Tag Archives: Green new deal

First in the nation.

What more can be said about the New Hampshire primary? Just this: Bernie won. I’m sure someone has said it, somewhere. It was a bit more than annoying that we had to sit through excruciatingly long third-place and second-place trophy acceptance speeches before hearing from the man himself, but it was worth waiting for. Like any other supporter of the Vermont senator, I would have liked to have seen a more decisive victory, but in a crowded field in a year when most voters are scared, exhausted, and looking for an answer, 26% is okay. That said, we have to do better.

I do mean we. The candidate can only do so much. His surrogates, excellent as they are, can only fight so hard. These primaries and caucuses are instructive in the sense that they demonstrate in stark terms what it would take to achieve the ambitious agenda that Sanders is putting forward. If we want Medicare for all, we’re going to have to do a lot better than we did in Iowa and New Hampshire. Policies like M4A, the Green New Deal, wealth tax, and so on will not come close to passage without massive mobilization. Let’s not kid ourselves: at best, these programs will take years to implement under the best of circumstances. But they won’t even get off the ground without an unprecedented groundswell of popular will, much as Bernie has described in virtually every stump speech. I think he understands what’s needed … but do the rest of us?

Say it loud: Bernie won.

The signs aren’t all bad. There appears to have been strong turnout in New Hampshire. Given how flaccid the 2016 primary participation rate was, it’s good to see things back up around 2008 level. The real test, though, of our strength as a governing coalition is in the level of support for Bernie and other progressive candidates. There’s no way that Sanders is going to get big things done if he just squeaks by in November without any fundamental changes in the complement of Congress. That’s why I would encourage my middle-of-the-road friends not to feel any reluctance about voting for Sanders or Warren. If you’re worried about M4A and the rest, there will be a million ways to put roadblocks in front of anything like that. I know that sounds pessimistic, but understand – I believe change is possible, but possible isn’t easy. Likely policy is going to be shaped by whoever ends up a part of the electorate. The more we vote, show up, etc., the stronger the case for good policy.

I could go on, but probably shouldn’t. Suffice to say that we will get the president we ask for, good or bad. It’s up to us. Latest polls have Bernie ahead in Nevada, ahead in Texas, ahead nationally. Let’s build on this, folks … it’s our last, best chance.

luv u,

jp

Heavy lift.

I want to open this week with a message to my fellow leftists. I know, some of you right now are probably saying, “Okay, boomer … “, but hear me out. For the more deeply committed among you, the upcoming presidential race is probably not the most important item on the agenda, but for those who plan on participating in the Democratic party primaries and caucuses, I have one modest caution: Don’t rip a new asshole into every candidate other than Bernie (whom I personally support). Many of us who are participating in electoral politics want Bernie to win, but that goal is in the hands of the voters. If we out-organize and out-vote all of the other candidates, we can win … but losing is a possibility, and given that eventuality we would still need to beat Trump in November … regardless of who wins the Democratic party nomination for president.

It's going to take all of us

The fact is, achieving top policy priorities like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal will be tremendously difficult no matter who the next Democratic president turns out to be. Obviously, Bernie Sanders is the best choice, in that we can be confident that we won’t have to convince the president to push for them. This is true of Warren to a lesser extent. But even with a reliable progressive / socialist like Bernie in the White House, M4A and the GND will demand massive organizing and activism outside of government, as well as more progressives in both the Senate and the House. All of that amounts to a heavy lift, and the difference a progressive president would make would be significant but not sufficient in and of itself.

In other words, there is no universe in which we can elect Bernie on a Tuesday in November and have him deliver M4A, for instance, sometime over the following year, all by himself. We need to build momentum for this and other progressive policies now and throughout next year, and when we defeat Trump with whatever candidate gets the most primary votes, we will need to push even harder and keep our eye on the ball. The presidential component of this project, while important, is relatively minor; no Democratic president can pass such sweeping legislation without a movement behind him or her. We will be opposed in all progressive proposals by the richest, most powerful institutions in the world, so it’s going to be a fight no matter who wins.

If we work extremely hard, we will get the nominee – Sanders – that we want and need. And then the real work begins.

luv u,

jp

Muddle in the middle.

