Saturday, February 23, 2019

Original Sins: White Supremacy in America


          This weekend I’m writing about America’s original sin. Everyone knows about it. Black people, Native Americans and Latinx people deal with it on a daily basis. Asian-Americans face it less brutally, but no less real, in a variety of stereotypes that have become cultural tropes. Most white people either actively participate in it or perpetuate it by trying to ignore it. Every white person in this country benefits from it in some way. This sin touches everything in the United States in some way. Until we face it, confess it and atone for it we will never be a free land of free people.
            It’s called white supremacy and it has been the engine that drives America from the very beginning. In the very first report that Columbus sent back to the Spanish Court he said that he thought the Arawak natives of the Bahamas, Virgin Islands, Jamaica and Hispaniola would be excellent slaves. He took advantage of the Arawak’s hospitality, murdered several of their citizens, took more hostage in attempt to extort gold from them and left an armed band behind on San Salvador when he returned to Spain. When he came back he found that his armed party had angered the Arawaks by raiding and had been killed to a man by a unified Native force.
            Rather than stay on San Salvador he instead established himself as Governor of Hispaniola and set about trying to prove his hypothesis that the Arawak would be excellent slaves. Unfortunately for the Arawak it turned out they had no immunity to communicable European diseases. So the slaves died a lot. Columbus was forced to raid for new slaves almost constantly, which killed more Arawak in the fighting. Eventually it was so hard to find slaves that Columbus forced Spanish colonists to do the work the slaves had been doing. So they fired his ass immediately. Treating white people like “Indians” was monstrous!
            The downfall of the first would-be American emperor came from the same white supremacy that had motivated his imperialism in the first place. His successors would solve the labor shortage by buying African slaves from the Portuguese in exchange for Caribbean sugar. The lesson from this is that we can’t treat the Native American genocide and the Pan-Atlantic Slave Trade as isolated historical events resting in their own beds until checked upon. Columbus intended to create a slave society from the very beginning. The Native Americans died faster than they could be replaced. The white Spaniards did not want to work. African captives were purchased instead. The empire began to flourish.
            America was built on this foundation of white supremacy and imperialism. When the first Spanish colonists settled Florida they brought slavery with them and drove the native Seminoles away from their settlements. When the first English and Dutch colonists arrived in what are now Virginia, New England and the Mid-Atlantic States, they bought slaves from the Portuguese and the Spanish. They couldn’t enslave entire Native American populations but they could and did enslave the prisoners they took and didn’t simply massacre.
            Slavery and Native American displacement became the story of the original expansion of the Thirteen Colonies and the catalyst for independence. The number one resentment against the British government by wealthy Colonists of property was that the British crown had placed limits on their westward expansion by virtue of agreement with Native allies. It was easy for them to use the propaganda of opening new western lands for poor farmers to form a power bloc with poor white tenant farmers and indentured servants who might otherwise be more sympathetic to their fellow oppressed, the slaves.
            It could be argued with some credibility that white supremacy and imperialism, in this specific form, were the real catalyst for American independence. 
            During the fight for independence white supremacy was only strengthened by the British promise to American slaves that they could have their freedom if they joined the British Army or Navy to fight their masters. The first black Canadians were Loyalist soldiers who couldn’t stay in the newly independent United States without being returned to their masters. The Treaty of Paris included a clause (never fulfilled by the British, because the king believed slavery was morally wrong) to compensate Americans for “stolen property.” This didn’t mean the Redcoats were looters. It meant Thomas Jefferson wanted to be paid for slaves who had run away and joined the British army.
            Once independence was won imperialistic white supremacy was soon enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Battle of Fallen Timbers and the Louisiana Purchase vastly increased the size of the United States of America. All of this meant that Native Americans died. All of this meant a greater need for black slaves. Even after the Trans-Atlantic Trade ended, there were still plenty of surplus slaves available from Virginia, North Carolina and the Caribbean. Soon the Southern slave-owning class became the unofficial aristocracy of the nation. Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor owned slaves. Washington, Jackson, Polk and Taylor largely became wealthy(-ier) by the selling of slaves. Jefferson used the selling of slaves to keep himself out of debt.
            Whether or not the active conspiracy imagined by many Northerners ever existed it is not inaccurate to refer to the American political class of the time as the “Slave Power.” The Slave Power certainly drove the Mexican War during the Polk administration. It was pushed upon the country by a largely pro-Slavery Democratic Party that wanted to channel immigrants into the army to “Americanize” them while carving out new lands for slave-holders. The (very weakly) anti-slavery Whig Party opposed the war and then consistently opposed appropriations for spending for the war. This opposition cost them their Congressional majority and sowed the seeds for the death of the party.
