An Appeal to Americans on Behalf of the Syrian Refugees

An Open Address to My Fellow Americans,

To most of you, I am a stranger. For most of you I will so remain, an insignificant and indistinguishable voice in a chorus that seems to share no key or common score. I am under no illusions that you will be moved by my remarks, or that you will even reach the end of them— abandoning in disagreement or indifference the effort to hear out your countryman. I do not fault you for this, but I would fault myself for not having attempted to capture your attention at all.  

Because strangers though we are, we share a bond of democratic union and the fortune of a great inheritance preserved and perfected by so many before us. Their blood and beneficence binds us in common obligations that transcend party or petty opinion. We are summoned by their sacrifice to the work of crafting an ever more perfect union, a task that calls upon us not only to remember the causes and concerns and driving ideals of those who initiated this fine experiment in liberty but also to renew our understanding of what makes us Americans in our own right. While such exertions are certainly difficult, let us be both humbled and encouraged to ease, that they are a mere fraction of what so many have forfeit in our common defense.

It is in that spirit of republican brotherhood and sisterhood that I implore you to conversation and discourse. A spirit Thomas Jefferson believed was part of the “creed of our political faith,” an “essential principle of our Government” being “the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason.”

So, stranger, at last I meet you at that bar of public reason at a time when our nation’s passions are strained by an understandable fear, a manufactured confusion, and a justified anger. It is here I would like to appeal to your better angels on behalf of a people a world away, embroiled in a tragic conflict we helped foment, who are even now desperately seeking refuge from an evil we know all too well. If you should permit me your continued attention, I hope to address every concern, every rejoinder, every critique that those who oppose the refugee resettlement effort commonly announce while putting forward a positive case that accepting these refugees is not only in keeping with our national identity and our national morality, but with our national security as well. 

It is helpful at the outset to understand the scope of the problem. The civil war in Syria began nearly five years ago in March of 2011. To date, 250,000 Syrians have perished. 11 million have been forced from their homes, including 5.6 million children. 4 million Syrians have fled the country seeking refuge. Many have suggested, in ignorance if not in hate, that these individuals are “desert nomads,” and many others have wondered why they do not take up arms in defense of their country. Let us dismiss both these absurdities. First, Syrians are much like us… those in the conflict zone even more so. This conflict is unfolding in the cities and suburbs of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo to name a few. The displaced are families whose everyday concerns mirror our own. Their children attend schools, they own shops and have jobs in factories and offices, they shop at supermarkets and dress in western fashion, they have computers and cell phones and television. They are a largely modern people living in a largely modern society that is set in an ancient place. The assault against them should serve as a caution to those who believe their personal firearms are some salve against tyranny. They are bombarded from the sky with rockets filled with sarin gas, with mortars, with barrel bombs dropped by Assad’s air force. Their cities are cut off from food and water to instigate starvation and disease. So while there is an active rebel force of Syrians fighting for their country, it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that refugees return to the fight when in all likelihood they would simply be returning to slaughter. 

Those who have fled the conflict have poured primarily into Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and other North African states. Nations which bear little responsibility for the conflict and who are variously ill equipped to handle the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of people with nothing. To put the challenge in perspective, Germany, one of Europe’s strongest states economically, has taken in roughly 45,000 Syrians (1% of the refugees) and is experiencing a small measure of political and economic turmoil as a result. Europe has absorbed, in total, less than 25% of the refugees while the far less stable aforementioned nations have absorbed nearly 75%. This disparity is a threat to our national security for several reasons. When states are overburdened there is increased risk of civil strife, deprivation, ignorance, violence and potentially state-failure. Not only does this create fertile ground for radicalization, but it also risks a cascade effect by which a violent and failing Iraq and Syria precipitate, through a bleeding of refugees, violent and failing sister states on their borders which in turn bleed even more refugees. This necessitates either increased resources to address the humanitarian crisis, military intervention to restore order and capable governance, and/or the isolation of a failed region from the rest of the world (an option that may sound attractive to some, but has devastating consequences as it creates the kinds of safe havens from which we can be attacked and complicates our economic interests in the region). Furthermore it increases the likelihood of an existential threat to Israel, which shares a border with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt.

Therefore, it is critical to our own national security and economic interests, as well as to the national security interests of our closest Middle Eastern ally, that we do our best to spread the burden of absorbing these refugees evenly.

There are those who argue that nations like Saudi Arabia are not doing their part. They are not wrong. Saudi Arabia absolutely should accept refugees from Syria. However, that they are not doing so is not a justification for thusly avoiding our own fair share of the burden. Such logic would empower a single state to indemnify the irresponsibility of all others.

There are those who argue that our response should come in the form of cash assistance and the formation and support of refugee camps. While this must be part of our response, it is not enough. First, refugee camps still must exist in host countries and remain a strain on their resources. Second, refugee camps are notoriously dangerous settings given how ineffectively they are policed. Third, refugee camps are inefficient distributors of resources (as any self-respecting conservative would agree is true of any centrally planned economy). Fourth, refugee camps are easily infiltrated by desperation, which is too easily assuaged by radicalism, which is bolstered by the group think that can emerge when you are surrounded by the suffering of your countrymen. An orderly process of refugee resettlement into already-stable free-market communities reduces strain on the countries that host the camps, it saves the cost of having to establish new state services like medical care, garbage collection, policing, and it allows individuals access to markets in which they can meet their needs efficiently.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that we are fighting both an immediate and conventional battle on the ground as well as a generational one in the hearts and minds of individuals. We are not merely battling men, but corrupted ideas— and to that battle we cannot bring bombs alone, but must offer the example of our benevolence also. There is an unquantifiable benefit, paid in dividends that will forever be invisible because they exist as people not radicalized, plots never conceived, animosities never given the chance to form or flourish. These benefits are accrued by the profound power of compassion as it multiplies, as refugees share the stories of the kindness and morality of Americans; of the blessings they see visited upon our nation by dint of our uncompromising commitments to liberty, and pluralism, and protection of the weak and wanting. We are engaged in a struggle between mythologies, and so exposing those who might otherwise be convinced that ours is an inferior way of life to the plenty and pleasures of freedom has value. 

Given then that it is in our direct national security and economic interest to prevent cascading state failure, that spreading the burden of refugee resettlement both reduces that risk and is in an of itself a more efficient method of handling the crisis, that it is in keeping with our commitments to our closest allies to prevent further instability in the region, and that we benefit from our own benevolence it seems irrefutable that we should accept refugees. 

Of course, those opposed to resettlement again interject their concern. Their arguments follow a familiar route: There are many ISIS fighters in Syria. ISIS fighters wish us harm. ISIS fighters want to infiltrate the United States to do us harm. ISIS fighters have said they will use the refugee stream to infiltrate Europe, so why not the US? ISIS attacked Paris, and, they believe, a refugee was involved. They claim, erroneously, that the FBI Director has said we cannot vet the Syrians. They argue that we cannot be certain of our screening process especially in the face of the fact that Syria is in collapse. They argue we are safer to simply refuse Syrian refugees. 

There are many reasons why this argument, while emotionally compelling, is false. 

It is undeniable that there are ISIS fighters in Syria and that they wish to do us harm. But the refugee process is the unlikeliest of methods for them to choose to infiltrate the US, if only because it is the path that carries the greatest risk of detection. 

To begin with, the UNCHR has to find you eligible for resettlement and choose you for the pipeline to the United States. This process takes months, and there is but a 1% chance you’ll be cleared and set on a path the US. Already, this seems an imprudent method for terrorists to use. But the process isn’t over. Refugees who are given the opportunity to apply for refugee status must then “be referred to the Resettlement Support Center and pass that extensive background check and in-person interview with the Department of Homeland Security [which includes submitting extensive forms, original documents which are submitted to forensic verification, and biometrics including digital fingerprinting and iris scans], in addition to further security clearance processes from the Consular Lookout and Support System and potentially the Security Advisory Opinion. [Only] if all of these bodies say we’re clear and then we pass the medical screening, are matched with a sponsor agency, and then pass an additional security check to see if anything new has developed” will the refugee be admitted. 

In the face of this process critics make several objections. First, they say, the FBI Director says we can’t vet Syrian refugees. But that is not, in fact, what he said. He said, “if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in a way that would get their identity or interest reflected in our databased we can query until the cows come home and nothing will come up.” 

So in other words: “if they haven’t done anything to bring themselves to the FBI’s attention,there is no reason the FBI would have information about them in our database.” 

Do we expect that we have government files on every Syrian Man, Woman, and Child of woman born? And why do we assume that not being in an FBI database is a reason to be suspicious? One would think the opposite would be the case. And the fact remains that the FBI isn’t the only agency involved in the process… the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center all have databases they maintain that refugees are checked against, databases that include information from foreign intelligence sources we partner with. 

But detractors persist: Well how can we expect to have good information from a place like Syria given the state of their nation? To answer that question, a comparison is in order. In 2013 alone, the US accepted refugees from Somalia (7k refugees) and Sudan (2k refugees) and Eritrea (1.8k) and Iraq (19.4k) and Iran (2.5k). All of these states are either failed or unstable or home to radical elements, all of them share a high concentration of Islamic extremists. 

We’ve been undertaking this process, accepting refugees from these places, for decades. Out of over 780,000 refugees admitted since 9/11/2001, “exactly three resettled refugees have been arrested for planning terrorist activities—and it is worth noting two were not planning an attack in the United States and the plans of the third were barely credible.” Mathematically speaking that’s a .0003% failure rate. So we’ve got a pretty good track record as far as the refugee process goes in relation to keeping out extremists using the rigorous process we have in place now. 

Critics continue: but .0003% isn’t certain. And they’re right. But if the logic is: only certainty is acceptable, then mustn’t we shut down all international tourism and cancel all employment visas, and all border crossings since we can’t be certain that someone won’t slip through those LESS secure methods of entering the country? 

Which is the other absurd part of critics argument. The truth is, there are simply far easier ways to make ones way into the United States undetected. It’s as if we were considering the actions of a bank robber confronted with a bank with two doors… one heavily guarded, one basically wide open. 

What robber would say “instead of maximizing my chance of getting in, let me go the heavily guarded route where I’m far more likely to get caught!” It simply doesn’t make sense. 

