In the Shadow of Impeachment, Neoliberal Democrats Hand Trump a Victory

Donald Trump discussing the new NAFTA trade deal (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

If Trump gets re-elected, if Big Tech continues to evade accountability, if imperial adventures continue abroad, if migrant farmworkers cannot feed their families, you can trace it back to this Tuesday, and the actions a House Speaker took while nobody was paying attention.
—David Dayen, The American Prospect (emphasis added)

As the Impeachment Drama lumbers to a 2020 conclusion, morphing into its variant selves and sucking life from every other story the media most folks attend to are inclined to tell, unwatched things are happening in its shadow.

Nancy Pelosi has used end-of-year urgency and the impeachment distraction to pass four pieces of major legislation, three of which will become law, all on the same day.

NAFTA 2.0 is one of them. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, agreed under pressure to approve Pelosi's House version of NAFTA 2.0, rebranded "USMCA," or United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, for obvious reasons. This is a deal he should never have made, yet he made it.

Consider who Trumka is — a bridge between the neoliberal mainstream of the Democratic Party and the (presumably further left) labor movement that supports and sustains it. In other words, he's the person who blesses neoliberal policies as "progressive" (thus retaining mainstream Democratic Party approval) while modifying those policies in the margins to be less terrible (thus retaining the approval of progressives, who want to think of him as opposed to neoliberalist policies).

He's the person, in other words, who makes the labor movement look less like a puppy of the Democratic Party establishment to progressives, while keeping the labor movement (and himself) firmly in the Party establishment tent. The drama of "Will Trumka approve USMCA?" we recently witnessed exemplified this role.

To anyone with two cells in their brain, it was obvious as soon as the question was asked that he would approve USMCA. The stage was set; his arrival on it announced; the spotlight was ready and bright. Would he really walk onto this stage at this late date and say no to Party leaders? Of course not.

Would he have been able to stay in his lofty perch if he had? His job was to bless the cake after it had been baked, not to unbake it.

What pressure was Trumka under? First, obviously, from the Democratic Party and its billionaire donors, to give them what they and the Republicans — and Donald Trump — all wanted, a neoliberal-lite trade deal that could become in Nancy Pelosi's words "a template for future trade agreements ... a good template."

Second, Trumka was under pressure from his union base itself (so say some, including David Dayen in the piece linked below), many of whom are Trump supporters, to give President Trump a signature first-term victory, just in time for the start of his second-term campaign.

Do I believe this latter explanation? No, but I believe Trumka believes it. And if indeed it is true that Trumka has to serve Trump, at least in part, in order to serve his own base, it's further evidence of the careerism of his actions, in contrast to behavior from actual labor-movement principles.

Here's Dayen on this sordid tale (emphasis added):

Pelosi got AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka to sign off on the U.S.–Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), handing Trump a political victory on one of his signature issues. Predictably, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately gushed, calling USMCA “the biggest and best trade agreement in the history of the world.”

It’s, um, not that. Economically, USMCA is a nothingburger; even the most rose-colored analysis with doubtful assumptions built in shows GDP growth of only 0.06 percent per year. There’s one good provision: the elimination of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provision that allowed corporations to sue governments in secret tribunals over trade violations. There’s one bad provision: the extension of legal immunity for tech platforms over user-generated content, put into a trade deal for the first time. This will make the immunity shield, codified in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, much harder to alter in the future. Pelosi has called this deal a “template” for future agreements, though trade reformers have called it a bare minimum floor.

Pelosi tried to remove the immunity shield, but abandoned the request. She did succeed in removing a provision for Big Pharma that extended exclusivity periods for biologics. The Sierra Club has termed the deal an “environmental failure” that will not have binding standards on clean air and water or climate goals. But the threshold question on the USMCA was always going to be labor enforcement: would the labor laws imposed on Mexico hold, improving their lot while giving U.S. manufacturing workers a chance to compete? There was also the open question of why the U.S. would reward Mexico with a trade deal update when trade unionists in the country continue to be kidnapped and killed.

In his statement, Trumka lauds the labor enforcement, noting provisions that make it easier to prove violations (including violence against workers), rules of evidence for disputes, and inspections of Mexican facilities, a key win. But I’ve been told that the AFL-CIO did not see the details of the text before signing off, which is unforgivable, especially on trade where details matter. There was no vote by union leaders, just a briefing from the AFL-CIO.

At least one union, the Machinists, remains opposed, and others were noncommittal until they see text. The Economic Policy Institute, which is strongly tied to labor, called the agreement “weak tea at best,” a tiny advance on the status quo that will not reverse decades of outsourcing of U.S. jobs.