            It’s very important to understand that both the Slave Power and the government of Mexico saw this as a war for imperial might. The difference was that what we now call the US/Mexican border was then a largely rural mestizo society ruled by creoles who saw themselves as “white” but who were seen as “Mexicans” by the Anglo-Americans who still formed the dominant U.S. culture. For this reason, in addition to slavery (which Mexico had already abolished and the U.S. hoped to expand), the notion of fighting heathens who were not quite truly white people added a strong element of white supremacy to the Mexican War.
            There were two consequences of American victory that created opportunities for the U.S. to begin to throw off its basis in white supremacy. The first was an alliance between the U.S. Army and the caballero class in Texas and California that insured these territories were conquered with a minimum of actual fighting compared to the rest of the war. Anglo-Americans in the new territories had married into these families and purchased land from them even before the war. This should have created a sense of common clan that admitted at least the Mexican upper classes into “polite society” in the United States. That’s not what happened.
            The second was the Northern opposition to the Slave Power that would lead to the Civil War. These included genuine moral abolitionists and even a small number of genuine antiracists. It also included a general theory among Northern businessmen that slavery was ultimately bad for capitalism by making the stakeholder class lazy and arrogant. This united rich and poor against the Slave Power and allowed them to forget their problems with each other. This faction of the Antislavery Opposition was no less racist than the Slave Power and often attempted to exclude even free black people from “free soil.” Capitalists have always used white supremacy to unite white people against black people and prevent poor white people from naturally siding with black people against the stakeholders. The Civil War, Emancipation and Reconstruction presented a bold chance to make amends for black slavery. That’s not what happened.
            Instead a double tragedy occurred. First the Latinx people of California and Texas were largely dispossessed of their lands and properties by a combination of legal action and direct violence. A prime example of the former was Mariano Vallejo, who went bankrupt fending off lawsuits claiming title to his family lands. He had to sell the land to pay his legal debts and the Anglo developers won. An example of the latter is legendary California outlaw Joaquin Murrieta, who engaged in retaliatory killings and robberies against Anglo-Americans until his death at the hands of the California Rangers after his wife and brother were killed by land-grabbers who accused his brother of stealing a mule.  The unfortunate antihero’s head allegedly ended up pickled in a jar. Whether or not it is a true story it certainly captures the white supremacy that changed Murrieta’s life and then ended it.
In the words of our president, he was an animal and was treated like one.
Black people were no more fortunate than Latinx people. Reconstruction offered some efforts at enforced equality in the South but fell due to Southern opposition and a lack of real Northern commitment to racial equality. Though President Rutherford B. Hayes spent the rest of his life, after his single term, trying to get the vote for black men his ascent to the presidency destroyed Reconstruction and any hope of racial justice at the time. The freed slaves and their children were terrorized and brutalized until they fled the South in large numbers. In the South, Jim Crow laws and work permits continued slavery. Worse, penal slavery revived it in the North.
There is a lot more for which I don’t have space. The Chinese Exclusion act, the imposition of quotas on immigration from Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic countries in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, the imperialism of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine War and the internment of the Japanese during WWII all figure prominently. So does the shameful treatment of the people of Puerto Rico by the US government since the end of the Spanish-American War.
It’s very important to understand that this white supremacy is not just something from the past. It’s not a series of historical incidents that we have put behind us. The Native American genocide is still ongoing. The state of Massachusetts recently declared the Wampanoag Council extinct despite the fact that its members are still alive. DNA tests showed they weren’t “really Native American.” Is it any wonder some Cherokee intellectuals are so angry at Elizabeth Warren right now?
Black slavery is still ongoing in its own way as well. The police violence that terrorizes much of the black community is a descendant of the Fugitive Slave Law and the Southern slave patrol. The prison-industrial complex and prison slavery have taken the place of chattel slavery. They are no less important to the economy now than chattel slavery was in its own day. The words “tough on crime” are particularly weighted against black people and in favor of these forces that hold many poor black people in a form of de facto slavery.
Likewise, the white-washing of the American Southwest continues in a very obvious way in the administration of President Donald Trump. The Orange Troll has ascribed all the stereotypes to Latinx immigrants that were ascribed after the Mexican War to ethnically cleanse many portions of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. ICE attacks immigrants and deports them in a fashion clearly designed to send Latinx (and other non-white immigrants) people back to their countries of origin.
When you understand how central white supremacy is to every political and economic fiber of this country you will begin to understand the problem we face. Solutions for these problems have to be found if we wish to overthrow our stakeholder democracy and achieve social democracy. Frederick Douglas said it best, at the United States’ 100th birthday. Reconstruction had ended and white reconciliation had begun between North and South.
“What will peace among the whites bring?”
            Defeating white supremacy means accepting a simple motto and really learning to live bit. Solidarity with the oppressed and no peace among the whites.