Except! The critics reply, ISIS has said they would use the refugee stream to infiltrate the US. Except they didn’t. The source of this claim is a buzzfeed interview with an ISIS member who was discussing using the refugee stream to infiltrate Europe, not the US. This is a key difference. The refugee settlement system in Europe, to the extent that nations have them, is far less secure than our own by virtue of our geographic separation from the site of the conflict. We have the luxury of a far more robust process that resists the pitfalls of mass migration since there is no way for the refugees to move en masse into our territory. Thus, a strategy that works to infiltrate Europe does not work as a method of infiltrating the US.

At this point the charge that the ‘all’ the refugees are fighting aged men usually appears. But this claim is not only untrue of the mass of displaced persons, it is a disingenuous claim given that the refugees in the pipeline to the US are distinctly composed from the full population of the displaced. When you distinguish between “All refugees” and refugees in the pipeline to the US you find that, since the US has directed the UNHCR to prioritize orphans, children, women, and the elderly: 1/2 of the refugees in the pipeline to the US are children. 1/4 are elderly. The remaining 1/4 are adult women and men. Only 2% are males of ‘combat age.’

Thus we reach a point in the argument where it seems well established that the refugee process is the most onerous possible route for a terrorist to take to infiltrate the US, not only because there are there easier ways to enter that increase the chances of success, but because we have a vetting process with a remarkably successful and proven track record even with regards to unstable and radical states.

But simply eliminating, point by point, the objections of those who would close the door on Syrian refugees is not enough. On a very important level, this is an argument driven by emotion, by a sense of right and wrong. To that end I am reminded of a dense, but wise quote from George Washington that is worth reading carefully:

“I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire, since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

Rationality and caution must play a primary role in our decision making process… but when reason exercised eliminates the basis for opposition, that opposition makes a final appeal to safety. We keep hearing this breathless concern for American lives, from people who have resisted any action on the epidemic of gun death that takes 30,000 American lives every year, who have undermined the agencies and regulations that aim to keep us safe from pollution and poison, whose world-views have fomented the danger to begin with.

This selective care for American’s well being renders their concerns suspect. But even if they are taken at their word, are we not forced to wonder what an American life is worth if we abandon, at the slightest hint of danger, the ideals that make being an American something to be proud of? 

It is not an argument based in rationality, or statistics, or a cold assessment of national interest (though I believe we have the high ground on all those fronts) but from time to time circumstance tests our values, and the strength of our commitment to our highest ideals. 

We ought to be a nation that feels a duty towards our fellow man when he is in peril. 

We ought to be a nation of virtue who follow that eternal rule of right that the strong defend the weak. 

We ought to be a nation that opens our doors rather than one who sends checks and well-wishes to some far off hell to soothe our conscious. 

We ought to be that nation because that is who we’ve claimed to be. 

The indispensable nation. 

The shining city on a hill.

A land of providence and grace… 

…and the home of the brave. 

We’re supposed to be the heroes. 

I still believe we can be. I firmly believe we must be. 

But it is not up to me. It is left instead to our collective judgement as expressed by our leaders. Let us at least endeavor for that judgement to be well considered. Let us at least strive to reach reasonable conclusions that resonate both with our ideals and with our safety. For strangers though we may be, might we not yet be friends?

Reclaiming the ‘Greatest Generation’

There seems to be a habit among the conservative rabble, when confronted with liberal calls for the government to intervene in order to promote social and economic equality, to caricature the liberal as some combination of lazy, entitled, coddled, unmotivated, ungrateful, and dependent. ‘Only a loser who can’t make their own way honestly would need or want the government to intervene,’ the thinking goes. ‘The strong can hack it, the weak appeal for help,’ they mock (seemingly unaware that they themselves don’t ‘hack it’ all that well.)

It is usually at this point that they puff up their chest, look to the sky admiringly, and invoke “the greatest generation.” A group, they recall fondly, that asked for nothing but gave everything. A group, they insist, who knew what it was to succeed by virtue of the sweat of one’s brow and not the aid of a benefactor. 

This selfless ethic, their reasoning goes, is responsible for a kind of economic miracle that produced halcyon days of plenty and peace.

‘Who are you to complain,’ they resolve in that self-satisfied tone of condescension, ‘when they who had so little and asked for even less did so very much?’

The problem of course is this: Demanding that the government intervene on behalf of the people, demanding that it endeavor to provide greater economic and social equality, is not an affront to the greatest generation– It is a lesson we learned from them.

We must remind conservatives that the ‘greatest generation’ they so admire elected to office, four times, a President who invented American-style socialism. That generation sanctified FDR, who guaranteed to the people a minimum wage, to the elderly a retirement, to the veteran a free college education, to the farmer  electricity, to the urban dweller workplace and domicile safety, to the jobless a works program, and to the population as a whole- hope. It was indeed the greatest generation who enabled and supported and benefited from then unprecedented government intervention into the economy for the explicit purpose of supporting the people. 

We must remind conservatives that the ‘greatest generation’ they so admire elected to office, twice, an internationalist who vigorously fought for the establishment of the United Nations. Elected to office, twice, a President whose government invested in one of the largest infrastructure projects since the trans-continental railroad. Elected to office a young idealist and peacemaker who invested in science and technology, who gave us the peace corps, who labored through every international conflict to find paths to peace rather than waste blood and treasure on war, who asked without fear of mockery: What can you do for your country? All of these accomplishments did not come free, they were paid for by taxing, without question or complaint, the highest incomes at levels unheard of today.

We must remind conservatives that the ‘greatest generation’ they so admire was also the generation of the union man. That they were a generation living in an age where “unskilled” labor was considered just as honorable (most likely because of the predominance of white unskilled labor) as any other kind of labor and so demands for decent pay weren’t met with moralizing derision. They lived in an age where the market was far more open to the kinds of businesses now crowded out by mega-corporations, and franchises. They lived in an age where one could be a respected and promotable professional without possessing more than high school diploma they received for free. 

And we must remind conservatives that it was men of the ‘greatest generation’ who constituted the Courts and Congresses that told their fellow citizens that their right to private property and private business did not entitle them to refuse to serve African Americans; who told their fellow citizens that their strongly held views on interracial marriage, or contraception, or abortion — even if shared by the majority — did not overpower the constitutional rights of those who would seek to engage in or use such things; who told their fellow citizens that their rights as parents did not change the fact that their children would have to be taught alongside African American children; who told their fellow citizens that even private economic behavior– a farmer seeking to grow his own wheat– could be punished if, when aggregated, that behavior would hurt the whole economy; who established and expanded and cemented the modern administrative and regulatory state. 

And we should not forget that the parents of the ‘greatest generation’ were themselves one of the most politically demanding generations in modern history. Their mothers were suffragists, their fathers nascent union men. Their parents grew up knowing the socialist party of Eugene Debbs, the violence against organized labor, the likes of Clarence Darrow in the law and Upton Sinclair in the press, the movement to break up monopolies and regulate foods and drugs. They were literally participants in ’the Progressive Era.’ 

Nor can we forget that it is neither millennials nor generation X or Y that squandered the great progress the ‘greatest generation’ built, on the lessons of their parents, using government and unions as equalizers. Instead we must remind conservatives that it was the children of the ‘greatest generation,’ the ‘baby-boomers,’ whose greed, squabbling, aggression, and arrogant illogic brought us to this point. They who were afforded a youth more comfortable than any previous generation in perhaps the whole history of man had been, they whose education came at a price tag covered by a part time summer job, they who treated themselves to financial largesse on borrowed money and drastically reduced taxes… it was they who tore down the Unions that built the middle class, and who taught us to scorn the minimum wage worker and her toils, and who preached the gospel of deregulation, and who erected barriers to professional employment so high you spend your life paying for the education you needed to get the job required to pay off the education you needed to get it. It was they who built a broke America that graduates adults into the world with lifetimes of debt. 

This is what baby-boomers have left us, a half century of rising profits, rising productivity, and rising prices but stagnant wages. A market that all but requires a degree whose cash value (with interest) takes a lifetime of work to pay off. A society indoctrinated with the belief that poverty is a choice, charity an accomplice to complacence, and deprivation a perfectly moral motivational tool. A world organized by money rather than merit, and largely untouched by mercy.

How can one honestly expect such an arrangement to generate growth? To foster a culture of investment and saving? To empower any other mode of existence but dependency and despondence? 

The demands of the modern liberal electorate are not rooted in a desire for sympathy, but for sanity. We simply cannot abide an economy that rewards so few, for doing so little, when so many go without. We simply cannot accept that structural racism and poverty are necessary components of American life or that subjection to discrimination and hatreds and inequalities are rights of passage along a route uncertain, and increasingly unlikely, to lead to prosperity. We must embrace the proven truth that our nation, businesses and all, profit more greatly when our government is oriented towards aiding the people, and when the people themselves are empowered and encouraged to join together in democratic union. 

Let us honor the greatest generation then, by recognizing the lessons they laid down for us so that we too may realize the prosperity they built by embracing the power of government to help create the conditions for greater social and economic equality.

By Joseph Colarusso (@jcolarusso)

Another lie about Hillary debunked. About those ‘arms deals.’

The most frustrating attacks on Hillary are the ones that get slipped into arguments, usually as asides like, “and not to mention those arms deals.”

This is a dangerous kind of attack because they usually go unanswered. They sit there, asking readers to assume there’s something to it, even though there’s not.

So let’s talk about those arms deals. Sanders supporters and right-wing zealots alike paint a picture something like this: Secretary Clinton was at the State department while nations that donated (or which would at some point donate) to the Clinton Global Initiative also received arms deals (which you are to assume are the sole province of the Department of State).

Like a good Glenn Beck tale this BS leaves you with the hair raised on the back of your neck, until you zoom in close do you realize that all the speaking in generalities, and the promises of big connections…helps obscure a fundamentally weak argument that falls apart under scrutiny.

Let’s look at part of this devious bribery scheme up close…

First the most glaring problem: The State Department doesn’t award arms deals without any input. Arms deals are governed by the Foreign Military Sales Act and the Arms Exports Control Act which is implemented by way of Executive Order 11958 which delegates authority to Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, requiring explicitly that they “shall consult with each other and with the heads of other departments and agencies, including the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the United States International Development Cooperation Agency, and the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, on matters pertaining to their responsibilities.” Finally, the act establishes a Congressional review process to monitor the arms deals.

So had Hillary wanted to ‘reward’ CGI donors … she’d have had to get quite a few other people to sign on to those unjustified increases.