Meanwhile, back at the Trump re-election ranch:

While the economics are negligible (and potentially harmful on tech policy), on the politics activists are losing their mind at the prospect of a Trump signing ceremony, with labor by his side, on a deal that he will construe as keeping promises to Midwest voters. “Any corporate Democrat who pushed to get this agreement passed that thinks Donald Trump is going to share the credit for those improvements is dangerously gullible,” said Yvette Simpson, CEO of Democracy for America, in a statement. Only a small handful of Democratic centrists were pushing for a USMCA vote, based mostly on the idea that they had to “do something” to show that they could get things done in Congress. Now they’ve got it, and they’ll have to live with the consequences.

I guess helping re-elect the "most dangerous president ever" pales in comparison to passing bipartisan-approved neoliberal trade deals.

One of Richard Trumka's jobs, if he wants to stay employed, is to make sure neoliberal Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi are happy and well served while simultaneously keeping progressives thinking that Big Labor is still in their corner even on issues the donor class most cares about.

At that he does very well, and did so here.
 

Are The Democrats Still The Party Of Harry Truman? Or Is It Just Another Wall Street Party Now? NAFTA 2.0

In October 1948, President Harry Truman was stumping Minnesota, on behalf of both his own successful re-election campaign and a Senate bid by then Minneapolis mayor, Hubert Humphrey. During an appearance in St. Paul on the 13th, Truman delivered an address at the Municipal Auditorium which was carried nationally on radio. It included this critique of the Republican Party, a critique that most Democrats wouldn't be able to use today, thanks in large part to Bill and Hillary Clinton, among other neoliberals, including Status Quo Joe, Mayo Pete and Bloomberg, who have infected the Democratic Party and changed it fundamentally-- and not for the better:

Today the forces of liberalism face a crisis. The people of the United States must make a choice between two ways of living-- a decision which will affect us the rest of our lives and our children and our grandchildren after us.

On the other side, there is the Wall Street way of life and politics. Trust the leader! Let big business take care of prices and profits! Measure all things by money! That is the philosophy of the masters of the Republican Party.

Well, I have been studying the Republican Party for over 12 years at close hand in the Capital of the United States. And by this time, I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues.

Since they won’t tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.

They approve of the American farmer-- but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand four-square for the American home-- but not for housing.

They are strong for labor-- but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

They favor a minimum wage-- the smaller the minimum the better.

They indorse educational opportunity for all-- but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine-- for people who can afford them.

They approve of Social Security benefits-- so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.

They believe in international trade-- so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement.

They favor the admission of displaced persons-- but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.

They consider electric power a great blessing-- but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

They say TVA is wonderful-- but we ought never to try it again.

They condemn “cruelly high prices”-- but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.

They think the American standard of living is a fine thing-- so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people.

And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.

Now, my friends, that is the Wall Street Republican way of life. But there is another way-- there is another way-- the Democratic way, the way of the Democratic Party.

At one time-- in Truman's day for example-- the chart below would have looked much different. These are the current members of the House who have taken the most bribes from the Finance Sector-- the class of miscreants FDR labeled "the banksters"-- in the 2018 cycle. These are the only ones who took at least a million in bribes:

• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $2,253,625
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $2,134,472
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $1,718,006
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- $1,549,650
• Andy Barr (R-KY)- $1,537,784
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $1,438,794
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $1,430,888
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $1,416,015
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- $1,290,587
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $1,283,038
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- $1,270,853
• French Hill (R-AR)- $1,183,912
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- $1,145,089
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $1,070,719
• Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA)- $1,067,278
• Lee Zeldin (R-NY)- $1,021,840
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $1,020,550
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- $1,006,027

Bribes like this can really mount up in a few cycles. Since being elected to Congress, the super-corrupt GOP minority leader Kevin McCarthy has gorged himself with $9,508,537 in bankster "contributions." The next biggest career criminal along these lines is majority leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, with $7,356,624 finding its way into his campaign coffers. The third biggest criminal recipient of Wall Street dough was dispatched by AOC last year. Joe Crowley had gobbled up $7,217,725 in bribes from the banksters. Am I saying these politicians should be bundled off to prison in the next half hour to await trial? Yes, I am. And I'm not the only one who opposes politicians taking bribes from financial institutions that are charged with regulating.

Several progressive candidates are running on platforms built on strict opposition to Congressional bribery. Cenk Uygur has been studying congressional corruption for many years. Now he's running for Congress in a wide open field in which all the front-runners, both Democrat and Republican-- are on the record approving of bribery, although they insist it isn't bribery. I asked Cenk to explain why it is bribery and what he plans to do about opposing it when he's in Congress. "No one thinks JP Morgan Chase is giving a politician money for their health or for charity," he said flatly. "Everyone knows it's a bribe. And if they give that same politician a second 'contribution' that means they got a return on investment. And to be fair to them, an American politician is the most profitable thing you can buy. And they're almost all up for sale. This is a sick system that has to be fixed immediately. I'm running in CA-25 to make sure we end the obvious bribery and the brazen corruption."