Monday, February 18, 2019

Politics and Democracy


            What is politics?
            Didn’t expect that one to be so hard did you?
            Merriam-Webster offers a variety of definitions for the word. The ones that matter to us are “the art or science of winning and holding control over a government,” “political affairs or business, especially: competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership” and “the total complex of relations between people living in society.” But if we really tighten our definition up a little we can discard the first. Then we can combine the two that remain and strive for a bit of universality.
            Let’s call politics “the total complex of power relations between people living in society.” Then we make it very clear. Politics is about who has power, how they use it and who benefits from it.
            We talk a lot about democracy when we talk about politics these days. We assume we have democracy and we assume it’s under threat. The media tells us that it’s under threat by Donald Trump and his supporters. The Democrats tell us it’s under threat by Republicans in general. Everyone takes it for granted that we know what democracy is too.
            So what is democracy?
            Back to our good friend Merriam-Webster we go. Once again we’re given a few choices but one of them really appears to apply to us: “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people (emphasis mine) and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” It’s even clear and doesn’t require a lot of alteration or mashing together to be clear and universal.
            A democracy is a government in which “the people” have the power. Politicians run for office, everyone votes and the winners of elections take power. It sounds pretty fair and above board. Majority rule may have its drawbacks and folks may have to compromise a lot, but the people will get to decide what happens in their society. The trouble is how to decide who “the people” are. We hear this in our elections as people talk about “the real America” and “real Americans” with a clear view that these are the people.
            The US government was formed by a gentleman’s agreement between political and economic elites. It didn’t represent the whole of the people so much as it represented the interests and views of those who considered themselves the natural leaders of the people. They put their stamp on the constitution that created our system of politics and government. Their system was democratic but it very carefully defined who “the people” allowed to participate were. Our Constitution was written for people who saw themselves as major stakeholders in the country. It was written for people like them.
            What are some features of this stakeholder democracy? Capitalism is the most obvious. The crushing stress of capitalism is used to force us to do what the capitalists want because we need money. Actual violence isn’t usually necessary. When political violence does happen it’s very easy to see who benefits. Our stakeholder democracy uses the rule of law to support capitalism. This leads to the second feature of stakeholder democracy: the state’s power to decide whether violence is justified and whom it is justified to use violence against.
            The immediate alternative to stakeholder democracy is social democracy. This requires a reorientation of the state from the interests of those with significant property to the political equality and economic welfare of the society as a whole. This doesn’t necessarily mean state ownership of industry. It could mean strong labor protections and a robust welfare state. It does mean shifting power away from capitalists and toward the working class. This will rebuild the middle class that decades of corporate piracy have hollowed out.
            The problem is that “resistance” is more than just getting rid of President Trump. The Republican Party will still be there. Even if the Democrats take the presidency in 2020, they don’t exactly have a track record of rejecting capitalist stakeholders do they? Resistance is something that doesn’t stop until we have taken back our power. The political elite are scared of that. That’s why you see and feel so much pressure to fall behind the best candidate, no matter what.
            Falling in behind the leader someone tells you to follow is not resistance. Real resistance means fighting to change our political system for the better.