But there’s more to discount this preposterous allegation… Here is a chart of countries that received arms contracts from, among other state departments, the Clinton State Department. It shows the percentage increase (or decrease) of the value of those contracts and the amount they donated to the CGI. Source.*

Bahrain and Jamaica both donated 50 thousand dollars to the CGI. What did they get for that below the desk grease palm? Well Bahrain… got a 187% increase in the value of their arms deal. AHA! SCANDAL! Pay for Play! 

So what lavish gift did Jamaica get for its same donation? Their arms deal, dropped by 39%.

But don’t feel bad for Jamaica, they didn’t get the roughest deal. 

Ireland and Kuwait both donated 5 million dollars! That’s 100x what Bahrain gave, and remember, Bahrain’s arms deal increased 187%…

Well Kuwait’s contract only went up 11%. Ireland? Hillary smacked the potato right out of their leprechaun hands and their arms deal went down 26%. Who got shot for fucking that bribe up? Am I right?

But that’s not where the wacky Clinton-style “bribes get you reductions in your arms contracts” craziness ends. 

Brunei and Canada and Algeria all gave 250 thousand to the CGI. But while economically insignificant Algeria got a 187% shot of steroids into their contract, Canada only got an 18% increase. Brunei… lost 81%. 

When you zoom in, it becomes clear, the value of the donation has no relationship to the routine awarding and re-awarding of global arms contracts that change subject to a nations needs and the global threat landscape. 

These donations either aren’t bribes, or they are and Clinton doesn’t understand how bribes work. 

And if she doesn’t understand how bribes work, she’s immune to bribery.

And while there’s so much more to explore let me just point out that the inevitable reply is: “But there are so many more examples.” 

The reason there are so many other stories is because writers don’t do their homework. They take a superficial connection between two events that, facially, appear related– in these cases routine dollar based state department business– and on the other hand the routine fundraising activities of a global charity built around a man who made a career on his ability to bring people together around common problems. 

All you have to do is link any (of the millions) of official actions of the State Department and a donation to the Clinton foundation, and you write a story roughly titled X donor to Clinton foundation received generous Y from Clinton State department.

(Here is a similar story you’ve probably heard about Uranium, Russia, the State Department and the CGI. Here is that story, similarly debunked.)

But closer inspection of the laws and procedures behind the contracts, the infeasibility and absence of any evidence of the Secretary being informed of the donations, or interfering in any official processes, when you look closer at the actual numbers and how they compare to one another it all falls apart. Nor is there the kind of political reaction you’d expect if there was truly the kind of influence peddling alleged here. The right wing has been able to foment a kind of national crisis to peg Benghazi on Clinton… but they’re giving her a pass on bribery?

Unlikely.

The bottom line is, these scurrilous charges are baseless.

*An earlier version failed to include the source for the numbers, which I originally encountered as a screenshot I viewed on facebook. It was pointed out that MotherJones was the originator of the chart, and had originated the claim, a fact I apologize for having been unaware of and having overlooked.

Hillary Clinton is the Ideal President for our Age

Many have spent much time deriding Hillary supporters and challenging them on the basis for their support. This derision, to me, is ironic given how clear it is that Clinton is singularly qualified to be the President. I support Hillary because I think there is a nebula of qualities she possesses that make her an ideal democrat for this political moment.

We live in a time of remarkably complicated foreign policy challenges, when the United States must approach diplomacy with new vigor but when our enemies (who stone gays and sentence women, at birth, to lives of submission and abuse) must be aware that we are unafraid to use force. In such a time a former Secretary of State with a track record of diplomatic success and a reputation for hawkishness is just what the doctor ordered. She’s a student of men like Richard Holbrooke whose foreign policy philosophy, I think, deserves to be put front and center again. The idea that the United States is a broker of peace willing to use targeted force as a mechanism to secure it.

We live in a time of deep polarization and political gamesmanship, when an American President can expect very few legislative victories built on bi-partisan coalitions, but who must nonetheless seek to find a way in our 24 hour news network environment to forge new opportunities for that bi-partisanship. In such a time I think a Machiavellian political realist willing to wield the power of the executive ruthlessly in pursuit of democratic goals but who has a reputation for a willingness to sign on to compromise conservative solutions is a winning combination. I think a politician who understands that half the battle is won in choosing the battlefield itself, is well suited to the political challenges of the next four and eight years. Keeping Biden off the field, and having the clout to have largely determined the shape of the nomination does not make me question Clinton’s worthiness for the position… it reinforces for me that she’s the best choice.

We live in a time when so many are falling victim to the anger of the frustrated male– be it in the form of police brutalization, or gun violence, or domestic violence, or gang violence. In such a time I think a woman’s perspective and approach is essential. Some believe it should not qualify as a ‘qualification’ that she is a woman, a mother, and a grandmother… but I believe those identities will serve her and our country well.

We live in a time when the democratic party is severely diminished in its power, severely outnumbered, outdistricted, and outspent. In such a time I think we need a democrat willing to play hardball, willing to raise funds from a wide and diverse pool of sources and distribute them to a democratic coalition as diverse as the country it seeks to govern. We need a democrat willing to challenge Republicans directly because we have seen the willingness and ability of the right to smear and slander and shape narratives. We need a President who has spent the better part of three decades on the other side of those efforts who goes into the Oval Office knowing the republicans don’t play nice. A President with no illusions about the lack of honor and honesty in GOP politics who has gone toe to toe them and won– many times.

And of course, there are Hillary’s sterling credentials that stand in their own right. A brilliant graduate of the finest institutions of higher learning, a lawyer devoted to rooting out the corruption of Watergate and later to the welfare of women and children, a member of multiple corporate boards learning how private industry functions, a first lady of a southern state with an active policy portfolio focusing on education and human welfare, an active role in two successful Presidential campaigns and a vocal policy advisor in both, a Senator from one of the most populous, geographically and economically diverse states in our union, a Presidential candidate in her own right whose own opponent selected her to become Secretary of State, a Secretary of State with a proven track record of diplomatic success, a global figure who has been the most admired woman in the world for over a decade, a mother, a grandmother, and a democrat.

I’m ready for Hillary.

The Sailor

I once watched a cloud as it sailed by the moon 

from a dock on the shore of the bay.

 

And I knew very soon that it would be me making a similar way.

Though part of me worried my journey’d be hard,

that the wind wouldn’t be at my back,

I let loose the rope 

and opened the sail 

and ventured out into the black.

I felt the resistance of the water below

as it clawed at the splinters of wood.

And heard the waves whisper

secrets in sounds 

that only the sea understood.

The cloud carried on, off into the night 

and the moonlight beckoned me hither-

oh how my heart longed to lift off the bay so that I could rise up and be with her. 

But wind dying down, 

morn threat’ning to crown, 

my efforts to reach her defeated-

I resolved, every night till we reunite my journey would be repeated.  

And that’s why you find me alone and in longing

passing these long days away.

Waiting to sail in pursuit of my love from this dock on the shore of the bay. 

The Questions Rachel Maddow Should Get Bernie Sanders to Answer

I recently wrote this email to Rachel Maddow at Rachel@msnbc.com

Dear Ms. Maddow (or, more likely, the dedicated staffer reading this),

This is my first email to the show, but the subject I wish to address has to do with the upcoming candidate forum you are moderating. (Congratulations by the way, it’s a well deserved honor.)

I have watched nearly every interview and public event Bernie Sanders has participated in, and as a former community organizer, former teacher, and former public defender I have noticed a conspicuous gap in our understanding of his agenda. But it it could not be more important to his campaign.

The Senator includes in each of his public speeches a disclaimer, he says “I cannot get any of this done unless there is a political revolution, by which I mean millions of people behind me not just on election day, but during my administration.” He has fleshed out this idea minimally, explaining that his agenda will require that Congressman know that if they don’t support his reforms “they’re outta there.” He has alluded to marches on Washington and phone calls to Congresspeople. All of this suggests that the political revolution he envisions is something that requires more active participation, say, than responding positively when contacted by pollsters.

Of course, notwithstanding the structural protections against public opinion that many elected representatives enjoy, to the extent that the legislature can be bent to the public’s will through direct action and engagement, such efforts must be sizable and sustained. To rely on this level of citizen engagement, and to expect that engagement to be sustained over months and years, across multiple districts, in a number and intensity sufficient to truly move Congress in a continuous way is unprecedented… not only as a strategy for governing, but in an of itself.

It strikes me, as a former organizer who has worked for many progressive causes, that even a fraction of this kind of sustained citizen activism has been the holy grail of organizers since the luminaries of the civil rights movement in the 60’s like Rustin and Alinsky were able to build lasting movements with committed and engaged citizens. Today there are hundreds of organizations from Make the Road to the Urban Justice Center to the Catholic Charities among many others that have searched for ways to organize individuals into lasting unions of political activism… most to little avail.

And yet, though it is the sine qua non of his agenda, Senator Sanders has not been pressed to explain in detail:

1) How he conceives of a political revolution practically. (That is, what does he expect its participants will need to do, how frequently, and with what degree of coordination?)

2) Where there is evidence that such a thing is possible in the face of the collapse of the 2008 Obama coalition, in the face of continued voter apathy and disengagement, in the face of massive atrophy of the democrats on the state and local level, and in the face of the democrats most recent embarrassments on November 3.

3) How he proposes to succeed at building such an extensive and committed network, whether it will be centralized or decentralized and details thereabout.

4) How his method or plan differs from that of the many talented organizers and community organizations who have tried and failed to produce sustained citizen driven campaigns.

5) How he plans to maintain this (presumably) voluntary network should it take shape, in the face of dispiriting losses to prevent a collapse of the coalition.

6) Whether he has a plan B for how to govern effectively should the coalition never take shape, or should it take shape and then collapse.

It is my sincere hope that, given the importance Senator Sanders himself places on this idea of a political revolution that must accompany his victory, you will take the time you have with him to inquire as to the above.

Most Sincerely,

Joseph Colarusso

p.s. I hope one day you’re given ‘Meet the Press,’ you’d be a natural at that desk.

The Common Modes of Reasoning Shared by the Sanders Left and the Tea Party Right

A comment on the commonalities of Sanders supporters and the Tea Party offered in response to a version of the ‘Bernie or Bust’ pledge:

“I know Sanders supporters hate being compared to the tea party– but this sort of thing is classic “either we win or we’ve been cheated.”

