American presidential elections are unlike any other in the world. For one, presidential campaigns start way too early -- years before a voter steps into the voting box. Two, billions of dollars are spent on the candidates. Thank you Citizens United (not really). Three, we have a primary system that puts an inordinate amount of responsibility on a Midwest state that does not reflect the broader electorate.
Tomorrow, February 1, the voting will begin. The state of Iowa will caucus and choose a candidate for the general election. Polls show a close race on both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump leads Senator Ted Cruz; Secretary Hillary Clinton edges Senator Bernie Sanders by a few points. Only time will tell who will end the night victorious.
For Democrats, even if Hillary were to win, Bernie Sanders will remain the champion. This observation is not meant as a dig to Secretary Clinton, who remains a strong, formidable progressive. No, it is a reflection on what has occurred during the summer and fall. Feel the Bern has become a movement that will not be extinguished with a loss in Iowa. A fire has been lit.
The popularity of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders lies in current economic realities. For the past four decades, income and wealth distribution has grown more unfair. By objective measures, America no longer offers equal opportunity for those willing to work towards their American Dream. Instead, corporate profits soar while wages remain flat. Executives receive a 300:1 pay ratio without having to deliver results.
Levels of inequality are obscene. Even conservatives cannot deny it. 100 White Americans own more wealth than every African-American throughout the country. One family, the Walton family, has more wealth than 40% of the entire country. Since 1979, the percentage of national income to the top 1% has doubled. Japanese, Italians, and Belgians are more wealthy than Americans.
With so much wealth, the privileged class has sole influence over our elected officials. Political scientists have done the research. Important issues to average Americans are not on the radar for representatives. Instead, lobbyists and campaign contributions make sure that corporate interests are catered to first, and usually to the detriment of the consumer. Monopolies run rampant; small businesses and entrepreneurship have declined. We do not have a capitalist system. We have a crony state.
Bernie Sanders has run his campaign on the promise to raise the middle class up rather than subjugate it to Wall Street. Labels do not matter, even if the media claims that his democratic-socialist identification will hurt his chances of a win in a general election. What ultimately matters is how this economic crisis will be solved. Americans, particularly millennials, who comprise a large percentage of his passionate supporters, know that if action is not taken together, collectively, we will slide into more unrest, bitter partisanship, and economic stagnation.
Republicans and Democrats feel the injustice. So, going forward, no matter the outcome of the Iowa Caucus, issues of economic fairness will be front and center. In a way, Bernie has already won.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Friday, July 31, 2015
I Like Hillary but will be Voting for Bernie
"What is the difference between a socialist and a democrat?" The Democratic National Committee Chair, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, hesitated. She was likely caught off guard. "I'll ask again, what is the difference?" Chris Matthews, a liberal pundit on MSNBC, aggressively questioned. The segment topic involved Bernie Sanders. He did not appear to be a fan. Chris wanted answers.
I like Chris Matthews. In middle school, I read his books. He always seemed fair-minded, even with people that he disagreed with. Chris' love for Pennsylvania, the state where he was born, and preference for political compromise puts him more to the center than some progressives / liberals.
When it comes to the 2016 democratic primary, there is no dispute as to whom he supports. He is strongly behind Hillary Clinton. The tacit endorsement brings me back to my initial thoughts: Bernie Sanders irritates him. He is not alone.
Senator McCaskill, former Representative Barnie Frank, and other democrats have openly questioned the "insurgent" campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. They argue that his campaign only hurts Hillary. The critics also claim that Bernie has no chance of winning; he should let Hillary ease into the general election. I respectfully disagree.
Bernie Sanders is running for the middle class. His policies are extremely popular. Take one issue after the other, and you will see that a large majority of people support his views. Incomes and wages must be increased. Wall Street should be regulated. More must be done to end crony capitalism. Bernie puts the issue of income and wealth inequality front and center like no other candidate.
Make no mistake, the United States is at a pivotal point in its history. There has been no other time in our history when inequalities have been so extreme -- before the Great Depression even, during the Gilded Age.
There must be a candidate who is not afraid to discuss these issues. A candidate cannot be afraid of wealthy, powerful lobbyists-- special interests who will spend billions to keep the status quo. It would not be the first time that a candidate has stood up to the robber barons and won. Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, to a certain extent, have all proved that populist policies are smart politics.
