2020 Campaign Notes

Warp & Woof Has Opinions

William Sundwick

Twenty-two candidates and counting*. That’s where we stand with Democratic presidential contenders for 2020. The first Democratic debate will occur late next month, and the bar for inclusion on the debate floor is low: either a 1% showing in three different authorized polls or 65,000 unique donors spread over 20 or more states. As of May 9, 18 of the 22 declared candidates had met one or the other of these easy requirements. There will be two nights, with each candidate assigned randomly to one. That means the leading candidates may not even be on the stage together in Miami.

So, what are we voters to make of this field? Do we know enough to distinguish platitudes from real policy proposals? Does it even matter? Perhaps the best way to choose in the primary is that “gut feeling” about the candidate that policy wonks despise.

It seems clear that not all 22 of the contenders really think they could become the 46^th President of the United States. Reasonable guesses about their motivations for running include advancement of their respective political (or financial) careers, or possibly a cabinet post in the administration of whichever one of them wins. We will see maneuvering as the campaign season progresses, with lower-ranking aspirants dropping out and throwing their support to one of the leaders, hoping for whatever rewards this may provide. It might be fun here to speculate on where the candidates fit on the political spectrum.

As it looks now, trying to accommodate both their backgrounds and publicly announced policy positions, a rough sorting of leading candidates – from left to right – might look something like this:

Sanders à Warren à Booker/Williamson à Harris à Buttigieg/Castro à O’Rourke/Gabbard à Inslee à Gillibrand à Klobuchar à Bennet/Hickenlooper à Biden/Delaney

Only 16 names appear in the schema above. Among the others:

•           Andrew Yang has made a splash with a fervent defense of UBI (Universal Basic Income, a set amount of money payed out to every citizen, no work requirement, via monthly check),
•          Mike Gravel (88-year-old former Senator) has a campaign run by two teenagers based on dismantling U.S. imperialism,
•          Tim Ryan and Seth Moulton (two Congressmen who opposed Nancy Pelosi for Speaker),   

•       E ric Swalwell (another Congressman who is trying to capitalize on his cozy relationship with MSNBC hosts, and focus on gun control),
•           Wayne Messam (mayor of Miramar, Florida – a bigger city than South Bend – and he’s African-American).

All of these are probably best seen as quirky opportunists, devoid of a solid place in the left-right spectrum.

Without going into nitpicking about how I came up with my idealized spectrum, it’s worth noting that none of the major candidates, except perhaps the two front runners, Sanders and Biden, see any advantage in clearly articulating where they see themselves on this spectrum. Bernie is happy to be the darling of the Left. Biden is happy to anchor his support among older “moderates.” They both believe that victory in November 2020 will belong to whomever can capture that respective territory. The rest aren’t so sure, so they appear to shift ground from speech to speech, interview to interview. That makes it difficult to place them on a spectrum.

Nobody knows the most “electable” posture for a candidate – it may not even be related to any policy positions. It may come down to who they are, not what they propose. It seems supporters of one candidate or another will be totally convinced that THEIR candidate is MOST electable. Polls show a range of results for one-on-one matchups against Trump, but they tend to defy easy analysis. Most major candidates can probably beat Trump. If there is a bias toward beauty vs. age, that certainly doesn’t explain Sanders and Biden sitting on top of those polls. Youngsters Buttigieg and O’Rourke do relatively well, but they’re not at the top. Gabbard has gone nowhere.

A presidential landslide would be good. That is what’s needed to retake the Senate. More Republican incumbents this time will be facing re-election contests (22), fewer Democrats (12). Unfortunately, most of those Republican Senators have well-established constituencies, difficult to break unless an extremely strong top-of-ticket Democrat is nominated in Milwaukee. Mitch McConnell is up for re-election in 2020, and could be defeated even if the Senate doesn’t flip.