It’s a logical loop that insulates people from the reality of loss, which permits them to continue in their belief that their power and appeal and numbers are far greater than they truly are. Such reasoning is antithetical to progress since it blinds people to their true position inside the process and thus lends them to incorrect strategy.

Insurgents can be successful against great powers, but not if they behave as great powers themselves. Asymmetrical warfare only works when you’re cognizant of the asymmetry.

Furthermore, the “Bernie or Bust” movement runs parallel to the hostage taking tactics of the tea party, and the common rejoinder that “It’s not our fault if Clinton supporters and the DNC divide the party by not supporting Sanders we can’t be blamed” is almost word for word how conservatives justified the shutdown:

“We warned democrats that if they didn’t repeal Obamacare the government would be shut down, it’s not our fault they didn’t repeal it! They could have avoided this whole thing if they just gave into our demands!”

And I have a hard time believing they’ve ever truly been any different when they so quickly and naturally adopted the same methods of reasoning and argumentation.

The same willingness to adopt monochromatic assessments of all politicians they don’t know much about (which seems to mean, anybody who isn’t Bernie Sanders). [All democrats are corrupt! The establishment is corrupt! Any elected democrat is corrupt if they don’t support the single not-corrupt person in DC, Sanders!!!]

A rejection of evidence-based reasoning in favor of faith-based prognostications (there will be an unprecedented revolution, you’ll see!).

An unwillingness to accept objective reality when it contradicts their desires (those polls are skewed! polls aren’t real anyway).

A rejection of authority on the basis of a belief that authority is coordinated and inherently suspect (what do political analysts know?!).

An uncomfortable tendency towards paranoia (it’s a cabal of CEO’s pulling all the strings and making people love Hillary and hate Bernie!).

A disregard for historical context and relativism manifested in hyperbolic language (it’s the worst we’ve ever had it!).

A belief that they are the arbiters of purity (you’re a ‘neoliberal’ but I’m a true progressive).

A refusal to accept even the most basic structural realities (and therefore practical limitations) of Constitutional government (we don’t need no stinkin’ establishment!)

Seems to me that those kinds of beliefs and patterns of reasoning aren’t just spontaneously adopted after years of resistance. Most of those seem like baked in pathologies.

Lost at Sea

Someone asked me every question they had about Hillary, here are my answers.

I just want to know….

Why did she support then suddenly oppose the Keystone XL when she again was involved in writing it out as secretary of state?

Why does she avoid talking about her Walmart ties?
Why was it so difficult to state a position on the TPP agreement when she was involved in writing it out as secretary of state? Why delay answering?

Why did she start rumors about Obama last election cycle?

Why does she claim to represent women’s issues while doing business with Saudi interests who regularly behead and stone women to death as a form of legal punishment?

Why did her campaign request fewer debates from the DNC at the start of this election cycle, when she stated less debates to be ‘undemocratic and un-American’ last election cycle?

Why did she lie about being under sniper fire? What is there to gain from that?

Why is it acceptable for someone running for POTUS to be accepting big money donations when most Americans agree that big money is ruining our political process?

Why does she accept political donations from wall street bankers then says she will let them fail or even prosecute them once she is president? Letting the banks fail did not work out for Greece, why does she think it will work out here?

Why does she accept money from lobbyists for prisons for profit groups, while hiring former prison lobbyists openly to run her campaign? Why should we believe her when she says she will abolish for profit prisons when the Clintons helped the industry to come into existence in the first place.

---

Why did she support then suddenly oppose the Keystone XL when she again was involved in writing it out as secretary of state?

So first, Clinton never supported the Keystone pipeline. In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Department of State recommended that President Obama deny the pipeline. It was Secretary Kerry’s State Department that approved the permits. In 2010 when Clinton was Secretary she indicated she was ‘inclined’ to support the pipeline, but was careful to include that they had not completed their analysis and that no final decision had been made. 

Secondly, the implication that her involvement alone is suspect (an implication often repeated with the TPP) is quite unfair. The office of the Secretary of State (unlike the office a Senator) is not an independent political office. Hillary was not her own boss. She served at the pleasure of the President and had an obligation to carry out his agenda to the best of her ability. The Obama administration has long stood in a posture supportive of oil and natural gas development. This should not have come as a surprise to environmentalists since he ran on an “all of the above” platform and has long been supportive of the natural gas industry. 

Thirdly, a criticism of her opposition was that she waited too long to announce it. But I think an objective assessment of her reasoning suggests that she did something that was ‘right’ instead of politically convenient. There’s no doubt that she, and everyone on her team, knew that the politically correct answer on Keystone was opposition. They knew that from the day she launched her campaign. And since she had never publicly supported it there was nothing stopping her from saying on day one “I oppose it.” And in fact, it doesn’t take a political genius to know that waiting is politically damaging. So why did she wait? Well, it turns out, for a very good reason. Loyalty. She was involved in the decision making process, her position one way or the other would have made life for the administration she served more difficult. She said (I’m paraphrasing) “I don’t think it’s appropriate at this point, given that I was involved, to put pressure on the White House one way or another.” I think that’s quite reasonable, and I think it shows something that Sanders supporters often claim that Clinton doesn’t do… she put principle above political expediency. 

---

Why does she avoid talking about her Walmart ties?

Let’s begin with what these ‘ties’ consist of. From 1986 to 1992 Hillary was a member of the board of directors of the Walmart corporation. Well, I guess you’d want to know, what does a board of directors do? A board of directors appoints and advises (with varying degrees of authority depending on the bylaws of any given corporation) corporate officers (the people who make actual decisions and set policy). But the most important function they provide is legal oversight. The board of directors are responsible for receiving and reviewing all relevant filings and reports to shareholders and the SEC. Their role is to make sure the corporation is behaving within the law. 

Generally speaking, boards are less involved in the kind of day-to-day policies that you might object to than, say, a CEO is. Further, as boards are pseudo-democratic, a single member of the board is rarely in a position to direct policy. In fact, you’ll find that most members of boards are actually on multiple boards at the same time— because their role is not as involved as you might think. 

So while I would disagree with the characterization that she’s ‘avoided’ talking about it, I’d point out that it’s not a radically significant role, there’s probably not much to tell beyond “I read a lot of finance reports,” that we’re talking about a 6 year period that began almost three decades ago during a period of time when not much was happening with Walmart [you can confirm this with a simple google news search with a 1986-1993 time filter], and so it’s not particularly relevant compared to her tenure as Secretary of State, Senator from New York, and her policy work as First Lady. 

But to the extent that it is relevant, I’m not sure it should be seen as a detriment. Corporations are a fact of life, and knowledge of how they work internally is an asset to a President who exists in a power ecosystem in which multi national corporations are high on the food chain. 

Never the less… I don’t think she’s “avoiding” anything. Organized campaigns are about message discipline… that’s just as true of Bernie Sanders as it is of Barack Obama as it is of Hillary Clinton. It would make just as much sense for me to say: “Why is Bernie Sanders avoiding talking about the 30 years of his life he was underemployed and reliant on women in his life for support?” That’s a pretty facially accusatory question, he’s not avoiding it, it’s just objectively not particularly important to his campaign, nor would it be good messaging to indulge such a question with an answer when there are more important issues to talk about. 

To put a finer point on it: Bernie Sanders is applauded when he “smacks down” journalists that ask him questions that deviate from his message, when he “puts journalists in their place” by lecturing them on the “issues that matter.” When he’s doing that, wouldn’t it be just as fair to say he’s ‘avoiding’ this or that topic? Probably. But in most cases, it’s also the smart, and right, thing to do.

---

Why was it so difficult to state a position on the TPP agreement when she was involved in writing it out as secretary of state? Why delay answering?

Let me begin here by saying: I disagree with Hillary and Bernie on where they fall on the TPP. I recognize that free trade agreements have easily accosted negative features. Nobody likes the fact that global competition, particularly in terms of the cost of labor, means that “American jobs” are shipped overseas. But people rarely talk about the fact that free-trade is responsible for a great deal of what little prosperity main street does enjoy. Goods are cheaper because of free trade. We have a wider variety of available goods, at a wider variety of qualities and prices, because of free trade. There are concurrent (internal) trends that give free trade a bad name even though they have little to do with free trade per se, namely the GOP war on unions which drive worker wages down more than free trade agreements drive high wage jobs out. 

Don’t get me wrong: free trade agreements are not perfect, and they are not without REAL kinds of damage. But they also have many benefits, and not all of them are economic. The TPP in particular is not entirely about economics, it’s about geo-political balances of power. People don’t fully grasp what a heated time it is in the South China sea and how great the long term ramifications of China’s territorial and maritime claims there are. The TPP is just as much a political counterbalance to an ascendant China as it is an economic one. 

Now all that said, let’s turn to Hillary’s role in the TPP. Operationally, the Secretary of State is the President’s representative to every other head of State. The TPP (again, both as an economic agreement, and as a strategic effort to build a united political front to contain Chinese influence) was a centerpiece of President Obama’s foreign policy. It was the job of the Secretary of State to sell that policy as positively as she could. If you review all the times when Clinton “supported” the TPP you’ll notice that they are almost always in speeches where  she’s listing President Obama’s efforts, it is included as evidence of American engagement. Rarely (at least I haven’t seen anything like this) did she delve into any specifics, or personally endorse specific elements. I have not even heard her make as vocal a defense of free trade as I just did. (A good reference: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/) 

But little do people know, trade agreements ARE NOT negotiated by the State Department. In fact, the Office of the Trade Representative hasn’t answered to the Secretary of State since the 1960s. In the 60’s and 70’s Congress separated the Trade Representative from the State Department and made it an independent office of the executive answering directly to the President and to Congress. While the Secretary of State is still involved, organizationally, they do not have direct oversight or control over the process. So assuming that Hillary Clinton was somehow ‘at the table’ or personally approving or vetoing provisions is a falsehood. Her role (as far as anyone has reported, and as far as can be fairly assumed if you take into account the organizational structure of the government) in the entire process was far less pronounced than many suggest. Again, it’s not to suggest that she had no say, that she wasn’t briefed, that she didn’t have surrogates keeping her in the loop… but I think once we understand the relationship between the Office of the Trade Representative and the Department of State it becomes a lot more clear that hanging the TPP around Hillary Clinton’s neck isn’t really fair. She herself noted: “I did not work on TPP… I advocated for a multi-national trade agreement that would ‘be the gold standard.’ But that was the responsibility of the United States trade representative.”

