Clarity, ugh!

Okay, I’m not getting paid to follow campaigns or prognosticate, but to use that as an excuse would be really lame.  I blew it, big time!  Donald Trump whom I refused to take seriously will be the GOP nominee.  The election is still almost six months away.  Buckle up; things are likely to get even more poisonous and ugly.

Paul Krugman suggested in a recent column that the emergence of Trumpism reflects the fact that the GOP simply hasn’t delivered for its base.  I don’t know if that’s really how they feel.  It doesn’t much matter because what began in 2010 as the anti-establishment Tea Party rebellion has now reached a new, albeit counter intuitive, height: the crowning of a billionaire demagogic whom they have convinced themselves is just like them: a “true outsider”.  Trump has been deft at understanding their frustration, at hitting all the right notes for his angry and frustrated prime audience.  As I’ve written before the real issue for them — many in the Republican base — is feeling a loss of power, of disenfranchisement.  Someone has usurped their rightful place and pushed them figuratively if not literally out of the homestead.  The future is being written and they aren’t, or more to the point feel they aren’t, part of it.   They aren’t responsible for the shift but feel individually and very personally victimized by it.   Whether that’s the case, doesn’t really matter.  They are mad as hell and are looking both for someone to blame — “the other” — and equally are desperate for someone to lead them back to their promised land.  “Making American Great Again” translates simply into “bring back their good old days.”

Blaming the “other” started long before Trump escalated down from on high in his flagship Fifth Avenue namesake building.   He played the “other card” to the hilt from his initial xenophobic portrayal of Mexicans through his suggesting on the eve of the Indiana vote that Cuban American Ted Cruz’s father was a JFK conspirator.  Over and over we’ve heard supporters tell interviewers that Trump had the honesty to say out loud what “we’re all thinking”.  If that’s the case, then a lot of Americans are having some terrible and distorted thoughts.  It’s not a sign of leadership that Trump is giving them voice.  Most assuredly, it’s not “honest”.   Far from it! While I may have underestimated him from the start, I have not changed my view that his rhetoric is purely manipulative and opportunistic.  There is nothing to suggest in either his record or utterances that he possesses an ounce of conviction other than seeking personal power and feeding his overblown ego.

In contrast to the GOP, Krugman suggests the Democrats have largely kept their promises.  While I agree with him, especially with regard to the President who has by and large delivered on his campaign promises (including the ACA), how do you explain the rise and appeal of Bernie Sanders?  Clearly the crowds who listen to him rail against the “millionaires and billionaires” seem to be expressing the same anti-establishment frustrations.  Perhaps, but I think it is totally wrong to conflate Trump and Sanders supporters.  Bernie’s followers are not so much opposed to the political establishment — they are more than likely to vote for Clinton in the fall — as they are frustrated by economic inequality.  They are the logical next step of the short-lived “Occupy” effort spotlighting the 1% but more generally growing inequality.  Their anger is decidedly not directed against others who, regardless of their background, ethnicity or gender, are suffering challenges equal to or greater than their own.  Rather it is against a system that seems, and largely is, rigged in favor of the wealth class.  It is unsurprising that so many of Sanders most dedicated supporters are young.  This is after all a generation, probably the first since the Great Depression in the 1930s, who legitimately wonder if they can surpass or even match the income and lifestyle of their own parents.  Many have pursued higher education and taken on massive debt with no guaranteed prospect for a return on their intellectual or financial investment.  Instead they see a work world that no longer cares about their success, much less well being.  The loyalty upon which their parents could count is gone; the prospect of doing better than living paycheck to paycheck is dimmed for the foreseeable future. 

Superficially the two constituencies — Trump and Sanders — may seem aligned, but nothing could be further than the truth.   Something fundamental separates them and that difference is profound.  Unlike the Trump followers, those attracted to Bernie don’t see themselves as losing out to “people not like me”.  Indeed, the very idea that any one is an “other” is alien to them.   Xenophobia and prejudice of any kind is just “so yesterday”, so meaningless.  They may be wary of trade, may attribute loss of jobs to manufacturing moving to Mexico or China, but they know that even if reopened today factories would employ only a fraction of their former pre-automation work forces.  Intellectually they know that we are in a period of economic transition.  What frustrates them is not that Pedro, Sally or Muhammad has taken “their” job, but like for them, good wage jobs remain in short supply.