And speaking of which, Pelosi and her team announced this morning-- on the same day that the Democrats announced just 2 impeachment charges against Trump-- that the House Dems will back Trump's new NAFTA 2.0. Remember, corporate Democrats like Pelosi always go for these sell-out trade deals, so this wasn't unexpected. It's days like today that I especially appreciate Bernie's call for a political revolution, something that no other candidate is even close to understanding, let alone doing.

I spoke to at least a dozen progressives today. Most said they feel uncomfortable with the Trump trade bill but that they will go along with it because... Trumka:

Make no mistake, we demanded a trade deal that benefits workers and fought every single day to negotiate that deal; and now we have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support.

I am grateful to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies on the USMCA working group, along with Senate champions like Sherrod Brown and Ron Wyden, for standing strong with us throughout this process as we demanded a truly enforceable agreement. I also commend Ambassador Robert Lighthizer for being a straight shooter and an honest broker as we worked toward a resolution.

Why the sell-out from Trumka? I'm hearing the big sweetener to get him on board was the deal on hitching Butch Lewis and Mineworker pension fixes that Richard Neal floated a few months ago. So far, just one of the progressives I spoke with said he's inclined to vote against it anyway. Just one. I hope he can persuade some others. And even if labor is happy, environmental and Climate groups sure aren't.

Dear Representative,

On behalf of our organizations’ over 9 million members and supporters, we strongly urge you to oppose a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that fails to meet the baseline standards for environmental and climate protection that the environmental community has consistently called for.

Correcting NAFTA’s environmental failures and addressing climate change in modern trade agreements is a top priority for our organizations. For over 25 years, NAFTA has contributed to climate change, toxic pollution, economic insecurity, and social inequity. We will vigorously oppose any deal that would perpetuate NAFTA’s track record of helping corporations dump pollution, outsource jobs, push fossil fuel dependency, and undermine hard-fought environmental protections.

Before, during, and after the Trump administration’s renegotiation of NAFTA, we and other leading environmental organizations repeatedly named specific changes to curb NAFTA’s environmental damage. The administration ignored nearly all of our concerns. The deal that the Trump administration produced last year-- the United States-Mexico- Canada Agreement (USMCA)-- would encourage further outsourcing of pollution and jobs, offer handouts to notorious corporate polluters, and prolong Trump’s polluting legacy for years. The deal not only fails to mention, acknowledge, or address the climate crisis, but would actually contribute to it.

Since this summer, a team of Democratic members of Congress has worked to try to eliminate these and other fundamental problems by negotiating meaningful changes to the Trump administration’s deal. We have actively supported this effort with detailed recommendations to achieve the following essential environmental priorities:

• Binding climate standards, backed by 110 members of Congress, to curb outsourcing of climate pollution and jobs and to ensure the U.S. and its trading partners fulfill commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement
• Binding clean air, water, and land standards to halt the dumping of pollution in Mexico

• Obligations to fulfill commitments under an array of key multilateral environmental agreements

• A new, independent and binding enforcement system to stop environmental violations

• Removal of corporate polluter handouts that support tar sands oil and fracked gas

• Elimination of broad rights for corporate polluters to sue Mexico over environmental policies in tribunals

• Elimination of rules that would help corporate polluters weaken and delay our environmental regulations 


In case you missed it yesterday, please take a look at this Twitter thread from Paul Krugman:

And, one wag cautioned a few minutes ago that this is probably a better deal than what progressives could have gotten in a Status Quo Joe or Mayo Pete presidency. Now that really is sad.

Kicker: Media is already laughing: "Democrats are saying Trump is an existential threat on one hand and helping him with his trade deal on the other."

Perhaps Senators Who Are Uncomfortable With Trump Turning The U.S. Into A Banana Republic, Should Stop Behaving Like Banana Republicans

Nancy Ohanian: Emperor With Fig Leaf

Yesterday, Bernie was at an AFL-CIO Labor Day breakfast in Manchester, New Hampshire, where he told the crowd that Señor Trumpanzee is a "pathological liar." What's the difference between a pathological liar and a congenital liar? Bernie also reminded the folks that Trump "works night and day on behalf of his fellow billionaires... And most reprehensible, we have a president who is not doing what almost every president in American history has done: When you make it into the Oval Office, you understand you’ve got a sacred responsibility to bring the American people together. Today we have a president who for cheap political reasons is trying to divide us up."

Trump spent the day pouting and tweeting his regular hateful bullshit. Like, for example, this:

I mean, what's wrong with this jackass (his middle name)? I'm not a Jeff Sessions fan, but compared to Trump he seems like a normal human being. Trump thinks the Attorney General and the Department of Justice are supposed to be weaponized to serve his whims and political agenda. He was bitching about Chris Collins (R-NY) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the first and second members of Congress to have endorsed him being indicted for serious crimes because they are "two very popular Republican Congressmen." He's complaining that "Two easy wins now in doubt." I'm sure he doesn't even know he's doing anything wrong. Because of course, to the 30-something percent of American voters who support him and to whom he caters, he isn't doing anything wrong. Only Jeff Sessions and the DOJ did something wrong. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the tweet by itself "may be an impeachable offense. This is such a disgrace. This is so contrary to the traditions of the Department of Justice." And recall, about a week or so ago he was whining that he needed Sessions to indict someone "from the other side."