Should impeachment be on the table before the election? Speaker Pelosi, as of now, is reluctant to embrace it. Yet, some presidential candidates are endorsing it (Warren, Castro, Harris, Moulton). Of course, the presidential candidates saying they support impeachment means it’s not an issue if they win! Perhaps that’s why it’s easy for them to support it, but hard for the current Speaker of the House.

Warp & Woof has opinions on the election campaign. Rule number one: don’t worry about labels. Republicans will call any and all Democratic policy proposals “socialist” – Bernie’s embrace of the “Democratic Socialist” label means nothing to voters, unless they plan on voting Republican anyway. And, his supporters need only point to real leftist commentators who dispute that he even is a true-blue Democratic Socialist (more a social democrat, in the European mold). But, if your middle class, or upper middle class, sensibilities cause you to feel funny about a socialist label, there is always Elizabeth Warren, who has virtually indistinguishable policy proposals from Bernie (even more radical, in some cases), but claims, like FDR, to be “saving capitalism.”

Moving rightward along the idealized political spectrum above gets you nothing except hedging your bets on what focus you want. It’s more a matter of style than substance. Jay Inslee, for instance, is the “climate” candidate, but his detailed climate plan* differs little from Beto’s, introduced a few days earlier. Booker is the “cities” candidate, but we all know that the American economy relies on more than urban production -- if there’s more money concentrated in cities it’s because that’s where the capitalists are. Gillibrand wants to be the “women’s” candidate, but half of us are men. Pete is very slick – but who is his base? (If well-educated LGBTQ folks, fine, but how many of them are there?)

Warp & Woof thinks it’s obvious that going all the way to the right, for Uncle Joe, would be tantamount to an abject surrender to Republicans – even if he wins. He didn’t represent the best of the Obama years, but was likely a “balance” V.P. candidate.

*latest news, since drafting this post, Montana governor Steve Bullock and New York mayor Bill De Blasio have announced (#23 and #24, respectively). Neither of them has earned a place in my spectrum yet. And, Jay Inslee has revealed a second climate plan, more comprehensive than the first, falling just shy of where the Ocasio-Cortez/Markey Green New Deal landed in February.

Green New Deal

Where Did it Come From? Where Is it Going?

William Sundwick

The Green New Deal was not invented by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Although it was introduced by her and Sen. Ed Markey as a pair of resolutions in the 116^th Congress, the origins of the concept (and the name) go back at least ten years.

Thomas Friedman used the term in a New York Times column in 2007. He was discussing the need to institute major structural reforms of the American (and world) economy if there were to be any hope of “greening” the future. He saw it mostly concerning the electric grid, but still made the case that it couldn’t happen without a massive public investment comparable to the project of the New Deal 75 years earlier.

In 2012, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein promoted the same name, using it for the party’s platform. That platform also called for major structural reforms in all western economies, combined with an “economic bill of rights” for the large number of workers who would likely be displaced. It claimed to owe its origins to other “Green New Deal” programs of European Green Parties.

These earlier proponents, like Ocasio-Cortez, believed that the power of established corporate elites in local and national institutions was so great that the force of law (as well as incentive) was needed to counteract it. More moderate carbon-trading schemes, and free market pressures, could not begin to deal with the scope of the problem.

The scope of the problem is reflected in the current GND proposal. Its three pillars introduced in early 2019, and further elaborated by the new think tank, Data for Progress, are:

1)      decarbonization

2)      jobs

3)      justice.

The latest IPCC report from the United Nations now says that serious decarbonization worldwide is necessary over the next twelve years, or global warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius will be unavoidable. Catastrophic climate effects would result (more violent storms, sea level rise, drought, famine, fires). Research into decarbonization technology needs a significant boost, quickly, to help. And, carbon taxes, incentives for renewables, all are required -- even investment in nuclear energy.

 The challenge also entails displacement of jobs for everybody who earns their living in the fossil fuel and factory farming sectors. Thus, job creation and retraining must be a significant part of any GND program, including a jobs guarantee to get the necessary political support for the disruption.