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Everybody is Spartacus: Solidarity is a Weapon


           During the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, Joe Scarborough and many of his guests referred to various Democratic Senators’ “I am Spartacus” moments. It was clear they meant a chance to stand up and be the hero. They pictured a moment where the spotlight shone solely on the “star politician” seizing that moment to ask something impressive. It shows how liberals totally fail to understand the point of that scene in the movie and the book it was based on.
            The point was to protect the real Spartacus from Roman vengeance and humiliation. “I am Spartacus” was not a declaration of heroic victory but a willing to share the bloody price of defeat in the place of another. It’s not about individual heroism. It’s about solidarity. If everyone claims to be Spartacus then Rome is denied the proof of their triumph over the true Spartacus. It’s about standing together in crisis.
            So what is solidarity anyway?
            My online dictionary says that solidarity is “unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group.” It also says something about a labor union in Poland. While related, we’re going with the definition I quoted above. That’s pretty much exactly how I mean it. It’s the single most important word on the left right now. It’s more important than “resistance,” “impeachment” or even “2020.”
            We live in a world that makes it very easy to feel lonely. Whether it’s work, travel, or taking care of the necessities of subsistence much of our life is reduced to temporary and transactional relationships. I work in an industry where my personal role is literally to make the person on the other end of the phone so happy with me they forget about their problems. I experience transactional relationships on a constant basis at work. I sit at a desk and tend to be isolated from everyone but those transactional relationships while doing my job. It’s a very lonely feeling and it makes me feel like a machine; not a person. I’ve had anxiety disorders in the past and I experience depression periodically now.
            Does that sound familiar to you? Will you take it personally if I take a stab in the dark that you feel this way at least some of the time? Our jobs are designed to make our lives about nothing but work for a set period of time each day. They pay just enough for us to meet our basic needs but we can never escape the worry that an extra $400 will derail our entire lives. Our loved ones (or ourselves) have spent time in the hospital and we are struggling to pay those medical bils. It grinds us down. We feel like we are alone in a constant struggle against meaninglessness.
            This leads to anxiety and depression like I have experienced. It leads to suicide when we feel as if we have failed. We are trapped in a mechanized life that supports our own subsistence and those of a family we see less often and argue with more because of life’s stress and conflict. We feel isolated. No one understands us. We are alone with our pain.
            Solidarity is knowing someone understands. Someone knows that our interests are one with theirs and they will fight for us. It’s the satisfaction of knowing you’re not alone anymore. It’s the comfort of reaching out to offer someone else help and receiving help in return. We are stronger when we aren’t alone. If we support each other we all have a better chance of emerging from life’s struggles victorious.
            So now you’re looking at me and asking, “Don’t you usually write about politics? Aren’t you just talking about a group hug?”
            No. I’m not.
            President Trump’s government shutdown ended because the air traffic controllers didn’t come into work. The flight attendants soon made noises that they supported the air traffice controllers and wouldn’t come into work either. I know you heard a lot about the political prowess of Nancy Pelosi (and it’s fair to acknowledge that solidarity would not have had the chance to win the day if she had not remained firm throughout) but it really comes down to the flight attendants supporting the air traffic controllers.
            In another important recent example of labor solidarity, the LA Teachers’ Union when they won their strike because the LA County Firefighters’ union threatened to strike in support of the teachers. That broke the bosses’ backs. So solidarity isn’t just a comfort. It’s also a weapon. We’re all stronger when we stand together against an authority that wants to crush our diverse individuality. We help each other to be ourselves instead of who the system wants us to be by standing together in solidarity.
            The stakeholders who control daily life in our society understand this. That’s why they isolate us at work. It’s why they take away our public spaces to isolate us at home or in our booths at restaurants. It’s why they demonize immigrants and glorify military adventures abroad. All these things keep us apart and prevent us from achieving solidarity. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s how the system is designed to work for the stakeholders.
            It’s also why conservative Democrats make politics about the identities of many of these marginalized groups. By keeping the black, white and Latinx members of the working class fighting at cross purposes on cultural and social issues they sustain the status quo that empowers the stakeholders over us. The scandals that divide us are often designed to fit into the cultural wedges. So are the issues that our politicians run on. Dividing people is good for the status quo.
            We overcome this by understanding what solidarity means. The interests of white feminists can’t sacrifice the interests of black feminists or LGBTQ feminists. The interests of black and Latinx people can’t be sacrificed for one another. The interests of the working class are the interests of all the working class. Solidarity is the weapon the landlord and the boss can’t overcome. When the firefighters stood with the teachers, when the flight attendants stood with the air traffic controllers, the good guys won.
            That’s the point. We’re all Spartacus.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Howie Schultz and Mikie Bloomberg are not your friends!