You follow up your question with: Why delay answering? 

The same reason she did on the Keystone Pipeline. 

CNN reported: “Earlier this year, Clinton told reporters that she didn’t want to comment on the trade deal until it was finalized, something that happened earlier this month.” Less than a week following it’s finalization she said, ““As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it.”

“I have said from the very beginning that we had to have a trade agreement that would create good American jobs, raise wages and advance our national security and I still believe that is the high bar we have to meet,” Clinton said.

She added: “I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set.”

And this was consistent with previous statements she had made on the matter: 

 Before the TPP was announced she wrote in 2014: “Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It’s safe to say the TPP won’t be perfect — no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be — but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers.”

---

Why did she start rumors about Obama last election cycle?

The simple answer is: She didn’t. 

Obviously, there were public statements that were your standard political back-biting. But as for the most pernicious rumors… they didn’t come from her campaign any more than all the nonsense about the “Bernie rape essay” comes from her campaign or all the nonsense about Clinton being corrupt comes from the Sanders campaign. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/

---

Why did she lie about being under sniper fire? What is there to gain from that?

The answer to this question, I think, comes down to how you already feel about Hillary and how much generosity of spirit you have towards politicians who lead full, busy, interesting lives. 

Is it possible that she simply, flat out, lied? It is. But I’d urge you to think critically about telling such a lie. Here’s a woman whose every action, facial expression, reaction to questions, transactions… everything … is put under a microscope, subpoena’d, discussed ad nausea on Fox News. Why purposefully tell a lie about an event traceable to a specific date, in a specific place, with tons of witnesses, of which there was video? And if you believe the right wing claim that she’s this spectacularly skilled liar who has spent years breaking the law but never having been caught because she’s some mastermind at corruption… then wouldn’t you wonder why a master would convey such an easily discoverable falsehood? 

I think the more likely truth is something I’ve experienced watching witnesses on the stand, people misremember. The mind often unconsciously embellishes events, usually in ways that make us feel like we’re closer to the center of them or more important or exciting than we are. And I’m sure you’ve had this same experience— an argument you remember as being more explosive than it was. A victory in your personal life that you remember as being far more dramatic and glorious than it really was. A slight that you remember as hurting more than it probably did. 

So I don’t think she intentionally lied, but I don’t deny she incorrectly recalled events. It is precisely because she has little to gain and much to lose from such a ‘lie’ that I air on the side of it being the product of misremembering than of intentional deceit. 

---

Why does she claim to represent women’s issues while doing business with Saudi interests who regularly behead and stone women to death as a form of legal punishment?

This is a great question, and I don’t think I could do it as much justice as the West Wing… I offer you this clip: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITDWIVMl_u8

Apart from the uncomfortable balancing of principle and practicality that the most powerful nation on earth must undertake, I think Clinton’s many accolades from women’s rights groups the world over, all of which recount her many contributions to the field of women’s rights beyond her mere symbolic importance as the woman who has come closest to the Presidency, are easily retrievable and so I’ll spare you a recitation here.

---

Why did her campaign request fewer debates from the DNC at the start of this election cycle, when she stated less debates to be ‘undemocratic and unamerican’ last election cycle?

This was probably an unabashedly political move. But not simply in her fight against Sanders. Clinton, the DNC, and most political observers have learned a couple of lessons from watching the 2008 and 2012 GOP nomination that are being proven right, once again, in the slow moving train wreck that is the 2016 GOP nomination. The biggest lesson is that more debates do not always mean a better informed voter, as much as they mean a more bloodied, weak nominee. 

Now, that’s not always true. And there are plenty of fine arguments on the other side. But Clinton is a politician, and some count that as a bad thing… I for one do not. Washington is politics, it has been since ‘Washington’ was Philadelphia and New York. In 2008 Clinton was a first-time candidate, the 2004 debates had been very good for candidates running campaigns like hers, we were coming off of 8 years of a deeply unpopular GOP President and maximum exposure was helpful (not least because democrats didn’t have anything to answer for, they could trust that, for the most part, they were going to be able to lay out their visions and contrast with one another.) 2016 looked very different in February and March when these decisions were starting to be discussed. We’re the incumbent party, Hillary is arguably the “Obama’s third term” candidate, she also had no apparent meaningful competition. It’s fairly predictable that the more debates you have as the incumbent party, the more likely you’ll have to get into defending the administration (and there’s always a risk that the public goes sour on the administration and that it becomes a liability… look at the Kentucky governors race). It’s also true that a front runner benefits from fewer debates. 

So I understand 100% why Sanders supporters would be upset that there are not more opportunities for debates, because they have the (probably correct) sense that the more debates the more bloodied the front runner, and therefore the less likely they remain the front runner. And I understand why such a blatantly political ‘flip flop’ angers you.

But permit me to offer a realpolitik justification in the form of an example. In the 2000’s the democrats in Congress were the minority. They used the filibuster to stop the most egregious GOP policies from becoming law. Frustrated, the GOP threatened to change Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. Democrats, in response, called that move ‘the nuclear option’ and lambasted it for the danger it presented to democracy and to the institution of the Senate. Years later when the GOP was the minority they used the filibuster in an unprecedented way to block President Obama’s agenda. In response, the democrats unleashed the nuclear option (albeit just for judicial nominations) to send a message that they wouldn’t be fucked with. 

The GOP accused them of flip flopping. And they were right. But politics is sometimes about being inconsistent in order to achieve your goals. I know the instinct is to see that as grimy — but in most instances it’s a smart way to use power. The democrats were long the interventionists in government, it was such for so long that a joke around DC was “The Republicans want a large military but don’t want to send it anywhere, the Democrats what a small military and they want to send it everywhere.” Enter the Iraq war, and now there has been a tectonic shift. Democrats blanche at even minor military intervention, whereas the GOP seems trigger happy. 

My point is: Yes, this was political. Yes, it acts to the detriment of your candidate. Yes, it’s understandable (and easy to argue) that this is slimy. But no, I don’t take personal issue with it and frankly, I think being political is an asset when you’re confronting the slimiest version of the slimiest party this country has seen in a while. 

---

Why is it acceptable for someone running for POTUS to be accepting big money donations when most Americans agree that big money is ruining our political process?

Why does she accept political donations from wall street bankers then says she will let them fail or even prosecute them once she is president? Letting the banks fail did not work out for Greece, why does she think it will work out here?

Why does she accept money from lobbyists for prisons for profit groups, while hiring former prison lobbyists openly to run her campaign? Why should we believe her when she says she will abolish for profit prisons when the Clintons helped the industry to come into existence in the first place.

^ Ok so these three questions are big ones, but they all share a common theme which is captured by the first. So I want to answer in a general way first… and then dig down into the specific concerns you raise in each question.

Generally it seems like these questions confront the concern about how credible it is to claim that you can formulate non-biased policies while accepting donations from interests those policies concern. 

I wrote earlier in the thread that “I take issue with the “contributions are evidence of corruption” line of reasoning on the whole.” I think that could be rephrased as “I take issue with the general argument that contributions necessarily skews policy in favor of the contributor.” Here’s why:

First: Money does influence politics. That’s an undeniable fact. And it has been true since the revolutionary war (and, really, for all of recorded history). 

Most people don’t realize that our own founding has been mythologized in such a way as to remove some rather tawdry truths about what riled up the rabble. We’re taught a simplified version of “taxation without representation” and we’re led to imagine peasants with muskets angry about the cost of their tea. But that’s not really reality. In reality, the richest families and merchants of the colonies… richest among them John Hancock, were having their trans-atlantic shipping (and smuggling) interests openly and vigorously challenged by Parliament. If the argument were being played out today, the founders would be the CEO’s and the Parliament would be a “liberal Congress passing anti-business legislation choking business with taxes and regulation.” 

The straw that broke the camels back came when British customs officials seized “the Liberty” (the founders, like the modern GOP, had a knack for good branding) in Boston Harbor and demanded John Hancock provide the proper documentation for the goods found thereon under the Navigation Acts. Hancock bribed the customs officials and smuggled the illegal goods off the ship. When the ship was restocked and released, it was captured outside of Boston Harbor in retribution for this crime. Samuel Adams (also a wealthy Bostonian whose family made it’s money in trade) who led the ‘Sons of Liberty’ directed them to incite a crowd in favor of Hancock. (Imagine a group of tea partiers being riled up by a Koch henchman in the face of the FBI confiscating an illegal oil shipment.) The crowd attacked the customs house, burned one of their boats, and successfully demanded a boycott of British goods. These events would lead directly to the Boston tea party, and later to the declaration of independence— bearing, most prominently, John Hancock’s signature. 

As the revolution concluded and the articles of confederation and later the constitution were being written, the men at the helm of the process were the colonies 1%. The articles themselves stand as one of the most anti-tax pro-business documents ever conceived, they so effectively prevented the government from taxing wealthy citizens that they were dissolved! But the constitution too, and really the entire idea of a sovereign US, was just as much an effort to secure an economic status quo of a landed elite as it was an effort to establish some egalitarian government of the enlightenment. 

I recount this history not to justify money’s current place in politics… but rather to illustrate that even though industry and commerce are inevitably driving forces in how whole states are shaped, that needn’t mean that the outcomes are anti-democratic. 

Which brings me to your first question: “Why is it acceptable for someone running for POTUS to be accepting big money donations when most Americans agree that big money is ruining our political process?”

It’s not ‘acceptable’ without qualification, but it is acceptable (and necessary) in terms of good political strategy. I offer you an example and an analogy.

First the example: In 2008 Barack Obama decided to forego public financing in lieu of collecting unlimited campaign funds. The result: he massively outspent John McCain, he was able to direct millions of dollars to down-ticket races, able to fund nationwide advertising (including a 5 minute televised bio produced by Steven Spielberg) and he was swept into office with commanding majorities in both Houses of Congress. As a result he passed Health Care Reform (imperfect as it was), a legislative accomplishment that had eluded every democratic administration since Truman. While his tenure has been a mixed bag (mostly thanks to an intransigent GOP) his administration will likely be remembered as successful and as progressive.

Front runner fundraising isn’t just about the front-runner. It’s about the hundreds of down ticket races that determine the majority party of the Senate and House, the balance of power in the statehouses and governorships. It’s not the only factor, but it is an important one.

And right here would be an obvious place for an interjection: “But that’s just the problem! It shouldn’t be an important one.” Ok, well let’s take that as a unqualified truth (though, and I’ll come back to this later, I don’t think it is). In response I offer the analogy I promised.