No concept of what justice is all about. Sam Nunberg, a former aide, reported that when he tried to read the Bill of Rights of the Constitution to Trump, and only got as far as the 4th Amendment before Trump started fiddling with his lip. He's eyes rolled back in his head and the session was over. Trump always lies and says he finished at the top of his class at Wharton but one of his professors, William T. Kelley has told people over and over that "Donald Trump was the dumbest goddam student I ever had." More recently, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump is "a moron," which upset Trump so much that he challenged Tillerson to a IQ test battle and then fired him.

Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), who is known to be driven crazy by this kind of crap from Trump-- but is too frightened to ever do anything about it but whine-- was whining yesterday that "The United States is not some banana republic with a two-tiered system of justice-- one for the majority party and one for the minority party. These two men have been charged with crimes because of evidence, not because of who the President was when the investigations began. Instead of commenting on ongoing investigations and prosecutions, the job of the President of the United States is to defend the Constitution and protect the impartial administration of justice."

Yesterday, Trump ordered up a motorcade, went outside to get in a car, seemed dazed and confused, turned around and went back into the White House. I can't understand why he doesn't have a minder.

Earlier in the day than his attack on Sessions, he got into a little shadow boxing-- it being Labor Day-- with Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO. He was angry that Trumka was on his own TV station telling the truth about the Regime's poisonous behavior towards workers.

Ian Kullgren, writing for Politico in the middle of Trump's studio tweet storm against Trumka, reported that though the illegitimate moron "president" came into office "pledging to cut regulations “massively,” he made a point of exempting regulations that protected workers’ health. But almost two years in, the Trump administration has done the opposite, rolling back worker safety protections affecting underground mine safety inspections, offshore oil rigs and line speeds in meat processing plants, among others. Trump's deregulatory moves on worker safety are at odds with his public stance as a champion of working class Americans, but consistent with his naming two management-side attorneys bent on rolling back economic protections for workers to the National Labor Relations Board, which regulates labor unions, and with his nominations of two reliably pro-management jurists to a now-Republican-majority Supreme Court that recently dealt a heavy financial blow to public-employee unions." That was one of the items that Trumka brought up on Fox.

Since Trump took office, OSHA also scrubbed a running list of worker deaths from its home page.

A notable exception to the administration’s resistance to worker-safety regulation was its decision to defend in court an Obama-era rule regulating crystalline silica-- a mineral dust long known to cause deadly lung ailments. After some initial delays, the rule took effect for most employers in June.

That action was more in tune with Trump's earlier rhetoric. "We need regulations for safety and environment and things,” President-elect Trump assured workers at an Indianapolis air-conditioner plant in December 2016. “We want to protect our workers,” President Trump repeated one year later in a speech touting the cancellation or delay of 1,500 regulatory actions.

At EPA, Trump officials are working on new rules to limit asbestos exposure as part of a congressionally mandated update to the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016. On its face, it would seem to be strengthening safety.

But advocates worry that the rules, intended by Congress to limit asbestos, could open the door to new products containing the toxin.

EPA’s significant new use rule, proposed in June, lists 14 uses of asbestos that would trigger scrutiny by EPA. All were used at one time but have been halted by industry voluntarily, said Betsy Southerland, former director of the EPA’s science and technology office.

But the rule doesn’t require every new use of asbestos to be approved by the EPA, though advocates believe Congress gave the agency authority to do so. That means a company conceivably could develop at new use for asbestos and not have to notify the agency, said Southerland, who resigned in 2017.

“You never know what industry is going to come up with,” Southerland said. “They could want to use it to create new chemicals in the future.”

In addition, the EPA’s proposal for evaluating asbestos risks doesn’t consider so-called legacy hazards-- for example, particles of asbestos insulation or asbestos tiles that could be inhaled by workers when removed. That means workers could be more highly exposed than the general public if and when the EPA approves new uses.

“What the Trump EPA has done is essentially cooked the books to undervalue the risks posed by asbestos,” said Scott Faber, a top lobbyist for the Environmental Working Group, which has opposed a variety of Trump policies. “You don’t need to be a toxicologist to understand that you can’t determine whether a chemical is safe or not if you don’t understand the whole picture.”

In industry and industry, the regime is just telling owners and management to regulate themselves, something that has always cost workers' lives, a risk Trump-- though not Trumka-- funds acceptable.

