dream! But how can we believe such a leader when his or her party does not even have the backbone to stand up and defend our constitution from the grave threat posed to it by a lawless President and by the soggy diapers who are covering his butt and hauling his water? If we do not do the right thing now no one will believe that we will have the courage to fight the good fight and do what is necessary to advance any positive agenda.

So to Nancy Pelosi and other timid Democrats in Congress here is what I have to say:  Stop acting like Republicans who are cowering in fear of the vicious Trump Chumps. Do the right thing. Start impeachment proceedings now! Start public hearings to determine the charges that will be included in the articles of impeachment and make a strong case for including those charges in the articles of impeachment. Let Republican members of the Senate risk their careers by cowering in fear of the Trump chumps and refusing to convict Trump. The impeachment of Trump will not be analogous to the impeachment of Bill Clinton because the nefarious acts Trump has and still is committing rival the acts that caused Richard Nixon to resign in disgrace. The fact that Trump is so obviously corrupt, incompetent and compromised by a foreign power means that he poses a clear and present danger to this country. That danger is very real, and it is not something any real patriot can ignore! You have thought about the risks involved in impeaching Trump; now it is time to think about all of the risks involved in not impeaching Trump!