Imagine you’re a football coach. You have a team that is regularly among the top 2 teams in the league. But you are appalled by the use of tackling in the game because of the concussions it leads to. In this magical world where you’re the coach, the coach of the winning team has strong sway over the rules for the coming year of play. You get to the Superbowl, and you know that the opposing coach LOVES tackling. Not only does he love tackling, he doesn’t care about concussions in the least. If he had his way, he’d put all your guys in the hospital and run the league unopposed. 

You’re in the locker room. And you say to your team: Guys, whoever wins this game could set the rules for the whole next year. We might have a chance to implement a rule that forbids tackling. But honestly, I’m so sick of concussions, i’m so sick of this dangerous game… I think we ought to send a message. Lead by example. In tonight’s game, none of us are going to tackle. We’re going to play a touch game. 

Well you can see the problem. Not only does that kind of unilateral disarmament increase the likelihood that you’ll lose the game, and that therefore tackling will remain a legal tactic in the years to come… but it also has the unintended consequence of increasing the number of concussions your own team incurs. Wouldn’t it be better, in pursuit of the power to rid the game of tackling, to fight fire with fire? 

I want to insert here that people often don’t game out the peril of a Sanders Presidency in terms of what’s actually likely to happen to the role of money in politics. I think there’s a strong argument to be made that electing Sanders won’t get money out of politics. If anything it’s more likely to give the private sector more sway. 

There’s no realistic path to overturning Citizens United right now. Not through a constitutional amendment (not enough state legislatures would ratify, nor would you get the supermajorities needed in Congress), you’d still have to replace a conservative justice (who knows when that will happen) and get a new lawsuit coming up the chain (that would take at least one or two full election cycles AFTER the composition of the court changed to accomplish), nor is there a viable path in congress for meaningful campaign finance reform. 

Therefore, big money is still going to be 100% legal for at least the first 4 years of a Sanders Presidency. 

During that time, Sanders won’t be taking that money. During that time he likely won’t allow the DNC to collect big money either (since he’ll be the party leader). But the RNC will be collecting that money, and so will their members. 

Without the ability to look to the party or the President for money candidates will grow increasingly reliant on big money they solicit directly in order to be competitive with the GOP. 

So either the GOP will take more seats (through the advantage of their money domination) or the democrats who have directly solicited money from corporations will win seats and be more beholden to the corporation than any party structure or President.

Thus, to conclude your first question… why is it acceptable? Because it is good defense in anticipation of an, admittedly necessary offense. 

---

Why does she accept political donations from wall street bankers then says she will let them fail or even prosecute them once she is president? Letting the banks fail did not work out for Greece, why does she think it will work out here?

I think what’s interesting about this question is that it identifies precisely how you can in fact receive contributions from a source that you nevertheless then act against the interests of. 

Why she accepts the donations (the great mass of which are from individuals and not from the institution itself) is because, as I mentioned earlier, the money confers a political advantage that is silly to sacrifice save for very good reason. Prosecuting bankers who break the law is right, regardless of whether they give you money. It is, again, simply the right thing to do. 

As for letting the banks fail I’d point out two things. First, back when the financial market collapsed and the top economists in the United States were begging the Congress to bail out the banks, Sanders voted against it— and he stands by that vote. So, at face value, Clinton and Sanders are indistinguishable on this issue.

Except Hillary wasn’t saying “I’d let the banks fail” ‘as things stood in 2007.’ Instead she was speaking in in terms of her own proposals for financial reform which would, in theory prevent banks from being so large that their failure would be catastrophic to the economy (as such a failure would have been in 2007 when Sanders voted to let the banks fail. I quote: 

“First of all, under Dodd-Frank, that is what will happen because we now have stress tests and I’m going to impose a risk fee on the big bank if they engage in risky behavior,” she elaborated. “But they have to know, their shareholders have to know that yes, they will fail. And if they’re too big to fail then under my plan and others that have been proposed, they may have to be broken up.”

Furthermore, as the front runner, there’s a good reason for her to message that this would be her policy. Imagine the danger of saying: “If elected, I will never let the banks fail.” Such a thing would invite banks to behave very badly, and take outsized risk knowing that they have the ultimate insurance policy! 

---

Why does she accept money from lobbyists for prisons for profit groups, while hiring former prison lobbyists openly to run her campaign? Why should we believe her when she says she will abolish for profit prisons when the Clintons helped the industry to come into existence in the first place.

So I think you’ve already grasped how I feel about this general question… but as it relates to private prisons: She has announced she won’t be accepting their money.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/23/3715544/clinton-private-prisons/

As for prison lobbyists running her campaign— I’m not familiar with any who are. I know that there were bundlers who had worked for, among others, private prisons who were raising money on her behalf, but I think it’s a pretty distant linkage to make between someone who isn’t on her campaign, who is fundraising for her campaign, used to fundraise for that industry, and her policies on the matter. 

Furthermore, two of the issues I have with a lot of the criticism of Clinton that follow the formula of: “Hillary has a lobbyist for X corporation working for her”  are that A) usually those people don’t actually work for her, at least not in any significant capacity, and B) It embraces a pretty wide definition of lobbying for a given entity. 

Let me explain: In DC lobbying is usually done through, essentially, law firms. These firms are subject to conflict of interest rules that dictate that if you are on retainer for, say, GE you cannot also have as a client one of GE’s competitors. So what large corporations do is they put as many of the best firms in DC on retainer so that their competitors can’t. That makes it harder for competitors to lobby or sue against their interests. 

In turn, what political enemies of Hillary do is, they look at a lawyer or lobbyist (who are usually highly qualified policy experts), who used to work at one of these firms… and even if they’ve never directly lobbied on behalf of GE, even if they’ve only ever been a member of a firm on retainer… and if they now work for Hillary (or whoever the target of the attack is) the line is: “GE lobbyist works for Hillary!” But as you can see, that claim is often a stretch. 

Finally— I try to urge caution in using “the Clintons” to describe policies of the Bill Clinton White House. Hillary was certainly influential, but she wasn’t the President, she wasn’t the chief of staff, and her role wained significantly in the middle period of Clinton’s term as far as I’ve read.

I think the prison industrial complex is incredibly important to talk about and to combat, and I think Bill Clinton has nobly taken responsibility for playing a role in its growth. But Hillary Clinton has not taken any actions that would suggest she agreed with such policies (though Sanders voted for the “Violent Crime Control Act” that was instrumental in the continuation of a lot of these trends). Moreover, I think it’s important to put private prisons in perspective. They are primarily employed by state governments, they house a minority of US prisoners, and their existence is of less moment than the fact that we’re locking people up in such great number for such long terms for such bad reasons without sufficient due process.

I hope that answers all of your questions!

In Defense of a Diplomat’s Campaign

I saw an anti-Hillary meme that offered up, among its many critiques of her liberal purity, the following:

“We don’t want a president who bases ‘decisions’ on whatever is best for her campaign.”

I reject outright the accusation that Hillary Clinton is not a liberal. I’ve written before that I believe, and there is ample evidence to substantiate that at her core she is a progressive. But Hillary is more careful to recognize the diversity of opinion within the Democratic party in how she frames her positions and policies. And that got me wondering about the nature of the democratic coalition, campaigns, and diplomats.

A campaign is about finding a majority inside a very diverse party that has long been wide enough to accommodate moderate tax and spend liberals and socialists, the blue collar ‘economy over environment’ union worker and the save the spotted owl environmentalist, the benevolent interventionist and the give peace a chance beatnik. The pro-choice feminist catholic woman, the besieged african american mothers, the burgeoning out and proud community of gay men and lesbian women, the children of undocumented immigrants who spent their lives fearing men with guns coming to take daddy away. 

We’ve negotiated this oddly sensible alliance of shared experience and common sense in order to achieve some of the greatest social victories in the history of this nation of people quick to hate. Civil Rights and Desegregation, Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage, Title 9 and the Affordable Care Act. While we have had set backs, we can still be proud of finding common ground on entitlements, on the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, on Barney Frank and the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau, and the strengthening of the EPA. But what we should be most proud of is the profound hope our alliance has brought to this Union, the pathways of opportunity it has evidenced, the strength of its reason, and of its reasonableness. 

We’ve achieved all this because we rewarded those who helped us find common ground amongst ourselves. Who were willing to use their judgement to facilitate practical solutions to problems vexed by contrary opinion and ideology in Washington… but willing to resort to brute political force in the face of dangerous intransigence. We were smart enough to see that, if we truly were the anti-war party, we couldn’t spurn the disposition of the diplomat- cautious, calibrating, smart, and precise… willing to negotiate (as a diplomat must be) but unwilling to give up essential territory. We were smart enough to realize that, since even the best of intentions and the most skilled broker wouldn’t be enough to preclude the use of force in all circumstances, our diplomat needed to be willing and able to strike. Our party is stronger because we found balance amongst our varied interests and ideals. 

But some of us seek to abandon that equilibrium. Some claim the reason is because, however beneficial the former alliance to some, inequality has become too great and must be addressed. But this is not a reason to dispatch with a model that has built a strong and competitive party that agrees fundamentally on the issue of inequality and the urgent need to close the gap between rich and poor. A model that will continue to move steadily to the left while remaining competitive now and in a future electorate composed of children of the 99% who are more aware of the environmental crisis we face but still highly concerned about getting a job at all costs, who will live in a world of more competition and cooperation, in a world of climate fueled conflict and negotiated resolutions. It will be a future of the children of immigrants whom democrats will have labored to liberate from the threat of deportation, a future of the children of legally married gay couples, of college educated, and middle class, and upwardly mobile African Americans, of pro-choice, proud feminist women of all stripes… these children and we their parents will be an electoral force insisting that our leaders govern this nation responsibly and steadily. 

Unless we abandon our coalition in favor of a new kind of party under a new kind of leadership. A party of uncompromising certainty and unbending demands and a leader of a kind relatively unfamiliar to our side of the aisle, but quite common across the way. A loud, uncompromising, and true-to-their-ideology leader whose biggest asset is that he never changes his mind, that he has no institutional influence, and who refuses to engage with an entire sector of the entities he would govern. A leader with lots of experience talking, but far less doing, because when you don’t do much, you can claim a record free of mistakes. 