Finally, justice must be served by ensuring maximum equitability for impacts of climate change. The bad effects shouldn’t fall disproportionately on marginalized, poor communities.

While there are definite technological challenges facing decarbonization, most critics agree that the greatest challenge is political. And, the core of the political opposition seems to be either fear of who will be hurt, or fear that we just can’t afford to pay for decarbonization. The jobs and justice components of GND are meant to address the first fear, and a new economic theory catching fire among left-oriented economists at many institutions called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is meant to address the second fear – “how do we pay for it?”

The basic idea behind MMT is that our government (at least the U.S.) prints its own money! There is NOT a finite supply of money. National debt is a myth, and the sole purpose of national accounts statistics is to measure social benefit. Most supporters of the GND are also supporters of MMT. But, even without reliance on the still controversial economic theory, there is accounting based on opportunity costs – what does it cost society to do nothing?

So, Green New Deal proponents have a battalion of economists, social theorists, climate scientists, and historians of 20^th century America, to support their program. But do they have people in leadership roles in Congress (or the Executive Branch)? Right now, that seems to be a major tactical hurdle. Famously, Sen. Diane Feinstein (a very senior Democrat, who thinks she knows best) harangued a gathering of school children representing the Sunrise Movement (Ocasio-Cortez’ youth movement promoting the GND) outside her office. And, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked what her position would be on the formation of a Select Committee on the Green New Deal, disparagingly referred to the “Green Whatever,” saying she would not support such a committee.

We all know what the White House position on climate change is -- denial. Indeed, the Republican Party is now almost uniformly falling in line behind the White House position. Markey’s resolution failed in a 57-0 vote in the Senate.

What is the way forward? Certainly, elections must count for something. And, public enthusiasm is clearly on the pro-GND side. But the opposition will not go away. Grass roots lobbying of Members must be a nationwide activity. They should want to be on the right side of history. And, their constituents have children and grandchildren who will be on the receiving end of the worst climate effects. It should not be necessary to rely on children, themselves, to make the case. (I’m sure the Sunrise Movement, with some justification, thought the kids would be sympathetic for media coverage at Feinstein’s office).

Part of the opposition to the Green New Deal Resolution is the obvious guiding role played by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (with Bernie Sanders as an early co-sponsor). She has ties to Democratic Socialists of America (DSA); i.e., like Bernie, an avowed socialist. This is still problematical in American politics – across party lines. Is the whole plan really nothing more than a roadmap to socialism? Does that make it a scam, invented solely for that purpose? Many of its supporters have indicated, explicitly or implicitly, that yes, it is just that! Capitalism and the future of the planet are simply incompatible, they assert.

Final question, then: what does all this portend for the future of the program, after 2020? Does the “socialist” label matter that much? Whatever you may think of the merits of the specific Ocasio-Cortez/Markey resolutions, it comes down to being, intentionally or not, a referendum on the role of socialism, of radical government activism, in American democracy.

First Six Weeks

Has the 116^th Congress Inspired Yet?

William Sundwick

Legislation is a slow process. On January 3, 2019 a new Congress was sworn in. The once and future queen, Nancy Pelosi, became the nearly uncontested House Speaker. And Democrats, for the first time since the 111^th Congress of 2009-10, became the House majority. It was an impressive mid-term election romp – best flipping record in over forty years, exceeding even the Republican sweep of 1994 and Newt Gingrich.

The Senate, not so much. Indeed, Democrats lost a net two seats in the august senior body. Granted, the founding fathers intended the upper house to be essentially “anti-democratic” in its design. As if the non-proportional makeup of the Senate were not enough, minorities use the filibuster to further their status quo goals. No clear signs that either side in the Senate wants to dilute their privileges there. Perhaps the 2020 presidential campaign now cranking up will force the issue, perhaps not.

But, what of that mercurial lower chamber? Many of us had great expectations for the new Democratic controlled House of Representatives. There would now be hearings, subpoenas, radical legislative proposals. Morning had arrived in America.

Or, had it?