The Trump Economy On Labor Day, 2018

It was a VERY different GOP in 1956

Yesterday, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, a show Señor Trumpanzee watches. Trumka pointed out that Trump has "used his office to actively hurt working people [and] to date, the things that the Trump and his anti-worker regime have "done to hurt workers outpace what he’s done to help workers... He hasn’t come up with an infrastructure program that could put a lot of us back to work. He overturned a regulation that would deny over 5 million overtime that they would’ve had. He overturned some health and safety regulations that will hurt us on the job... We keep trying to find areas where we can work with him." Trumka noted that "wages have been down since the first of the year. Gas prices have been up since the first year. So overall, workers aren’t doing as well." A few hours later, Trump was barking at Trumka on Twitter:

But Trumka-- not Trump-- had all the facts on his side. Trump is just a balloon filled with hot air and bombast. His economy has been fine for multimillionaires and billionaires, but awful for normal Americans. As Dan Martin noted last month for Shareblue, the tax scam has been a total failure in terms of keeping the promises the GOP made when they rammed it through Congress. It's certainly nothing to run for reelection and House Republicans rarely mention it on the stump and have been reduced to running against rock bands, skateboarding and tattoos.

As Martin wrote, "Wages are falling, Wall Street tycoons are swimming in profits from stock buybacks, and the federal deficit is exploding. Every way you slice it, the Republican tax scam is failing spectacularly, falling far short of the blustering promises of Trump, Speaker Paul Ryan, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. When Republicans jammed through the tax scam on a party-line vote, Trump promised it would be 'rocket fuel' for the economy, helping families across the nation. Ryan promised tax cuts for everyone. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin vowed the bill would pay for itself. All lies.

Wages are falling, after adjusting for inflation, since the tax scam became law. “The idea that the tax cuts were going to line workers’ pockets was always a mirage,” says the New York Times.

The uber-wealthy? They are making out like bandits. Rich corporations are plowing tax breaks into record-setting levels of stock buybacks, expected to top $1 trillion this year, according to the Times. Buybacks increase the price of stocks, and many corporate executives who are compensated with those very same stocks are enjoying a Trump Bump in their bottom line.

Trump promised the tax scam would focus on “folks who work in the mailrooms and the machine shops of America-- the plumbers, the carpenters, the cops, the teachers, the truck drivers, the pipe fitters.” But in reality, corporate CEOs and Wall Street investors are coming out on top, while workers are being left behind.

While the wealthy are enjoying even more excesses, the tax scam caused America’s deficit to explode. Mnuchin and Ryan promised the tax scam wouldn’t add to the deficit, but that’s just flat wrong. Both the deficit and national debt are growing “at a stunning pace,” according to the Times. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows the tax scam is on pace to add nearly $2 trillion to the deficit.

The tax scam is such a disaster that Republicans don’t even want to campaign on it. In the recent special election in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District, Republicans abandoned speaking about the tax bill, instead focusing on ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric to rile up their far-right base.

It’s the same story across the country, with Republicans talking less and less about their failed economic policies, turning to racist ads about immigration instead.

After being busted for so many lies, no wonder Republicans are ignoring their one legislative “accomplishment” and would rather talk about anything else on the campaign trail.

How Will History Handle Herr Trumpf? Or Is He Already Destined For The Trash Heap Of History?

In the clip above, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka puts the whole Trumpf phenomenon that's been roiling the political waters since the summer into a perspective familiar to anyone who understands the history of the labor movement and the history of the divisiveness capital has always used to divide and conquer. I suspect the blue collar workers dancing to Trumpf's siren song are not unionized workers. The stunning historical film about plutocracy at the bottom of this post is a much longer version of what Trumka is telling his members. If you have a couple hours to spare, I highly recommend it.

David Granger became the editor-in-chief of Esquire just shy of two decades ago and his tenure has been the magazine's most successful period in its history. Today he teased the February issue's cover story on Herr Trumpf, Hater In Chief, which will be available next week. It sounds like Granger is on social terms with Herr, although it's doubtful he will be after the GOP frontrunner reads what Granger had to see about him. It doesn't sound like Granger-- ant more than Trumka-- imagines Trumpf will make it to the White House,a though Granger sees him as "a useful tool" who has stymied (for now at least) the effect of Citizens United, which flooded our politics with money from oligarchs eager to buy government leaders" and has forced political leaders to reassess how essential to our political culture tolerance is. Hmmm... are Cruz and Rubio and Huckabee reassessing? Christie? Fiorina? Not so sure about that, but the rest of his prequel is pretty spot on, and more personal. Like many observers, Granger doesn't see a lot of introspection or self-awareness in Herr.

I don't think Donald has any real idea of the effect he's having on the country beyond the cheering crowds and the newspaper headlines. But, for him, that's plenty. He's an entertainer; he's giving his audience what it wants. The idea that his words have consequences never penetrates. The idea that Open Carry members' harassment of mosques in Texas could have something to do with him just never occurs to him. During his unusual interview with Scott Raab (which goes live on Esquire Classic tomorrow)-- which took place a few days after he first suggested registering Muslims and shutting down mosques, and the same week that a protester got roughed up at one of his rallies-- he was strangely disconnected from politics. It was business as usual inside Trump Tower, and he broke off the interview right in the middle to give me a call.