Sanders may reflect establishment wariness in the land, but Hillary Clinton’s record as a progressive (albeit more hawkish on foreign affairs) makes her acceptable.  Indeed, the Sanders success is seen as a positive nudge to the left that I remain confident she will take to heart and adopt as her own.  Indeed the best thing that’s happened to the Democrats and to her is Bernie’s full-throated campaign.  He has focused attention on the issues that a vast number of Americans, including Republicans, face in this period of extended and painful transition from the economy that was to the one that is still in formation.  What bothers many Democratic voters is not so much the so-called establishment per se, but that they have been unable to catch up to the economic change.

It is a transition that has concentrated wealth on the fewer than ever before and kept so many treading water or losing ground.  This process may simplistically be blamed on NAFTA and trade in general — and there are reasons to fault specifics in such agreements — but it has much more to do with technology and automation.  Moreover, low worker pay in a number of mostly Southern states that boast automobile plants (for among others Toyota and Nissan), has been impacted by Republican enacted “right to work” laws aimed at keeping unions out and worker rights at bay.  Today, you may be fortunate enough to work in an automobile factory, but it’s not the job or the security your father knew.  Workers who considered themselves highly skilled find themselves replaced by machine, out of sync and at sea.  Conversely, politicians whose jobs and incomes have not been even slightly impacted by this fundamental change, and who reside in a bubble of partisanship, posturing and safe districts, are mostly out of touch with this pain.  Is it any wonder that constituents in both parties have had it and are in an angry rebellious mood?

In his first and very thoughtful article for New York Magazine, Andrew Sullivan writes about the dangers we face in an election whose backdrop is wide scale discontent.  It has produced the unexpected strength of Sanders and the very alarming ascendency of Donald Trump.  Sullivan warns us not to underestimate the potential of this figure at a moment when our democracy is fragile.  While this general discontent is widespread, it is particularly strong among those, many of them blue collar workers, who feel themselves increasingly disenfranchised from what has largely become the American Pipe Dream.  Trump is capitalizing on this discontent, an unnerving mix of economic distress and loss of political power in the works.  He promises to protect them from both in part by keeping “the other” from taking their jobs and place at the table.   As the son of Hitler refugees, and an “anchor baby” to boot, I can’t help but be particularly unnerved by a sense of déjà vu.  In the 1930s, the man with the funny mustache was dismissed and looked on as a buffoon before manipulating his adopted country into a living hell.  This is said only to suggest is that the man who others and I dismissed as a blowhard theatrical act has emerged as a frightening potential that we dare not underestimate. 

And central to that danger of underestimation is the notion that the coming election will surely end in a Democratic landslide.  That won’t happen unless we vote.  In his Saturday Howard University’s commencement speech, President Obama pointedly told graduates:

Your plan better include voting — not just some of the time, but all the time.  It is absolutely true that…there are still too many barriers in this country to vote.  This is the only advanced democracy on Earth that goes out of its way to make it difficult for people to vote. But let me say this: Even if we dismantled every barrier to voting, that alone would not change the fact that America has some of the lowest voting rates in the free world. In 2014, only 36 percent of Americans turned out to vote in the midterms -- the second lowest participation rate on record. Youth turnout — that would be you — was less than 20 percent.  Four out of five did not vote.  In 2012, nearly two in three African Americans turned out. And then, in 2014, only two in five turned out.  You don’t think that made a difference in terms of the Congress I've got to deal with?  What would have happened if you had turned out at 50, 60, 70 percent, all across this country?  People try to make this political thing really complicated.  You know what, just vote.  It's math.  If you have more votes than the other guy, you get to do what you want.  It's not that complicated.  And you don’t have excuses.   So you got to vote all the time, not just when it’s cool, not just when it's time to elect a President, not just when you’re inspired. It's your duty.