But why trust that we multiply our power by writing off the natural partnerships we’ve cultivated across the electorate? Why trust the tea-party-esque logic that the purer, more liberal, and more uncompromising we are the stronger a party we will be? Have we not seen the peril of that path? 

At the end of the day the democratic party is part of a big dysfunctional family. We’re the responsible partner. We know our President has a job to do, and it isn’t easy or glamorous. The President is the minivan that gets the screaming kids to practice and back again, just so they can act ungrateful when you make sure dinner is on the table. And while we want the impractical sports car, while we could probably afford the impractical sports car, we know it wouldn’t get the job done. We know a minivan is what’s called for, and while we are all aiming for the same destination, how we get there should be less the product of dictates and more of discussion. 

A campaign is the exercise of having that discussion, it is as much a search for our party’s soul as it is a declaration of it. That process is the wheelhouse of diplomats and stateswomen. As it should be.

No Marco Rubio, Hillary Didn’t Lie About Anything.

I’m not sure what’s so confusing to Hillary haters about this.

Not only WAS the video responsible for large protests across the middle east happening concurrent with the attack on the Benghazi compound (it was a tremendous story in the middle east plastered across their media), not only did the intelligence community believe the video played a role, not only does the intelligence community STILL believe that the video at least contributed to the militants ability to recruit additional angry men to besiege the compound, but Hillary Clinton never said: The video was responsible. Jay Carney did. Susan Rice did. Members of the CIA did. Clinton DID NOT!

Her statement was: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

Let’s break that down: Does the phrase “some have sought” mean “I believe that”? 

No it doesn’t.

Does the word “justify” mean “it caused”? 

No it does not. 

Did “some” “seek to justify” the attack by pointing to the video. Yes, they did. In fact, MANY across the middle east justified MANY acts of protest and violence on the basis of the video.

And what else did Hillary say? Well she began the very same statement with: “Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings.”

She included: “This was an attack by a small and savage group…”

She clarified: “We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.” (Appropriate since there was disagreement.) 

On the 14th she said: (and notice those are two clauses) “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men.” (True)

“We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” (True)

These events were happening concurrently, in nearly a dozen nations. The video was plastered across middle eastern media. Even the CIA, for a time, believed them to be linked.

If the administration’s goal was to lie wouldn’t her statement have been: 

“We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with, including the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men.” 

But she didn’t say including, instead, and again, she separated the events and addressed them distinctly.

To put it another way…

If I were to say to you: “Some have sought to link homosexuality and pedophilia.” 

But then wrote to my mother: “Obviously pedophilia and homosexuality are not linked.” 

I would think it would be clear that there is no inconsistency there. That my use of “some have sought” indicates that I am speaking about someone else, not about my own views. And indeed, both statements are true, some HAVE sought to link those things, and I do believe they are not linked.

Senator Sanders Deserves Better Supporters

I used to be proud to be a democrat. And one of the reasons was men like Senator Sanders. Without question Senator Sanders has been a clarion voice for the aspirations of the left, he has unapologetically advocated for the poor and middle class, and his aggressive consistency has seen many liberals through some of the worst periods of fact-free, paranoid, illogical GOP thought. 

But now there’s a new fact-free, paranoid, and illogical group terrorizing the political sphere… insisting that the world is only as they see it and that any other perspectives are impure, coerced, the product of vast conspiracies and intrigue. They use arguments with the same logic-free forms and fear mongering invectives that Sanders himself has long been a warrior against. They are his supporters. 

Of course, it’s not fair to generalize. Not all of Sanders supporters are democrats lunatics, but one needed only to observe their apoplectic reaction to the consensus view that Hillary “won” the first democratic debate to see the magnitude of the problem our party is dealing with.  

The issue wasn’t that they disagreed with the consensus view. It’s quite clear to me (and analysts employed at each and every major media outlet including many who have not been kind to her) that the debate delivered the best new cycle of Clinton’s campaign, cauterizing weeks of bleeding. From a political standpoint Clinton simply could not have asked for a better night. But Sanders could have, a better night for him certainly would have been a worse one for Clinton. But it’s perfectly fair to argue that Sanders won too… he generated a lot of interest and effectively delivered his stump to 11 million viewers. (To put that in perspective, that’s a years worth of 30,000 person rallies.) 

The real issue was the knee jerk appeal to a paranoid attack on the media, the anti-intellectual attacks on considered opinion… but not through engagement with the arguments themselves, but an appeal to a constructed majority, to online polls! The issue was their refusal to permit their subjective experience to be challenged in the least. The inability to recognize that they went into the night believing Bernie had won. And to be fair, so did many Clinton supporters… and had the night been a disaster, maybe some of them would have tried to find some way to claim it hadn’t been. But the night wasn’t a disaster, it was the opposite, and honest people should be able to recognize that, at least. 

Bernie would. 

But many of his supporters seem unable to. They have concluded that either they will win, or they will have been cheated out of victory— and it is through that prism that they view every positive Hillary story. Those aren’t the kind of supporters Sanders deserves. He doesn’t deserve to be the leader of the tea party of the left, and as he gains in popularity and the media starts to pay attention enterprising journalists are going to write the story of the people behind the political revolution… and an army of people talking about media conspiracies, who accuses anyone who disagrees with them of being shills, of being unethical, of being less committed to ideals than they are, that’s an army for Glenn Beck not a liberal luminary like Bernie Sanders. 

None of this is to say we shouldn’t argue, that candidates shouldn’t be questioned, that the opinions of experts and analysts are gospel. It is to say that we can’t have an argument if we don’t agree on what facts are, on the spectrum of standards for a poll, on the notion that expertise can exist at all or ever be appealed to, on whether the world is awash with pressroom plots as opposed to intelligent reporters perfectly free to draw their own judgements. 

If Bernie Sanders becomes the nominee he’s going to need supporters who can articulate and defend his plans, who can use facts organized logically to make a case for his proposed revolution. And they’re going to have to convince members of their own party and independents alike. They won’t if they continue to borrow the argumentative style of the tea party. I want Hillary to be President, but even I think Sanders deserves better. 

Principled Recklessness: The Danger of Nominating Senator Sanders

My love for politics started with the West Wing. For seven seasons the political drama, set in the White House, modeled a kind of ideal liberal Presidency that has inspired many of the young people now involved in government. 

The show’s run ended well before the Citizens United ruling, and its writers hardly could have foreseen the legal developments that have set the stage for billion dollar election campaigns. But the issue of campaign finance reform was not entirely foreign to the writers, or to the political world they occupied at the time. The campaign finance issue of their day was ’soft money,’ the shows writers addressed it in an exchange between the idealistic and brilliant Sam Seaborn and the campaign manager and realpolitik guru Bruno Gianelli. The two are debating whether to use ‘soft money’ during a difficult re-election campaign. Sam Seaborn insists that the spirit of campaign finance laws should exclude the use of such money, while Bruno can’t imagine not using every legal tool at his disposal to elect the candidate he believes in. 

Sam Seaborn declares, “There’s something to be said for leading by example.”

To which Bruno replies, “Yeah, ‘…it comes right before losing an election.’”

Politico reports that the Koch brothers have committed to spending $889 million dollars on the coming election. They’ll be directing their funds to getting out the vote and targeting their efforts using one of the most advanced voter data systems in history. This in addition to the RNC’s efforts which are by no means insubstantial— they raised and spent over 1 billion dollars during the last election cycle and nearly 700 million during the midterms. And like last time, they won’t just be using these funds to get the republican nominee elected, but to cement an already commanding dominance of Congress and State governments. 

And the GOP has made clear what they want to do if they manage to purchase power at every level of government: Repeal Obamacare, phase out medicare, cut social security, attack the right to choose, defend “religious liberty” against the scourge of gays and lesbians, partner with Netanyahu in aggression against Iran, and a host of other unthinkably dangerous policy choices. 

With so much at stake you would think that anyone serious about confronting this menace on the horizon would seek to go into battle armed as well if not better than the opposition. You would think they would seek every legal means available to build a treasury capable of meeting the Koch’s and the RNC, that they would utilize every opportunity to gather and analyze data in order to allocate their resources most efficiently and effectively. You would think. 

Instead, one candidate, who claims that our nation is approaching a precipice, refuses on principle to arm himself and the party he’s running to represent adequately against this threat. Bernie Sanders has consistently refused to attempt to achieve parity with the GOP by raising money through SuperPACs, he refuses to engage in polling because “he already knows what he thinks.” He refuses to engage the party structure or argue for its success because he see’s it as “ideologically bankrupt.” Each of these refusals, both independently and especially in conjunction, represents a surrender. A reckless disregard for reality, a fecklessness in the face of threat, and a betrayal of the millions who have labored for decades to protect and expand the rights of minorities, the safety net for the elderly, and a great many other policies that the GOP would gleefully reverse if they could. 

Curiously, Senator Sanders recognizes the importance of placing practical concerns over philosophical principles. When asked about Israel’s actions in Gaza he explains their behavior, condemning particular acts of violence, but not Israel’s efforts to defend themselves. He understands that they face mortal danger from rockets and an enemy that wishes them extinguished. When asked about the blockade he expresses his doubts about Hamas, and reasonably expresses understanding for Israel’s tactics.

Make no mistake, we face an ideological enemy in the GOP whose power and zeal is matched with money and data. It’s lovely that Senator Sanders wants to preserve his image as a populist fighter free from the stain of corporate cash… but what good are principles if they lead you to certain defeat? Why can Israel defend itself but the democrats cannot? 

Many will object to the Israel comparison, but it is of no moment. Choose whatever analogy you please. To unilaterally disarm in the face of a threat as significant as the one that the Koch brothers and the GOP are openly presenting is an affront, and we should call it out as such. Too much is on the line to abide naiveté. 

Bernie Sanders Might Not Need Billionaires, But His Agenda Does

Universal Health Care.

Free College for All.

Paid Family Leave.

A Stronger Social Safety Net.

A Trillion Dollars in New Infrastructure. 

As the crowds gather across the nation to hear the patron Saint of democratic socialism preach his gospel of redistribution it’s hard, as a liberal, not to be thrilled. After all, who among us doesn’t want to see a resurgence of the middle class built on a New Deal between our richest citizens and the many of us who are struggling to get by? Can anyone doubt that rising inequality, stagnant wages, and stubborn un- and underemployment evidences the abject failure of trickle down economics and the decades long mantra of “no new taxes” to provide for a general prosperity? 