After he bragged that he had "destroyed" Ben Carson ("I had to do it"), he was off on a conversation very much like the one I wrote about in my editor's letter two months ago. Here's how it ended this time:

"Yeah. So good to talk to you, man. So good. Hey, call me, like, in Florida or something; we'll play. You know, I have Doral, I have Palm Beach, so whenever you're down there, call me and we'll play, okay? Or you'll play with some friends. But call me, okay? You take care of yourself, David. Have a good time, thanks."

This is not a man who is planning to occupy the White House. This is not the man who personifies the rage that is rippling through our culture. When you talk with Donald, you get the distinct impression that he's enjoying this other person, this fellow named Donald Trump, out there tuning up the rubes.

So who is responding to the outrageous and offensive utterances that fall unconsidered from his mouth? For this issue, we worked with our friends at NBC News and SurveyMonkey on a sprawling piece of original research intended to identify the roots of the rage that seems so rampant across so much of the country. The survey illuminates the darker precincts of the American psyche like never before. Why are we so angry, and what are we so angry about? Among the many surprises is that black Americans are now more optimistic about the country than white Americans. The angriest and most pessimistic of our countrymen are overwhelmingly Caucasian, overwhelmingly working- or middle-class, and overwhelmingly middle-aged or older.

These are the Americans-- this dwindling demographic-- who are shaping the presidential circus right now. And as we move past the primaries and the Republicans settle on a nominee, what this rage politics will further yield remains to be seen. Is it a passing wave or a rising tide? If the Republicans know what's good for them, the irresponsible talk will have to abate over the summer; the rage will have to recede from center stage. And Donald Trump will be back in Trump Tower, conducting his business as usual.

It Wasn't Enough For The GOP Clown Car To Alienate Latinos. Now They Want To Target Asian-Americans

The last thing the Republican Party Establishment wanted was a raucous racist primary that highlights the disdain with which Republican candidates view minorities. But the party's angry, confused base had their own ideas-- and plenty of power-mad candidates to pander to them, one of whom is a celebrity TV reality star who knows how to command an audience and daily headlines.

It doesn't matter what Reince Priebus wants, or what the GOP's 2012 autopsy mandated, or even-- perhaps (we'll see)-- what the billionaire insurgent Koch family wants. After two Bushes and McCain and Romney, the base will not be denied; they want someone as crazy and bigoted and filled with hatred as they are-- or at least someone willing to make a spectacle out of themselves faking it-- and they have not just Trump, but a whole clown car filled with exactly what they want.

Tuesday Trump tweeted that "Asians are very offended that JEB said that anchor babies applies to them as a way to be more politically correct to hispanics. A mess!" Then he promptly pantomimed long-outmoded but still ugly Asian stereotypical speech patterns, proving, I suppose, to the base that no matter how racist Jeb goes, he'll never be able to catch up with the puerile Trump. 

Republican Establishment propagandist George Will was on the warpath against Trump again Thursday, bemoaning how he's ruining the party that Will remembers the GOP once being. He seems to have as much disdain for the unwashed Republican masses as they have for immigrants and minorities. "Every sulfurous belch from the molten interior of the volcanic Trump phenomenon," he wrote, "injures the chances of a Republican presidency. After Donald Trump finishes plastering a snarling face on conservatism, any Republican nominee will face a dauntingly steep climb to reach even the paltry numbers that doomed Mitt Romney."

The white percentage of the electorate has been shrinking for decades and will be about 2 points smaller in 2016 than in 2012. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first president elected while losing the white vote by double digits. In 2012, Hispanics, the nation’s largest minority, were for the first time a double-digit (10 percent) portion of the electorate. White voters were nearly 90 percent of Romney’s vote. In 1988, George H.W. Bush won 59 percent of the white vote, which translated into 426 electoral votes. Twenty-four years later, Romney won 59 percent of the white vote and just 206 electoral votes. He lost the nonwhite vote by 63 points, receiving just 17 percent of it. If the Republicans’ 2016 nominee does not do better than Romney did among nonwhite voters, he will need 65 percent of the white vote, which was last achieved by Ronald Reagan when carrying 49 states in 1984. Romney did even slightly worse among Asian Americans-- the fastest-growing minority-- than among Hispanics. Evidently, minorities generally detected Republican ambivalence, even animus, about them. This was before Trump began receiving rapturous receptions because he obliterates inhibitions about venting hostility.

...In 2011, when Trump was a voluble “birther”-- you remember: Obama supposedly was not born in the United States, hence he is an illegitimate president-- an interviewer asked if he had people “searching in Hawaii” for facts. “Absolutely,” Trump said. “They can’t believe what they’re finding.” Trump reticence is rare, but he has never shared those findings. He now says, in effect: Oh, never mind. If in November 2016, the fragments of an ever smaller and more homogenous GOP might be picked up with tweezers, Trump, having taken his act elsewhere, will look back over his shoulder at the wreckage he wrought and say: Oh, never mind.