His message (excerpted with above) was to young people, but it was equally directed at all of us.  If we’re our usually lazy selves this November first we may wake up to a President Trump.  That will be on all of us, and we can’t let that nightmare day happen.  Could you have any greater clarity than that?

Oh, Bernie.

Bernie Sanders, coming off a series of primary victories, is feeling pretty good.  Who can blame him?  He’s also feeling more aggressive, and that isn’t necessarily a good path to take.   His recent assertions that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president are more than a stretch.  One may not agree with her on matters of policy past and present, even vigorously so, but objectively she remains the most qualified person running in either party.  There is likely no more difficult job in the world than being our president.  No one is fully prepared for what is in some ways the ultimate unknown.  It’s like being a parent for the first time multiplied a thousand fold.  Hillary has an unusual depth of experience beginning with her eight-year birds eye view inside the White House, another eight years in the senate and then four as secretary of state.   While not serving herself, she is as close to being an incumbent candidate as we have had since TR ran against Taft and Wilson.

For reasons expressed in February, I support and expect Hillary to win the nomination, but would certainly vote for Bernie if he accomplishes what would be an upset.  And that wouldn’t be a difficult vote since I agree with many of the things he says and in which he believes.  But one of my problems with Bernie is that he is an absolutist — his long held views are both admirable and potentially troubling.   For sure they strike a chord with many voters in this discordant and frustrating time, but such fervor may tip the balance between conviction and feeling possessed of “the” truth.  As I’ve often written, that’s bad in religion and equally so in politics — bad and potentially dangerous.    It is exactly what has put governance in virtual limbo these last years.  I’m sorry to say this, but Sanders’ assertion smacks of “she’s unqualified because she doesn’t think or act like me”.  Maybe he doesn’t mean it that way, and one hopes it’s only over-the-top campaign rhetoric, but to me it’s a red flag.  Presidential campaigning, especially with big adoring crowds and some success at the polls can be a huge ego boost.   It’s addictive.  I hope it hasn’t gone to his head.

Hillary Clinton is hardly a perfect candidate.   She continues to have high unfavorable ratings and has trust problems, some self-inflicted.  Just being a Clinton carries a lot of baggage.   Much of Donald Trump’s wealth, though most of his admirers are blind to it, comes from celebrity rather than business management.   And, like the political class described in Mark Leibovich’s book This Town, so does Clinton’s.   At the core, and unlike her husband, Clinton is also private person, not necessarily ideal on the stump.  But she’s no more private than Obama, though she considers him a more natural politician.  Understanding all these perceived deficits, I think Clinton is a true progressive.  She was onto expanding healthcare before Obama and has been a consistent advocate for women whether on choice or in the workplace.  She is a strong believer in climate change and its scientific underpinnings; a partner with Obama is seeking global partners in that regard.

Clinton is a progressive, but not an ideologue.  From some of us on the left, that’s a negative.   I don’t agree.  Ideologues claim possession of “the” truth, which stands in the way of getting anything done, of the compromise necessary not only in politics but in sharing the planet with others.  Whether in our family life, our friendships and acquaintances, or simply functioning on some reasonable level, accomplishments are generally more likely with some sense of modesty, even of some self-doubt.   This is not to argue against conviction or passion but to suggest that the other person might possibly have it right, or as right.  I think Hillary understands that.  Finally, unlike many of the Democratic candidates for office in 2014, she is not running away from either the person or the record of Barack Obama.  Rather she clearly hopes to build on what he has accomplished in his two terms.  She will be different, not the least being the first female president, but promises continuity.

Contested primaries are essential to the democratic process, if for no other reason than reminding us that we should always and do have options.  Bernie Sanders has brought excitement and a refreshing — I think essential — focus on both economic and political inequality.  He has pushed Clinton and the party to the left, demanding focus and conviction.  What he has done will hopefully endure impacting on the agenda of the next president and the country.  His meaningful and vigorous challenge has, as did that of Obama eight years ago, made her a better candidate.  That was evident in her speech yesterday at Carnegie Mellon University broadcast on C-Span.  The coming election, even if Donald Trump wins the  Republican nomination will not be a cakewalk.  The stakes as she said yesterday are high.  Of course, we hear that in every election cycle.  This time it may be an understatement.  Come November, I hope all Democrats will stand behind and work vigorously for the nominee.  I hope too that if Hillary prevails she will not only have benefited from Bernie's vigorous challenge, but that she will take his message to heart and make much of it part of her own. 