I certainly would support Hillary if she were to win the primaries. She is a great candidate. But, given current economic realities, we need a strong progressive. I think of FDR or Teddy, and I know that America could elect a fighter again. That's why I support Bernie Sanders. He has the best policy stances and is not afraid to voice those policies. Against a default Republican candidate, he could easily win.
So, let me answer Chris Matthews' question. A democrat is a socialist. Even some republicans are socialists. If you like Medicare, Social Security, and other social safety nets, you are a socialist. It is not a bad word. We can support both a democratic society and a capitalist market economy that works for everyone, not just the rich. Sometimes, it takes a self-described democratic socialist to make that happen.
I like Chris Matthews. In middle school, I read his books. He always seemed fair-minded, even with people that he disagreed with. Chris' love for Pennsylvania, the state where he was born, and preference for political compromise puts him more to the center than some progressives / liberals.
When it comes to the 2016 democratic primary, there is no dispute as to whom he supports. He is strongly behind Hillary Clinton. The tacit endorsement brings me back to my initial thoughts: Bernie Sanders irritates him. He is not alone.
Senator McCaskill, former Representative Barnie Frank, and other democrats have openly questioned the "insurgent" campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. They argue that his campaign only hurts Hillary. The critics also claim that Bernie has no chance of winning; he should let Hillary ease into the general election. I respectfully disagree.
Bernie Sanders is running for the middle class. His policies are extremely popular. Take one issue after the other, and you will see that a large majority of people support his views. Incomes and wages must be increased. Wall Street should be regulated. More must be done to end crony capitalism. Bernie puts the issue of income and wealth inequality front and center like no other candidate.
Make no mistake, the United States is at a pivotal point in its history. There has been no other time in our history when inequalities have been so extreme -- before the Great Depression even, during the Gilded Age.
There must be a candidate who is not afraid to discuss these issues. A candidate cannot be afraid of wealthy, powerful lobbyists-- special interests who will spend billions to keep the status quo. It would not be the first time that a candidate has stood up to the robber barons and won. Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, to a certain extent, have all proved that populist policies are smart politics.
I certainly would support Hillary if she were to win the primaries. She is a great candidate. But, given current economic realities, we need a strong progressive. I think of FDR or Teddy, and I know that America could elect a fighter again. That's why I support Bernie Sanders. He has the best policy stances and is not afraid to voice those policies. Against a default Republican candidate, he could easily win.
So, let me answer Chris Matthews' question. A democrat is a socialist. Even some republicans are socialists. If you like Medicare, Social Security, and other social safety nets, you are a socialist. It is not a bad word. We can support both a democratic society and a capitalist market economy that works for everyone, not just the rich. Sometimes, it takes a self-described democratic socialist to make that happen.
Friday, May 29, 2015
The Perpetual Campaign Season
It is 2015, right? Sometimes I have to double check, because the political pundits I watch talk like it's the summer of 2016. I catch myself looking around the apartment for a mail-in ballot, in a fit of moral rage -- my face gets red and my eyes bulge out, until I realize that the presidential election is not until November of next year. Seventeen months away. My pulse slows down after I count to ten.
I blame the media for my feelings of excitement. Actually, I place the blame on more than just the media. Right now, our political process needs some serious reform. You get any voter in a room, Republican or Democrat, and they can agree about one thing: they're fed up. They may disagree on the solution, but they have similar feelings.
Americans are dissatisfied. There is too much disagreement and not enough "getting things done." Part of the reason why our representatives can get away with it is because we allow them to. As constituents, we lose focus on what is important.
Campaigns and promises are never ending. An incumbent urges her constituents to vote her party into office, and then states that a party majority could lead to real progress. An agenda, conservative or liberal, cannot be accomplished, until a majority is won. A majority seldom happens. And even if it does happen, it may not last long, or the minority party may procedurally obstruct.
Meanwhile, the money rolls in. Special interests buy up their favorite candidates, the media covers the electoral intrigue like a gossip column, and the voters are left with their favorite social media outlet to discuss the issues for ten minutes, before looking at the millions of selfies to follow in their news feed.
Significant issues are forgotten. Real policy debates are discarded like an old book on a dusty shelf. The next election down the road becomes the topic at hand. The election coverage resembles a beauty pageant more than a civic dialogue, with all the attention being placed on the candidate's personality or looks rather than the candidate's positions on the real issues facing our country. We must hold our elected officials to a higher standard.