   It's pretty clear that Howard Schultz's nascent presidential campaign is headed for a trip down the toilet of history pretty fast. If you clicked that link you know even Michael Bloomberg doesn't want him to run! Though Bloomberg might run himself as a Democrat if the party doesn't get its act together...

  That's a lot to unpack isn't it? I'll do it as plainly as I can. Based on his appearance on Morning Joe today (during which he humiliated himself repeatedly, including not knowing the cost of a box of Cheerios) Howard Schultz likes the Trump tax cuts and doesn't want the Democrats to reverse them. So he's thinking about running for president as an independent. As illustrated by the previous links, Michael Bloomberg thinks that's a bad idea but agrees with Schultz about the Trump tax cuts and may run for president himself to save them! He's just smart enough to understand you have to have a major party nomination to mount a successful political campaign in today's American and being an asshole to Schultz about it.

   But what do we care about a couple of billionaires who are clearly so out of touch with the grass roots of even the most NIMBY liberal corners of the Democratic Party? Frankly it's because these kind of "common sense" business candidates are dangerous. Wendell Wilkie was motivated to seek and win the Republican nomination because, fundamentally, of his fear of the empowering of labor unions by the New Deal. Wilkie was in favor of 99% of the New Deal. The one part of Roosevelt's platform he really disagreed with was unions. A millionaire businessman wanted to protect his cost margins to maximize his profits so he ran for president. Wilkie lost but he arguably pushed Roosevelt to the right on labor after the election by making a deal to transform his supporters into the core of what would become the WWII "Republican for Roosevelt" movement. H. Ross Perot ran as a spoiler to insure a business friendly Democrat's victory because he was mad at George H.W. Bush for raising taxes above the levels of Reagan's tax reform deal with Tip O'Neil.

   Indeed we are already seeing tangible results of Howie and Mikie having a temper tantrum. Before Howie humiliated himself on Morning Joe, Kamala Harris appeared to back off her previous commitment to Medicare for All at a CNN Town Hall on Monday. As several Twitter friends and I decided in an impromptu discussion Tuesday evening, if it's not "Medicare" and it's not "For All" then how can it be "Medicare For all?"The simple answer is that it cannot possibly be "Medicare For All" under these conditions. So we have to wonder why Medicare For All suddenly became a slogan instead of a policy to Kamala Harris.

   The answer lends itself to a magic word used by both Howie and Mikie to describe Kamala Harris's current leading rival for Democratic front runner status, Elizabeth Warren. What was the word? It was "socialist" of course. Howie spent a significant amount of time on Morning Joe bashing 70% marginal income tax rates (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's idea) and Elizabeth Warren's Wealth Tax. Both ideas "will never pass" because "Americans don't want socialism." Mikie had very nearly identical words on both topics and both singled out Warren as what they believed to be the "mainstream of the Democratic Party." It's fairly clear that a Bloomberg Democratic nomination campaign and a Schultz independent campaign would primarily be "Stop Warren" or "Stop Sanders" campaigns rather than serious projects bringing real policy ideas to the table.

   So Kamala Harris tacked right to align herself with the billionaires and not with us. If neither Bernie Sanders nor a genuine progressive candidate from the African-American portion of the Democratic Party establishment (opposed to Kamala Harris on the issues of penal slavery and police brutality) enters the race then we have a clear choice. Howie/Mikie/Kamala or Elizabeth Warren, which do you trust more?