Can't get the Bern.

For the pro-choice party, we’re left with little of it in this primary season.  That’s troubling.  I so wish we had a broader array of contenders for the Democratic nomination.  I’m thinking, for example, of senators like Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and, of course, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.   Democrats do have a strong bench.  Its members deserve more sunlight than they’ve been given (or taken for themselves).  The last person I expected to run was Senator Bernie Sanders in part because, while voting with Democrats, he has never (as Paul Starr writes in the Atlantic) chosen to join the party.  In fact, as Starr points out, he “has long excoriated it in unsparing language.”   Now he wants its most coveted nomination.  If a Senator Warren were in the mix, it’s doubtful he would have gotten as far as he has.

As any reader of these posts knows, I agree with Bernie Sanders on many issues.  He’s right about income inequality and the unfettered power of big business.  Our political system is dominated and corrupted by money, magnified after Citizens United.   The ACA is a step in the right direction, and not an insignificant one, but it would be far better (and I think cost-effective) if we had Medicare for all.  We need a sustaining minimum wage.  These, along with a general dissatisfaction with the status quo, is why his message resonates with many Democratic voters, especially young people.  It has clearly found an enthusiastic following and has succeeded in pushing Hillary Clinton further to the left.  That’s a good thing.  The trouble is, no matter what happens in New Hampshire tomorrow, I just can’t get the “Bern”. 

While Bernie’s campaign is impressive and this seems to be a year of the unexpected candidates, it’s striking that not a single senate colleague supports him — not one.  In contrast, former Senator Hillary Clinton has been endorsed by 39 current and 8 former members of the chamber.  Even his fellow Vermonter, Howard Dean who also ran as an outsider, supports Hillary.  You may chalk that up to the “establishment”, which in part may be true.  But I’ve always thought what your peers and coworkers — the people who know you best — think of you speaks volumes.

But lack of colleague support is not why I can’t get the Bern.  I was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama, a similarly unlikely candidate in 2008.  I remain so.  His campaign, focused on change (albeit in a different context) brought an excitement and drew crowds that Americans rarely see and haven’t seen since.  He did this at a time when many of his natural followers, myself included, were deeply torn between the hope of having the first African American or first woman president.  In the end, Obama prevailed because he had something special.  He “fired” us up.  While other candidates and indeed presidents have been gifted orators, he stood out in our time with soaring and beautifully crafted rhetoric.  The combination filled his listeners with hope and anticipation — perhaps more than was warranted.  That definitely had a downside for his presidency.

I continue to believe that many Obama supporters read into his words what they wanted, perhaps needed, to hear.  What he actually said and what they were sure they heard didn’t always match.  That mismatch has had a profound impact on his popularity, especially so on the left.  Many liberals consider him a deep disappointment.  They fault him for not living up to what they expected — the words and promises they “heard” him make.  They complain that the ACA does not go far enough — it’s not the single payer plan they were sure it could have been.  Some feel that he was not tough enough on Republicans, didn’t assert himself.  They expected a roaring liberal; they got a left-of-centrist.  We are still at war in the Middle East and have not closed Guantanamo.  In short, Obama hasn’t delivered. 

I certainly share in some of these disappointments.  I also understand that Obama never promised universal Medicare or that it couldn’t have been enacted is beside the point.  That his central message, beginning with his ’06 convention speech and through the 2008 campaign, was breaking down the walls between “red” and “blue” America is no excuse.  That extricating America from foreign policies firmly in place long pre-dating George W Bush isn’t easy, or perhaps even possible in the short term, doesn’t matter.  Many Americans are rightly frustrated and angry.  The nature of that frustration and anger may be different but it’s what has brought Bernie and, yes, the likes of Trump to the fore.  I get it, understand it.  Much of that anger stems from the economic and other factors that I wrote about in my last post.  While focused on the presidency, some of it, and for many people much of it, comes from frustration with the unkept promises by candidates on all levels of government.  It results from loose of-the-moment campaign rhetoric aimed a winning office.