Gregory Cendana, executive director of the AFL-CIO's Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, was disgusted by the Republican Party's recent verbal assaults against minority communities.

Trump’s sheer disrespect and prejudice coincides with the glaring racist ideologies that the GOP has exhibited throughout their campaigns. Jeb Bush’s derogatory comments and Donald Trump’s bigoted actions will serve as another reminder that the Republican Party does not represent the interest of communities of color and our country.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka backed them up with this video he put out Thursday morning.



And referencing Jeb's bungled outreach to minorities, L.A.-area Congressman Ted Lieu, a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve who was elected president of the congressional freshman class, was equally mortified. This is the note he sent to his constituents Wednesday:

In the same breath that Jeb Bush calls for Americans to 'chill out' on political correctness, he accuses Asian immigrants of engaging in an 'organized effort' to have 'anchor babies.'

Anyone who has served in elected office knows they have a duty to lead by example. Jeb Bush’s comments about Asian immigrants are a dangerous mischaracterization of an entire minority, plain and simple. It clearly doesn’t reflect my story. My parents immigrated to the United States to achieve the American dream. My parents went from being poor to owning a thriving small business. Their journey of hard work, sacrifice, success and contribution is as central to the American story as any other.

Unfortunately, Jeb’s insulting remarks about immigrants are matched by equally-insulting policy ideas. He has no viable plan for comprehensive immigration reform. He wants to repeal our national health care law that's protecting millions of Americans and his big idea to grow the economy is to offer corporations more tax cuts.

It is sad to think this all comes from the moderate Republican presidential candidate. Jeb Bush is trapped by an influential Tea Party that continues to advocate for policies that help the few at the expense of the many. My fellow Democrats and I are fighting for something different-- an America that cherishes and works for everyone.

Bao Nguyen's Vietnamese mother was pregnant with him when she escaped to Thailand. He was born in a refugee camp, and they came to America when he was still an infant. Now he is the mayor of Garden Grove in Orange County and is the progressive candidate running for the congressional seat Loretta Sanchez is giving up. Like L.A.-area Asian-American congressmembers Ted Lieu and Judy Chu, he was shocked to feel the Republican candidates attacking immigrant communities, Hispanics as well as Asians. "As an American immigrant," he told us today, "it disgusts me when I hear how Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, and the other Republican Presidential candidates have been talking about immigrants."

It’s despicable, and disgraceful. Immigrants are the backbone of this country. They built this country and continue to add to it in so many ways. I was born in a refugee camp, and came to this country when I was three months old. We didn’t have much-- let’s be honest, we were just poor. But we found a welcoming and supportive community of all nationalities and backgrounds, and with help and hard work, I was able to build a life here in California. But my story is no different from that of millions of immigrants who came to America in search of a better life-- who knew they needed to work hard and play by the rules in order to get a fair shot at the American Dream. We need to celebrate the accomplishments of our immigrant neighbors, and we need to bring everyone out of the shadows, so they can be full participants in the American Dream.

U.S. Trade Rep Says Murdering Union Leaders Not a Violation of U.S. "Trade" Agreements

Operators are standing by: (202) 225-3121.
Seriously. Please call.

by Gaius Publius

You can't make this stuff up; it invents itself faster than you can find and print it. Two quick points, both about TPP and Ron Wyden's Fast Track sell-out.

First, AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka testified before the Senate Finance Committee in opposition to Wyden and Hatch's Fast Track bill. (For its toxic and deceptive provisions, see here.) Like almost every progressive leader and follower you can name, he's opposed to it. Because he represents the largest labor organization in the U.S., the AFL-CIO, he's strongly opposed and for good reason. (By the way, just because someone is from the AFL-CIO doesn't mean they're "right" on labor. AFL-CIO was complicit in Reagan's destruction of the Air Traffic Controllers union. But Trumka is very "right" on labor.)

From Trumka's testimony via Huffington Post (my emphasis everywhere):

AFL-CIO's Trumka: USTR [U.S. Trade Representative] Told Us Murder Isn't A Violation Under U.S. Trade Deal

Defenders of the White House push for sweeping trade deals argue they include tough enforcement of labor standards. But a top union leader scoffed at such claims Tuesday, revealing that administration officials have said privately that they don’t consider even the killings of labor organizers to be violations of those pacts.

Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, testified to that claim at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on legislation to grant President Barack Obama so-called fast-track authority to cut at least two new enormous trade agreements with Pacific Rim nations and the European Union. It appears to be the first time anyone has revealed such a stance on the part of a U.S. government that has been touting its efforts to improve wages and working conditions among its trading partners, relying in part on trade agreements. ...

“When you say, ‘Oh these are some standards, they’re better than no standards,’ we were told by by the [United States Trade Representative] general counsel that murdering a trade unionist doesn’t violate these standards, that perpetuating violence against a trade unionist doesn’t violate these agreements,” Trumka said, directing his remarks to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who backs the deals.

