America's Sweetheart, Part II

See America's Sweetheart, Part I here


Over the weekend, the Financial Times published a short essay by Edward Luce, The Clinton-Obama Era Ends As U.S. Democrats Seek A Radical New Voice. He wrote that the Democrats owe a debt of gratitude to Trump "as it sweeps away a cautious mindset." Well... maybe an overly-cautious... and if it does. It sure hasn't yet. Luce bids us to listen carefully so we can hear "the retreat of the Democratic establishment." I'm trying. He contends that Clintonian incrementalism served a purpose: making Democrats electable again and safe for Wall Street and that "it has had its day. The generation of Democrats that downplayed concerns about inequality and embraced global markets is being replaced by a far bolder political voice. No matter who takes the Democratic nomination in 2020, they will speak for a radicalised party in quest of the new New Deal."

I wish I could be as optimistic. L'ancien régime has made it abundantly clear, it's not going without a fight. Nice that Congress now has AOC, along with Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar. And there are a few other good ones-- but very few. Thanks to the control Pelosi and the New Dems have over the DCCC, way too few. Actually let me start with the control Schumer has over the DSCC and point out what that brought us this cycle. The Democrats have 2 freshmen in the Senate, both handpicked by Schumer from the House. One, Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) was tiger single worst Democrat in the House, a deranged sociopath who is about to start voting with the GOP just like she did in the House. The other, Jacky Rosen, was nearly as bad, not because she's any good, only because Sinema was so unfathomably horrible. Sure they are different from Clinton-Obama Democrats; they're even worse.

And now the House. Of the 88 freshmen who have just been seated. 59 are Democrats (42 of whom flipped seats from red to blue. There are 45 members of Congress who have signed onto the Green New Deal-- all Democrats of course. Of the 45, just 11 are freshmen. That's 11 out of the 59 Democratic freshmen. Worse yet, only two (2) come from a flipped district. The rest, like Ocasio, Tlaib, Pressley and Ilhan, come from solid blue seats, where they defeated establishment Democrats. Of the 59 Democrats, 35 have joined the New Dems and or the Blue Dogs, basically the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Just 24 have joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus and 6 of those are also New Dems and may or may not even be progressives at all. We shall see. But it was largely the DCCC strategy to recruit and support conservative Democrats and kick progressives to the ground.

A couple of weeks ago, I ran into one of the freshmen who joined the New Dems and asked him why he hadn't signed onto the Green New Deal, since he basically campaigned on it to attract progressive voters. Dramatically and condescendingly, he told me that that "isn't how it's done intros town if you want to go anywhere." And where he said he was going was onto the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. He said if he signed onto the Green New Deal, the Energy and Commerce Committee chair, Frank Pallone, who takes millions iff dollars from the special interests the committee oversees, would be angry and not allow him on the committee."So you're already turned into a complete scumbag?" I wanted to say, but didn't. Long story, short, he wasn't picked to be on the committee-- no freshmen were, just 7 conservative Dems and one progressive, none of whom support the Green New Deal. I just called him and asked if he'd sign on since Pallone rejected him anyway. He said he hopes to get on next time there's an opening and plans to kiss Pallone's ass at every opportunity. Nice.

Luce continued by asserting that Trump serves as a personification of the demolition of "whatever case remained for the idea that Democrats must forever ready themselves for a promised land of bipartisan amity. In practice, many thought that stance had already been discredited by Newt Gingrich, the take-no-prisoners Republican Speaker of the House during the Clinton years. Others thought the wrecking ball the Tea Party took to Mr Obama's fiscal plans had finally settled the argument. No matter how much Democrats tacked to the centre, the rewards for this virtue never came. Republicans simply moved further to the right. Democratic presidents, such as Mr Clinton, created budget surpluses. Republicans, such as George W Bush, duly spent them on tax cuts. Inequality is far worse today than in 1992, even though Democrats held the White House for more than half that time. Median incomes, meanwhile, have barely shifted. The initial anger over the 2008 financial crash was captured by the Tea Party. " All good points-- forever lost on people like Pelosi, Hoyer and those they have and continue replicating themselves with, from status quo loving younger versions like Cheri Bustos, Hakeem Jeffries, Ben Ray Lujans, Joe Crowleys to the nightmare crop of New Dems and Blue Dogs they just ushered into Congress.



Luce writes that Trump "changed the weather. He showed that you could bamboozle a hostile establishment and still win an election. Then he switched horses and pursued an aggressive Republican agenda. From tax cuts and deregulation to gun rights and anti-abortion judges, Mr Trump now has Republican lawmakers eating out of his hand. Those who still believed it would be possible to work across the aisle-- and who pined for the days of Rockefeller Republicans-- were robbed of any remaining force. Mr Trump has done a service for the American left." Try telling that to Steny Hoyer or Jim Clyburn, let alone Ron Kind, Stephanie Murphy, Jim Costa or Henry Cuellar.

Reality has also lent it a helping hand. Regardless of your ideology, today's numbers paint a stark picture. Ten years into the US recovery, median household incomes are, in real terms, still much what they were they were in 1999. The top one per cent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 per cent. America's average life expectancy has started to decline.

Mr Trump has made inequality worse. But he is not its author. The numbers were almost as bleak at the end of Mr Obama's two terms. So tinkering no longer holds much appeal.

OK, fair enough... and then Luce reminds us that, though based in DC, he is English, not American and may still know more about Indian politics from his days based in Delhi than about U.S. politics. "Much of the focus is on who should be the Democratic nominee to challenge Mr Trump. That obviously matters. But the significant point is that the party's centre of gravity has shifted. Whoever the challenger turns out to be, whether Joe Biden, the former vice-president, Elizabeth Warren, the economic populist, Beto O'Rourke, the sunny optimist, or Mr Sanders, their platform will have to reflect that shift. Stances such as 'Medicare for all,' a 'Green New Deal,' and public election financing will have to be part of the package. So too will higher taxes." I suspect he doesn't know enough about status quo candidates like Biden and Beto to understand just how different they are from change agents like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie. Biden has already been assuring supporters-- albeit quietly-- that they won't have to worry about Medicare for All, Green New Deals, 70% marginal tax rates or anything that alters the comfortable conservatism he resides in. Beto was a member of Congress who didn't support Medicare for All or the Green New Deal.

Attention has also been lavished on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year-old Democratic socialist and youngest member of Congress. More notable is the respect her ideas, including a top tax rate of 70 per cent, commands among establishment Democrats. "The congresswoman is right," Lawrence Summers, Mr Clinton's former Treasury Secretary, said last week. Mr Summers personified the Washington consensus of the 1990s. Like Keynes, however, he says he changes his mind when the facts do. They no longer fit the arc-of-history Democrats used to narrate. "The false doctrines of the neoliberal priesthood are losing their hold," writes Nick Hanauer, the entrepreneur who made his fortune with Amazon.

America's left is turning into a factory of new ideas. Some of them, such as a universal basic income, may be questionable. Others, such as breaking up monopolies, are more promising. Either way, for the first time in decades, America's intellectual energy is now on the left. Some liken the ferment to the "bold persistent experimentation" of Franklin Roosevelt, author of the 1930s New Deal. Doubters compare it with the false dawn of George McGovern, who lost in a 1972 landslide to Richard Nixon. Whichever view proves correct, the Clinton-Obama era is drawing to a close. A new one is just beginning.

Universal basic income may be questionable? If you say so. And breaking up monopolies is a new idea. Oy. How about this: "for the first time in decades, America's intellectual energy is now on the left?"