 

Sunday, January 20, 2019

The Meaning of "Neoliberal"

   The word "neoliberal" goes flying around Twitter a lot and there appears to be some disagreement on what it means. If you ask the typical establishment Democrat online what it means these days you are told it's a dog whistle that racists use to reference African-American Democrats. It's simply not true. It's one of a large numbers of lies spread online by disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton in 2016 because they couldn't understand why so many actual voters didn't automatically fall in line. Since Hillary Clinton's belief in the free market economy over "big government" intervention in the messy work of making the capitalist sausage fits very well into the dictionary definition of the word, and Bernie Sanders biggest fans tend to have an interest in how the economy actually works, it's only natural someone would start to call Hillary "neoliberal." There's a clear delineation between "neoliberal" and "democratic socialist" that has real meaning to someone who studies economics, sociology or political science. So let's stat with the dictionary defition.

   Neoliberalism, n: A modified form of liberalism tending to favor free market capitalism.

   That's a bit of a mouthful isn't it? So now you may want to know what "liberalism" is.

   Liberalism, n: The holding of liberal views.

   Shorter, but still circular reasoning. So if Hillary Clinton holds liberal views she's a liberal and if her liberal views favor free market capitalism she's a neoliberal? I can follow that. Still, what are liberal views?

   There is an economic and a political component which can have opposing meanings. In sociopolitical terms a "classical liberal" believes in a doctrine of natural rights and artificial responsibilities. The artificial responsibilities form a "social contract" by which stakeholders in a society agree to the norms by which the society is governed in return for the resulting government's agreement to protect their natural rights. The stakeholders accept an artificial responsibility not to violate each other's natural rights and the government is the arbiter of their contract. While this precise framing of government has never actually played out this way, this social contract theory was the fundamental underpinning of England's Glorious Revolution and the later American Revolution. The Founding Fathers were so sure that their revolution followed naturally on the principles of the first that they even named themselves the Whigs, after the anti-Jacobite faction of the Glorious Revolution, and called their political opponents "Tories" after the anti-Williamite faction the earlier Whigs fought against.

   The results of both revolutions were what could be rather generously called upper middle class societies with a sense of the personal liberties that should be enjoyed by the upper middle class. Free landowning males could vote for representatives. Those representatives administered the government so as to respect the political and economic rights of all the free landowning males in the new political order.

   What about poor people, women, and various minority groups? That's a very good question with a simply awful answer. They didn't get a say. That was the fundamental flaw of the original liberal ideal. It really didn't include anyone who wasn't a stakeholder in the social contract. That's the flaw in liberalism. The profoundly liberal administration of John Quincy Adams was able to create an "American System" for internal improvements that would create gainful employment and sew the nascent world power together but they were unable to address the idea for many poor white tenant farmers and laborers that they were being used by the elite.

   The result was a political transition into what historians call "Jacksonian Democracy." They expanded on the natural rights theory and liberal doctrine to claim that all white men were equal under the law. The effect was to enlarge the pool of stakeholders in liberal society to address the complaints of the white underclass but leave the same underlying problem. The government was still only for those it defined as its stakeholders. Things actually became worse for women and minority groups. Jacksonian Democracy removed previous administrations' half-hearted checks on the Native American genocide and resulted in the disastrous Trail of Tears. While the liberal Founding Fathers paid lip service to antislavery, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren declared slavery a positive social good. The poor could vote, but their new political rights did not come with corresponding economic and social uplift unless they chose to join in the terrible migration west. Ironically it's the libertarian writer Rose Wilder Lane whose books show the real horror westbound pioneers faced in trying to better themselves.

   Subversive and revolutionary thinkers continued to agitate for change without a great deal of result for years to come. The Civil War served to end slavery. The corresponding attempt to integrate freed slaves into the political society of the postwar South in Reconstruction ultimately failed because white men were unwilling to consider black men stakeholders in their liberal society.