Instead of arguing ideology for two years until the next election, we should demand that legislation be passed. Deals to be made. Infrastructure spending, an issue that has not been covered enough and use to be non-partisan, steadily decreases year after year. Our roads, bridges, railways, and airports are crumbling and we are losing an advantage in a competitive global environment.
Immigration reform, of any substance, could bring economic security to millions. Yet nothing has been done. Education investments are neglected; children are left ill-prepared to challenge the world's brightest in other nations.
Perpetual campaigns are hurting America. Politicians, journalists, campaign donors, and voters are all responsible, but if we make a conscious choice to change the ways things are done, I believe our country can remain the most powerful. Otherwise, we may have to settle for being the country with the best entertainment on earth.
I blame the media for my feelings of excitement. Actually, I place the blame on more than just the media. Right now, our political process needs some serious reform. You get any voter in a room, Republican or Democrat, and they can agree about one thing: they're fed up. They may disagree on the solution, but they have similar feelings.
Americans are dissatisfied. There is too much disagreement and not enough "getting things done." Part of the reason why our representatives can get away with it is because we allow them to. As constituents, we lose focus on what is important.
Campaigns and promises are never ending. An incumbent urges her constituents to vote her party into office, and then states that a party majority could lead to real progress. An agenda, conservative or liberal, cannot be accomplished, until a majority is won. A majority seldom happens. And even if it does happen, it may not last long, or the minority party may procedurally obstruct.
Meanwhile, the money rolls in. Special interests buy up their favorite candidates, the media covers the electoral intrigue like a gossip column, and the voters are left with their favorite social media outlet to discuss the issues for ten minutes, before looking at the millions of selfies to follow in their news feed.
Significant issues are forgotten. Real policy debates are discarded like an old book on a dusty shelf. The next election down the road becomes the topic at hand. The election coverage resembles a beauty pageant more than a civic dialogue, with all the attention being placed on the candidate's personality or looks rather than the candidate's positions on the real issues facing our country. We must hold our elected officials to a higher standard.
Instead of arguing ideology for two years until the next election, we should demand that legislation be passed. Deals to be made. Infrastructure spending, an issue that has not been covered enough and use to be non-partisan, steadily decreases year after year. Our roads, bridges, railways, and airports are crumbling and we are losing an advantage in a competitive global environment.
Immigration reform, of any substance, could bring economic security to millions. Yet nothing has been done. Education investments are neglected; children are left ill-prepared to challenge the world's brightest in other nations.
Perpetual campaigns are hurting America. Politicians, journalists, campaign donors, and voters are all responsible, but if we make a conscious choice to change the ways things are done, I believe our country can remain the most powerful. Otherwise, we may have to settle for being the country with the best entertainment on earth.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Can the Real Will McAvoy Please Stand Up?
It is probably fair to say that Americans have lost faith in their elected leaders. The Government shutdown was emblematic of our current partisan divide: we cannot move forward because we cannot agree on where we should go. Without a compass, the United States is stuck in a mire of malaise.
There are certain facts that are indisputable. Our economic recovery is slow. Inequalities are rising. Politics are making things a lot worse. The constant bickering causes unease and the public is unsure if politics can be put to the side for the benefit of the country.
But there are a few individuals who profit from this 24/7 drama: the media - or perhaps the more aptly titled, "professional pundits," who never cease to be predictable, and never grow tired of hurling falsities.
As the Government shutdown continued into its void of senselessness, the cable news networks increased viewership and revenues. The partisan media took financial advantage of the shutdown and debt-ceiling crisis, while at the same time, exacerbating the problems that we face. We should not put the spotlight on those who favor conflict over compromise, i.e. Ted Cruz, et al. We absolutely cannot treat the tea-party as legitimate policy-makers.
Journalists who covered the shutdown attempted to describe a narrative of equal blame. The Democrats are unwilling to bend to the fiscally responsible minority party and the Republicans are unrealistically demanding the reversal of a major policy achievement by the President. False equivalency does not help the public stay informed. Let me explain.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. For those HBO fans that also happen to read my blog, Aaron Sorkin makes it a constant theme in his show: "Newsroom." At one point during the first season, the main character, Will McAvoy, gives an example:
"The news isn't biased toward the left or toward the right, it's biased toward fairness. If the Republican congressional caucus were to walk onto the floor of the House and offer a resolution saying the world is flat, the next day's headlines would likely read: 'Democrats and Republicans can't agree on shape of Earth...'"