After six weeks in session, we can see things brewing, but legislation is a slow process. We’ve already seen exciting media circus hearings with Michael Cohen, but regarding the business of crafting real legislative proposals, it seems a bit frustrating. There are bright lights, however. Elijah Cummings, as chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee has captured the spotlight, so far, with that Cohen testimony on February 27. Jerry Nadler at Judiciary is ramping up, and we’ve seen his first work – H.R.8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019” pass the House. H.R. 8 and its companion H.R. 1112, “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,” constitute the first meaningful gun control legislation in nearly ten years (since before Sandy Hook). No small accomplishment.

Eliot Engel, chair of House Foreign Affairs, has held interesting hearings on Middle East policy, and the situation in Venezuela, envoy Elliott Abrams testifying. And the Subcommittee on Elections of the House Homeland Security Committee has recently visited Atlanta for “field hearings” on the 2016 elections in that state.

The most important bill yet to be introduced in the new Congress is H.R.1 “For the People.” The omnibus legislation is aimed at many ills in our current political environment, from corruption to voting rights to election interference. It is very ambitious and has captured the attention of several House committees.

But the most spectacular proposal thus far is the “Green New Deal.” It was introduced as a resolution by freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (and Ed Markey in the Senate), but yet to go on the official calendar for any House committee or subcommittee. We may see it brought up soon, but judging from the initial reaction of the Speaker, it is not clear when. Since it has become such a high profile, sexy proposal, all announced Democratic presidential contenders are forced to take a position on it – one to the left of the Speaker or other “old guard” Democrats, like Sen. Diane Feinstein.

Michael Cohen also testified before Adam Schiff’s Intel Committee twice, in closed session. Criminal conduct of the president was plainly revealed during the open hearings. And, Richard Neal, chair of Ways and Means, is now prepared to subpoena the President’s tax returns, thanks mostly to an adroit question posed to Cohen by Ocasio-Cortez.

Other significant actions include the new Medicare For All Act of 2019, to replace last Congress’ H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal on February 27. And, It may be interesting to see what happens when President Trump vetoes the resolution to invalidate his border “national emergency,” expected to pass both House and Senate as I write.

The bigger issues surrounding the 116^th Congress may be the large number of judicial confirmations sailing through the Senate, or the strange case of S.1, introduced by Marco Rubio on Jan. 3 (first day of new session) – it essentially endorses state laws barring support for anti-Israel “BDS” (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions). Legal scholars feel this is endorsing unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment. It passed the Senate easily – but has not yet been brought to House floor. While the House gets all the media attention, the Senate continues to quietly undermine democracy.

Since legislation (the “sausage making” of government) is such a slow process, it is perhaps understandable that mass media tends to focus more on colorful personalities in politics. The circus atmosphere around the process comes from certain personalities who are adept at demanding attention. These people often rise to the top in politics, just as they do in entertainment; people like our President, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or Bernie Sanders, or Steve King. They are all stars. This is not necessarily a bad thing. They contribute to greater public awareness and sensitivity toward real issues. That, in turn, leads to pressure – both during election campaigns and while in office.

The greatest danger during a presidential primary campaign is that the sausage making in Congress is easily ignored. Once the election occurs, too much animosity has spilled over from top-of-the-ticket battles. Arguably, Congress has been less than fully functional over the last decade because of these battles -- from 2008, to the reaction of 2010, then 2016. The 2018 mid-terms showed some cleavages between certain freshmen (Ocasio-Cortez, and others) and House leadership. Senate Democrats have been largely saved from this by the disappearance of most of the “blue dogs” in the past few Congresses (Joe Manchin survives). A strong presidential candidate for 2020 can bring the Senate with them, and we should see a cooperative arrangement between executive and legislative branches commensurate to the mounting emergencies we face with climate, inequality, and democracy itself.

As it stands now, however, the “unity” mantra needs some pumping up in the Democratic Party. Let’s see some division among Republicans for a change! To answer the question in the title, yes – it is inspiring, within reason.