   Even as Reconstruction was being killed by racist whites seeking to regain their status as liberal stakeholders in the South, white women and African-Americans initially allied in a grand attempt to secure their civil rights in the North. The greatest irony is these efforts failed in the home states of the antiracist politicians attempting to impose political integration on the South. Liberalism had won again and the stakeholders were still on top.

   Real change wouldn't start to come after the Great Depression and WWII. The New Deal created a new economic contract to stand aside the political contract. A social safety net was built in Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. In the post-WWI era, liberals attempted to prove they could build a free and inclusive society by combining formal legal equality with a wide range of programs designed to ameliorate prejudice and poverty. Yet the stakeholders were still running things and every advance came with a degree of effort that felt greater than previous advances. Stakeholder reactions began to blame African-Americans for things like "urban decay", "crime", and "ghettoization" despite the fact that it was African-Americans who were primarily the victims of these things.

   Under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, the economic reforms of the New Deal and Great Society were undone in a way that massively benefited stakeholers at the expense of the working class and minorities. Under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, policies that were "tough on crime" devastated people already suffering from financial deregulation and tax cuts. Private enterprise would profit massively from what became a prion-for-profit law enforcement regime. Under George W. Bush a massive war against some of the poorest people in the world, that still hasn't ended, completely exhausted whatever budgetary gains had come from the projects of Bush I and Clinton. A Great Recession and an austerity program that could have been designed by the conservatives who made the New Deal necessary destroyed African-American and working class wealth in this country.

   It is the broad trend of American stakeholders crushing minorities, the working class and those who do not conform to the rules of the social contract between the stakeholders that we mean by "neoliberalism."
 

Saturday, January 12, 2019

The Problem With Representationalism

   Last Sunday HuffPost columnist Talia Lavin wrote an eloquent statement that it is time for a woman to be president and that she will not apologize for wanting to be represented. It's precisely the air of inevitable social progress that was used to cast Hillary Clinton as the only possible candidate for president in 2016. It was time for a woman and it was Hillary Clinton's turn. This school of representational politics reduces each minority group to a set of "firsts", "pioneers" and "trailblazers." These include the first woman in space, the first African-American to play Major League Baseball in the modern era (this narrative has a tendency to erase the story of the last African-American to play Major League Baseball but that's not the same stirring representational tale of progress), the youngest Latinx woman elected to the House of Representatives. I'm not saying these milestones are not important, and I believe that we need to be the kind of country that will elect a woman or a Latinx person president if their abilities and policies fit the job.

   But, speaking as a straight white man, I have not found the payoff of being represented by people who look like me to be worth the neoliberal policy they have given us. I understand this is a privileged viewpoint. My privilege, however, is relevant here. It gives me a perspective that someone who does not share it does not possess. Most of the people in authority have looked like me for my entire life. All but one president of my lifetime has been a straight, white man. What have any of them done for me?

   They've done nothing for the fictional "middle class" they want us all to think means us. They've done nothing for the people who don't look like them, whom they have deliberately shut out of the halls of power. They've done nothing for the "white working class" which, speaking as a high school graduate with a semi-skilled semi-white collar job in technical support with a manufacturing company, to which I definitely belong. I don't care what the next president looks like, I care about the next president's policies.

   I want a strongly, hotly fought primary in which all the politicians who want to be the Democratic candidate for president tell us what they will do for us. I want to hear about universal health care, not universal health insurance. I want to hear about free college and forgiving student debt tax free, not about student debt relief as a favor to tax accountants. I want to hear about income inequality, worker rights, workplace democracy, a Green New Deal and public housing. In the end, I will vote for the candidate I think offers us the best chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

   I'm not willing to settle for anything less.

Monday, January 7, 2019

How Democrats Can Save Social Democracy

   How do we save our Social Democracy between now and 2021? We know the Republicans can't do it. If a political party is going to emerge as a serious champion of the established liberal order it will have to be the Democrats. On Sunday, I wrote about what I think the GOP needs to do if they want to save their portion of our two party system. That doesn't get us out of the immediate trainwreck, however, it just gives them something to rebuild after. Today I'm going to tackle the real problem: an immediate stare-down with the obvious consequences of the Senate Majority Leader first nullifying a Democratic president and then kowtowing to a Republican president. A lot of leftists and liberals have ideas about how to win a general election. I think there's a clear and common sense strategy but most won't dare try it.