If you’re as obsessive about politics as I am, you probably watched the “CNN Democratic Debates” this week, brought to you by CNN, hosted by CNN, and did I mention CNN was somehow involved? What the hell ever happened to the League of Women Voters, anyway? This notion of presidential debates being treated like commercial media properties is beyond ridiculous. Debates should not be some pre-packaged product served up by powerful corporations who benefit from the free-for-all media environment our bought politicians have built for them over the years. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the three purported journalists moderating the event were hell-bent on getting the various candidates to mix it up, posing questions that were, at worst, the equivalent of “Are you just going to stand there and let her say that about you?” and, at best, cheap rehashes of Republican party talking points. (Jake Tapper is such a freaking waste of space.)

Night one had the two progressive candidates plus what seemed like a legion of also-rans and never-heard-of-ems. Bernie and Warren both did fine, given the full-on frontal attack both were subjected to from the Frackenlooper chorus and the “moderators” (they kind of gave that term a new meaning, come to think of it). I thought Warren was, once again, particularly sharp, agile. Delaney appeared to be the main foil, and he got roasted once or twice, despite Tapper and company’s best efforts to cue him up as the reasonable alternative to what they consider to be radicalism, but which is no more radical in the main than the types of policies Eisenhower was comfortable supporting. Night two was cast as a re-match, in essence, between Harris and Biden – I saw CNN’s run-up to the main event, and it was a cross between reality show and prize fight promo. Ridiculous.

Never-Trump windbags attempt to school dems

The whole spectacle told us more about our prevailing media culture than it did about the candidates’ positions. One small example – in a brief discussion of the Green New Deal and related legislation, one question centered on the idea that the bill would entail guaranteed government jobs with benefits. As the candidates responded, the super showed the question as something like: “Should the Green New Deal include guaranteed government jobs with paid vacations?” These people are so steeped in the neoliberal myth of our current “prosperity” (based on millions of crappy jobs) that the very concept of stable work with benefits seems bat-shit crazy to them.

Speaking of bat-shit crazy, the CNN shills were outdone by their counterparts on Morning Joe on Thursday morning. Joe, Mika, and the whole crew were appalled by the previous night’s performance, saying the candidates were attacking Obama all night. Not sure they saw the same debate as I did, but this is the type of input Democrats should expect from never-Trump Republicans like Scarborough: We should rewind back to 2008 and stay right there, folks. Take that from someone who endlessly criticized Obama from one end of his presidency to the other. Oh … and here comes uber-moderate Claire McCaskle (sp) to tell us how to win in swing states like Missouri, which she lost only last year.

What an enormous pile of shit.

luv u,

jp

The hard problem.

Senate Republicans tried-on their comedy shoes this week, “debating” something they were breezily referring to as the Green New Deal but which was actually just a straw horse resolution they whacked like a pinata to show how proudly retrograde they are.  In the wake of the Typhoon in Mozambique and other recent climate-fueled disasters, this was a pretty remarkable exercise in ignorance and tone-deafness. No, I don’t expect anything better from what Noam Chomsky has accurately described as the most dangerous organization in human history. The Republicans literally stand alone in the world as the only major party that rejects the science of climate change. Quite a distinction.

Not that there isn’t some value in such a spectacle. It certainly focuses the mind on how much work we have to do. My hope is that all of my leftist and progressive friends and colleagues fully understand just how difficult this climate fight will be. This is not just about developing and advocating for big ideas. We can only move this process forward by mounting an effective inside/outside strategy – organizing a large, broad mobilization out in the communities and electing the most progressive politicians we can possibly elect.  We need to do more than just win power, which will be hard enough. We have to hold and sustain power over the next decade and a half particularly, as that is pretty much all the time we have left to turn this ship around. That will take an enormous effort and, really, a new kind of politics that makes a material difference in the lives of ordinary people.

Note to rookie comedian Mike Lee: don't quit your day job.

How are we going to convince millions upon millions of Americans to go with this Green New Deal framework? Well, part of the challenge is that climate change is what may be called a genuinely hard problem. There’s the tendency to compare climate change to the Great Depression, but that’s kind of misleading. Yes, the Depression affected almost everyone in the country, but its worst effects could be mitigated by some money in your pocket. Massive collective effort in the 1930s had the potential to provide relief relatively rapidly – relief that would be felt by a large segment of society. Climate change is more complicated. We can’t tell people that, if you do this important work, the climate will be noticeably better – that’s just not likely. We’re asking people to save the world for future generations … and it’s just possible that our best efforts might not even accomplish that. So in addition to emphasizing that concern for future generations, we need to flesh out the “new deal” component of the plan … the part that will deliver some level of equity and prosperity to ordinary Americans.

Don’t get me wrong – I am 100% in favor of a Green New Deal. But let’s proceed with our eyes open. This won’t be a cake walk.

luv u,

jp