There remains a huge difference between blogging (not to mention around the dinner conversation) and having the responsibility for managing and getting things done.  I can afford to express hopes and disappointments unburdened by the limitations and difficulties of execution.  In relatively a similar way, there is a vast difference between pontificating on the senate floor and having to perform in the White House.  I know it’s wishful thinking, but that well known difference should inform those who embark upon the presidential campaign trail.  That's especially true for senators who, like their counterparts in the House, often stand in the way of presidents executing the ideal.  It isn’t a cliché to say that governing is far tougher than campaigning — Mario Cuomo’s “poetry verse prose”. 

In the end, that’s why I can’t get the Bern.  Sanders rightly rails against indisputable wrongs.  He speaks of revolution, but fails to give me any idea of how he might deliver.  As Frank Bruni writes, “little in his Senate career suggests that he’d be able to turn that oratory into remedy.”   I may be agree with much of what he says, but maddingly he is no more specific on how he would accomplish it all than is Donald Trump whose person and ideas I abhor.  You may find that harsh, and even be offended by the comparison, but sadly I think it’s true.  I don’t want to be given promises that have no chance of being kept.  Bernie talks of revolution, but Americans as a nation — even those who agree with the ideals to which he gives voice — don’t do “revolution”.  Sure, we had one back in 1776 but since then, if anything, we have been consistently resistant to change.  Look at the unpopularity (albeit fired up by distorted Republican hyperbole) of the ACA.  Whatever change we permit is incremental.  In my view, presidential candidates at the very least have to remind us of the realities of governance.  They need to be specific and realistic especially so in a challenging time like this where government is divided and is likely to stay so for years to come.  Rhetoric that merely inflames is not enough.

So what really gives with Bernie Sanders?  Why are crowds of young people gathering around him?  The answer may be simple: he isn’t Hillary.  More to the point, many Democrats still can’t get excited about her candidacy.  The fault for this sits squarely at her doorstep.  The New York Times supports her because she is highly competent, better prepared for office than anyone in the running.  So do I.  I wish with greater enthusiasm and passion.  I wish she was combining her display of readiness with some real vision.  Ironically, if she were promising what Bernie is, I’d have much more confidence that at least some of it might be accomplished.  She’s not and I hope his candidacy may push her to do so in the months ahead.

This is truly a strange presidential year.  I’ve been thinking about Bernie and Hillary as well as their Republican counterparts.  The fact is that somehow they all seem to be the wrong messengers.  There is the aging Sanders representing a generation of whom he is not a part and whose future he won’t share.  There is Hillary breaking ground for women, for a different kind of future while, as Frank Bruni pointed out in his piece, is essentially credentialed by, even mired in, the past. Objectively speaking, she’s even an odd messenger, of a transformed 21st century women's movement.  On the other side, think about the high living, personal plane chauffeured billionaire whose real estate manipulations have priced out his hometown’s middleclass.   He “speaks” for frustrated people who couldn’t afford to spend a night in one of his luxury hotels or play on his gilt edged namesake golf courses.  Think of Republicans as a group who gain the votes from exactly the people who are hurt most by their policies, ones that continue to favor the rich and keep wages low.  All strange messengers — all seem a mismatch for our time.

Alas, that’s where we are.   We can say that Hillary Clinton sucked all the air out of a potential contest in 2016 for other Democrats.  But they are all  grownups who made the decision not to run.  She is an imperfect candidate when many of us so long for perfection.  All candidates for public office carry some baggage — just like all of us.  Hillary Clinton carries more than we would like.  I’m not suggesting here that those who have “the Bern” lack real enthusiasm.  Far from it.  I, along with others who do support Hillary still suffer from an enthusiasm gap.  Going forward, I remain convinced that the Bern won’t carry Sanders to the nomination if for no other reason that, current crowds not withstanding, too few people really have it.  I can only hope that Secretary Clinton will give us reason to insure her victory in the fall.  The alternative is unthinkable.