   I'm about as confident of the Democratic Party's desire to follow my advice as I am of the Never Trumpers but I'm going to post this anyway. The thing to remember is that portions of this list don't require leadership as much as they require pressure on our representatives. Direct and continual action is how you convince people to take "the mob" seriously.

1. Let's Talk About The Mob

   Both in his presidential election and in the mid-term congressional election Donald Trump played the law and order card very hard. Democrats in urban areas, suburbs and exurbs need to meet this head on rather than hide behind their own veteran status or record as a prosecutor to prop up their own law and order credentials. Instead of playing into the establishment idea of respectability, Democrats need to express solidarity with activists and pledge to support their activism with legislation. More importantly, they need to cast "the mob" in the role of the protesters at the Democratic Convention in 1968. They need to cast the military/industrial/law enforcement complex as the police who beat the shit out of those protesters.

   The GOP, with the tacit assistance of Big Media and Big Donors, is attempting to engage in a national police riot and tell us it's for our own good. Look at what's been happening on the border. It's on both sides now and the Tijuana police are doing our dirty work because we're dumping the issue on Mexico instead of being a responsible superpower. So let's talk about who "the mob" really are.

2. The Identity Thing

   There is no way to navigate American politics without dealing with identity politics. This is something that really should be easier for an outsider like Bernie Sanders, who straddles the historic link between left labor ideology and left racial justice ideology, but the mainstream Democrats chose to very deliberately play Trump's game and attempt to play race as a wedge issue to deflect from real issues. Rather than dividing voters by race with Trump's naked racism the Big Dems chose to cast Bernie's supporters as racists and Bernie himself as a potential cryptoracist. Between Bernie's understandable desire not to use his personal civil rights record for political gain, which he probably thinks would sound patronizing from a white politician and his unfortunate decision to fail both economic and social justice in a single "civil rights" argument.

   To do this you just use the Declaration of Independence. "The pursuit of happiness" refers to the freedom to support one's self economically as one chooses and to participate in the creative and social life of the community. This was a fundamental principle of Enlightenment Natural Rights theory.  It needs to be communicated to the public as an unambiguously left populist argument. Anytime you mention "the working class" you make it clear that black and Latinx people will benefit more from kitchen table legislation than anyone else. Democrats should make voting rights an election issue every election and an activism issue every year before an election. When Republicans talk about "law and order" and "all lives matter" you reply that a policeman's first duty is to the public safety and concerns for the safety of police offers are less important than the safety of the public they serve. Make it clear it is not acceptable that this does not include the black community.

   The problem with identity politics isn't that Democrats play it. It's that they play it so badly. Remind the white working class that every time the cops shoot a black person and get away with it they become that much more likely to use violence during a strike and get away with it. Make it about solidarity against the police state.

3. Don't Get Hung Up On Electability in 2020

   Dennis Kucinich once famously said, "I'm electable if people vote for me." What's that? Don't remember that? It's probably because you either never heard of Dennis Kucinich or dismissed him as a joke when he ran for president in 2004. In either case you were doing what the mainstream media wanted and paying attention to Howard Dean. The most genuinely leftist candidate for president at the time, Carol Mosley Braun, was pressured into folding her campaign for the benefit of a straight white man (Howard Dean) of squishy Third Way credentials and a very thin political record. The chosen "electable star" was soon dismissed as un-electable because people thought his Vermont war whoop at a rally was weird. The electable candidate, John Kerry, was nominated and chose the populist outside (John Edwards) as his running mate. Dems thought it was in the bag.

   We know how that turned out. Despite what pundits are saying on talking head shows, we don't want anyone to drop out before they think they should. It's less important that the presidential candidate actually win in 2020 that he turn out lots of people who might vote Democrat in places people don't usually vote Democrat. Imagine a presidential candidate who can accomplish a Stacey Abrams level shift in the political balance of the entire country, down ticket, whether he wins the electoral college or not.

   If you can only have one in 2020 would you rather have the White House or the Senate? Think about 2012 before you answer.