Senator Sanders is not wrong to point out that for too long the singular object of our government has been to encourage the creation and growth of wealth for the few, giant corporations, banks, and the executives thereof. He casts these beneficiaries of nearly a century of American economic dominance in the global capitalistic order as untouchables, possessed only of self-interest and as having captured the powers-that-be in order to multiply their already substantial treasures. Sanders angrily insists that he doesn’t fight for them, that his interests aren’t in line with theirs but rather with ‘ours.’ Except, if our well being is to be built on a set of policies paid for by taxing wealth… then generating that wealth in the first place must also be a priority. Indeed, for Senator Sanders to do any of what he promises, he’ll have to fight for policies that benefit the very people he claims he doesn’t fight for at all. 

Senator Sanders is careful not to call himself merely a socialist, and his supporters are quick to establish that there is a difference between ‘democratic socialism’ and ‘socialism.’ And there is. Socialism, most simply, is an economic order where the people are the owners of the means of production and where government cooperatively manages the economy… Senator Sanders is not calling for an economic order that resembles any such thing. He is not suggesting we nationalize any industries or have government set prices on goods or determine the distribution of those goods. Instead he defines ‘democratic socialism’ as a set of policy outcomes enabled by a fairer distribution of the fruits of capitalism. So his positions do not fundamentally call into question global capitalism or its negative consequences (which may explain his awkward exchange with Vox’s Ezra Klein on immigration) but instead relies on it. 

In order to pay for his proposed policies Senator Sanders calls for more sensible spending on the military… but the bulk of the revenue we’d need to provide his prescriptions to the people would necessarily derive from increased taxes on wealth, including wealth currently shielded from taxation offshore. But implicit in this arrangement is the proposition that such wealth exists to tax in the first place. So while Senator Sanders insists that he doesn’t care about billionaires or big corporations, without them (and policies that encourage their continued growth and wealth generation) the pool of dollars he proposes we draw upon to pay for his programs dries up. 

To put it another way: imagine a machine that produces rubber duckies in a world where everything runs on rubber duckies. As it spits out these rubber duckies it distributes them across several chutes. Adjust some levers one way or another and you can make the machine spit out more and more duckies. But there’s a problem: the machine doesn’t distribute those duckies evenly across the chutes. Senator Sanders wants to fix the distribution of the duckies, but he doesn’t want the machine to stop producing the duckies we need. He isn’t calling for a fundamental redesign of the machine, merely a re-balancing of its distribution.

If that’s the case then a hypothetical President Sanders will have to make the maintenance of that machine a key part of his administration, which means making the interests of billionaires and big corporations priorities for his administration, since without their wealth (and without that wealth being maintained or made to grow year over year) he won’t be able to provide any of the many costly programs he calls for. It’s worth wondering whether his apparent disdain for such individuals and organizations makes achieving that balance impossible, whether his anger blinds him to the need to keep the reservoir full, whether his project will be doomed, even if he gets the necessary legislation, for a failure to prioritize the very policies that will enable the wealth needed to fund the project in the first place.

Someone needs to ask Senator Sanders how, as President, he would work to help corporations and the billionaires that own them generate the wealth he plans to tax in order to pay for the programs that will support those he claims to care most about.

Why I’m Voting for Hillary, and Not for Sanders

First: The Presidency is more than a set of promises– it’s about the unpredictable, it’s about all the issues we don’t even know are issues yet. The Presidency is about foreign policy, and making decisions under pressure, and about commanding our military presence around the world. Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified, experienced candidate for President in modern times. That experience should matter to us, it has prepared her to confront one of the most complicated sets of foreign policy challenges any President has confronted in decades.

Second: The Presidency is about legislative action. Hillary Clinton has laboriously built alliances in Washington and across the 50 states. She is ACTUALLY building the infrastructure of a political revolution because she’s laying the groundwork necessary to ACTUALLY get things done. She is doing the work of UNITING the democratic coalition around her policies. And those policies ARE  liberal because SHE is liberal. An independent, non-partisan analysis’ of her records and rhetoric show that she’s got a voting record on par with Elizabeth Warren.

Third: The Presidency is about the future of the party. Whether we like the two party system or not, the democratic party is the organization that stands between us and the GOP. Talk about the billionaire class being in charge! The GOP makes no bones about being owned by their contributors. They have no problem being the party of fossil fuels, or of war, or of the 1%– they embrace it! It will take money and party building to keep the GOP at bay. It will take a strong democratic party to actually achieve campaign finance reform, to successfuly bring about and defend policies that help rebuild the middle class. Has the party system done a great job so far? No. But destroying the one party that, at the very least accepts that we need to do something, as a response to not having done enough results in having nothing done at all.

Fourth: The Presidency is about weathering scandal. The GOP smear machine is a multi-million dollar, multiple media juggernaut. We’ve seen it deployed against Bill, against Obama, and against Hillary… our candidate and eventual President needs to be expert at handling the dirty tricks of the GOP and Hillary knows how. She’s been dealing with it for years and, while not immune, has a higher political tolerance for such attacks because people assume they’re empty.

Fifth: The Presidency is about balancing interests. There used to be a saying, “What’s good for GM is good for the nation.” That was replaced by, “What’s good for GE is good for the nation.” Now the common wisdom is, “What’s good for the middle class is good for the nation.” The truth is, none of those absolutist statements are true. The truth is that we need to balance the interests and needs of many constituencies whose desires are often at cross purposes. Billionaires and corporations are no more ‘the enemy’ of the people as lions are ‘the enemy’ of the gazelle. They are both essential parts of an economic ecosystem that has dominated the globe for almost 100 years. Are there too many lions? Yes. Is that a problem? Yes. Are the gazelles starving? Yes. Is that a problem for the billionaires? Yes.

Both candidates are calling for solutions that are financed by taxes on wealth. Those solutions are non-starters if we don’t also continue to encourage policies that grow the wealth we plan to tax. Thus, being sympathetic to the concerns of corporations and American business is not mutually exclusive with being sympathetic to the concerns of the people. They are inextricably linked. What we lack is balance.

And having laid out my affirmative case for Hillary, permit me a moment to address why I firmly believe supporting Sanders is a mistake.

First and foremost: It seems like people want to vote for Sanders because he says things they agree with. I don’t think that’s enough, and neither does Sanders. He has said repeatedly, “no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country.

They will not be able to succeed because the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them.

That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about elected Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country.”

Forgive me for not having more faith in the American public, but a vote for Sanders is a vote for the belief that the next four years are going to be four years of nationwide citizen activism so powerful that it will move even recalcitrant GOP Senators and House members to support democratic-socialist policies. That’s not a belief I possess. 

Senator Sanders is saying in NO uncertain terms: I won’t be powerful enough to do the things you want, I will NEED you to be constantly mobilized. I see no evidence that the American people will be. Nor do I see any reason why the conservatives in gerrymandered districts will have reason to be worried even if they were. 

But that aside, there’s good reason to believe that a Sanders’ Presidency could be disastrous for the democratic party and the policies we care about. 

Imagine for a moment a President Sanders, swept into office on a wave of populist discontent. His big missions: tax increases, financial regulation, campaign finance reform. 

Whatever solutions he proposes will be on the far end of the liberal spectrum. Before we even get to inevitable GOP obstruction, we have to confront how he wins the democratic caucus to his causes…

First he’ll have to win them over despite spending a career calling them names from outside the caucus. He has impugned members philosophies, calling them “ideologically bankrupt,” and insulted their morality by suggesting they’ve been bought and sold. 

He’ll have to wage these legislative battles along side the likely democratic leader Chuck Schumer (a conservative democrat) and in the house Nancy Pelosi (an avid Clinton supporter). He’ll be fighting these battles not as a loyal democrat with a deep well of respect, but as an outsider coming in. And worse, an outsider who refuses to fundraise or conduct comprehensive polling… so he won’t be able to offer vulnerable democrats in swing districts political information or financial cover…

For another thing, he will have to compromise on at least some of his views. For a man who makes his name on consistency, such compromises will be high profile and they will be paraded around by his opponents and lamented by his dedicated followers. (Who may, in their disappointment, fall back from the ranks of the grassroots movement he openly admits he will require to get anything done.)

For yet another, democratic members more to the right of his positions (who occupy that space, presumably, because theirs represents a portfolio of views that gets them elected) will worry about monied opponents taking them on. Usually a President soothes those concerns by offering the full support of the DNC, or contact with a bundler or a high dollar donor that will help them weather such a storm… but Sanders has made clear he’s not interested in the money game, eliminating this avenue of persuasion OR setting up another major ‘compromise’ with his principles should he realize the importance of high dollar donors to down ticket races. 

And those are just the challenges he faces in his own back yard.

Meanwhile, on the ground around the nation the Koch’s and their friends will be unleashing millions to prop up local groups opposed to the “Socialist Sanders Plan” or “Sandercare” or whatever this hypothetical Sanders administration rolls out first. They’ll plaster the airwaves with ads against “socialist solutions.” We’ll have a President with absolutely no connection to, or contacts in, the ‘billionaire class’ and no funds and fewer allies to fight or negotiate with them. We’ll have donors threatening to primary vulnerable democrats or heavily fund their republican opposition. 

Who do you think will win those fights? 

Now we’ve got the first socialist President compromising, AND losing nonetheless. After four years of a President who can’t get thing one done, how hard do you think it will be for the GOP to paint a picture for the American people about needing more moderate, reasonable leadership? Leadership they’ll no doubt claim only THEY can provide.

How much damage will be done to the democratic party between the hypothetical beginnings and endings of such a Presidency?

It’s also worth considering what a President Sanders, as a leader of the democratic party, would mean for the party itself… when the party is marching to the tune of a man who doesn’t seem to think the party, or its leadership, or its members have much value. A leader who thinks it’s politically and morally corrupt to raise money from high dollar donors or corporations.

Meanwhile last year the Republican party alone (not including individual candidate funds) raised over 600 million dollars. Outside spending that same year was 530 million. (In 2012 in was 1 billion.)

Destroying a practice is not the same as replacing it with something more just, more in keeping with your goals. When you destroy something, if there is something that CAN take its place, it will. 

A Bernie Sanders victory is not going to suddenly cause all that money to stop flowing to the GOP or to individual democratic candidates. It’s not going to stop powerful interests from trying to exert influence. In fact, without a well-monied, well-organized, unified democratic party the likelihood is that the ‘billionaire class’ is only going to become exponentially more powerful.