Sorkin, through his character, was attempting to criticize the media's bias towards trying to appear fair and balanced at the expense of failing to fulfill their journalistic duties of keeping the public informed about the truth.
The shutdown was planned months in advance. The tea party did not hide their intentions at all. They have never lied about their desire to dismiss compromise and attack pragmatic legislators who are willing to vote with Democrats. As we speak, the tea party are running candidates against the "traitors," who voted to end the shutdown. Senators Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all will have to survive a primary before facing a Democrat. Sarah Palin was not whispering about attacking squishy Republicans who would even think to deal with President Obama.
Gone are the days of a reliable media. The shutdown story was simple and the news should have covered it simply. We now have a faction in the Republican party who will do anything in their power to disrupt Government. They do not advocate for a limited government with more personal freedom; they want to pugnaciously fight the Democrats on every single issue for the sake of fighting with Democrats on every single issue.
Our country should not only place the blame on our leaders. We also need to admit that our media institutions are failing to perform their journalistic duties.
It is not going to be easy to move ahead. The partisan gap is still wider than ever. But, as Americans, we should expect more. And as Americans, we should do more. Let us hope that in 2014, we can elect candidates who are practical - Republican and Democrat. Let us pray that the media will help us discern which candidates those are. There has to be a Will McAvoy out there somewhere.
There are certain facts that are indisputable. Our economic recovery is slow. Inequalities are rising. Politics are making things a lot worse. The constant bickering causes unease and the public is unsure if politics can be put to the side for the benefit of the country.
But there are a few individuals who profit from this 24/7 drama: the media - or perhaps the more aptly titled, "professional pundits," who never cease to be predictable, and never grow tired of hurling falsities.
As the Government shutdown continued into its void of senselessness, the cable news networks increased viewership and revenues. The partisan media took financial advantage of the shutdown and debt-ceiling crisis, while at the same time, exacerbating the problems that we face. We should not put the spotlight on those who favor conflict over compromise, i.e. Ted Cruz, et al. We absolutely cannot treat the tea-party as legitimate policy-makers.
Journalists who covered the shutdown attempted to describe a narrative of equal blame. The Democrats are unwilling to bend to the fiscally responsible minority party and the Republicans are unrealistically demanding the reversal of a major policy achievement by the President. False equivalency does not help the public stay informed. Let me explain.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. For those HBO fans that also happen to read my blog, Aaron Sorkin makes it a constant theme in his show: "Newsroom." At one point during the first season, the main character, Will McAvoy, gives an example:
"The news isn't biased toward the left or toward the right, it's biased toward fairness. If the Republican congressional caucus were to walk onto the floor of the House and offer a resolution saying the world is flat, the next day's headlines would likely read: 'Democrats and Republicans can't agree on shape of Earth...'"
Sorkin, through his character, was attempting to criticize the media's bias towards trying to appear fair and balanced at the expense of failing to fulfill their journalistic duties of keeping the public informed about the truth.
The shutdown was planned months in advance. The tea party did not hide their intentions at all. They have never lied about their desire to dismiss compromise and attack pragmatic legislators who are willing to vote with Democrats. As we speak, the tea party are running candidates against the "traitors," who voted to end the shutdown. Senators Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all will have to survive a primary before facing a Democrat. Sarah Palin was not whispering about attacking squishy Republicans who would even think to deal with President Obama.
Gone are the days of a reliable media. The shutdown story was simple and the news should have covered it simply. We now have a faction in the Republican party who will do anything in their power to disrupt Government. They do not advocate for a limited government with more personal freedom; they want to pugnaciously fight the Democrats on every single issue for the sake of fighting with Democrats on every single issue.
Our country should not only place the blame on our leaders. We also need to admit that our media institutions are failing to perform their journalistic duties.
It is not going to be easy to move ahead. The partisan gap is still wider than ever. But, as Americans, we should expect more. And as Americans, we should do more. Let us hope that in 2014, we can elect candidates who are practical - Republican and Democrat. Let us pray that the media will help us discern which candidates those are. There has to be a Will McAvoy out there somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)