The article verified Trumka's claim; click to read how.

Second, union leaders are frequently murdered in Colombia, a country with whom we have a strong "trade" agreement. Trumka again:

Trumka pointed specifically to the Colombia trade pact that was signed in 2006, but passed by Congress in 2011. Trumka said that even after the Obama administration crafted an agreement to tighten labor protections four years ago, some 105 labor organizers have been killed, and more than 1,300 have been threatened with death.

“Excuse me. Excuse me if I’m not willing to accept that standard.” Trumka said.

And Coca-Cola, the mega-wealthy global corporation, is complicit in those killings:

A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Florida accuses the Coca-Cola Company, its Colombian subsidiary and business affiliates of using paramilitary death squads to murder, torture, kidnap and threaten union leaders at the multinational soft drink manufacturer’s Colombian bottling plants. The suit was filed on July 20 by the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund on behalf of SINALTRAINAL, the Colombian union that represents workers at Coca-Cola’s Colombian bottling plants; the estate of a murdered union leader; and five other unionists who worked for Coca-Cola and were threatened, kidnapped or tortured by paramilitaries.  ...

Not directly, of course; that's unregulated what right-wing militias are for. What's not to love about "free trade" if you're the killer Coke company? TPP — Alan Grayson calls it the Fast Track to Hell. He's right. Click to play the video above to see why.

About Ron Wyden's Betrayal of Progressive Values

This is only "bipartisan" — Obama's characterization — because of Ron "I'm the designated Democratic Party Perp on this one" Wyden. If you'd like to explain yourself to Mr. Wyden, here's all you need to know. And here's how to contact him:

Senator Ron Wyden
221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C., 20510
Tel (202) 224-5244

Suggested messages: "Thanks to your betrayal of progressive values, I'll close my checkbook to any of your appeals for funds."

And for the very bold in Oregon: "Thanks to your betrayal of progressive values, I'll vote against Mr. Wyden, even in the general election. TPP is that bad for my state and its wood products industry."

(Hint: You can decide later how to vote. You can decide now what to say to Ron Wyden's staff.)

GP

​

Yes, But WHY Didn't Democrats Turn Out On Election Day? WHY?

A Member of Congress, a strong, active, unambiguous progressive who sailed to victory Tuesday, called me complaining about Pelosi's tele-caucus meeting the other day. The Democrats, Pelosi said, did badly in the election because-- wait for it-- turnout was bad. It was bad... something like only 36.6% of registered voters went to the polls. But that in itself doesn't explain why the Democrats did poorly, nor why Republicans did well. On C-Span's Newsmakers this morning, Bernie Sanders said he thinks "many of the Democratic candidates did not run on an agenda which resonated with working people… where the Democrats have been weak and individual Democratic candidates have been weak is not really coming up to the plate and saying, ‘You know what? We’re going to have to take on the billionaire class'." One of those weak, confused candidates the Democrats ran was Alison Grimes in Kentucky. When questioned she couldn't even admit she had voted for Obama. So the result? Tuesday she wound up with 100,000 fewer voters than Obama got in Kentucky in 2012. Her total was 584,622 and his was 679,370.

Members were grumbling that what Pelosi didn't address is why turn out was low. What had gone wrong that the Democrats couldn't turn out their voters? Why, for example in Arkansas, why did 546,135 voters (65.9%) opt for the minimum wage increase, while electing Asa Hutchinson governor 468,017 (55.4%) to 350,535 (41.5%). Asa Hutchinson, not only didn't back the minimum wage increase but he doesn't back the concept of having a minimum wage at all. Arkansas voters also elected a radical right, anti-minimum wage senator, Tom Cotton 476,309 (56.5%) to 332,669 (39.5%) and 4 Republicans to its 4 House seats-- while growing the state House GOP majority from 51 Republicans to 63 Republicans?

Well, the guy who ran against Hutchinson for governor, Mike Ross, (aside from being a crook) is a Blue Dog who had amassed one of the most conservative, pro-Republican voting records in Congress and was forced to retire in 2012 rather than face certain defeat in the district he had first won over a decade earlier. Of the 4 Democrats running for the congressional seats, none were progressives; all were conservatives with Republican-lite messages for the voters. And the U.S. Senator who Tom Cotton beat, Mark Pryor, was across all issues among the 3 most conservative Democrats in the U.S. Senate. And someone absolutely incapable of selling a progressive message. Watch this confused mess in his own office trying to navigate a conversation he should probably have never been in to begin with. Voters can smell the bullshit and the fear:



In Alaska, the minimum wage bill passed with an even greater margin, 154,516 (68.8%) to 70,082 (31.2%)-- while those same Alaska voters appear to have elected a right-wing kook, Dan Sullivan, who opposes a minimum wage. He's currently leading generally conservative Democrat Mark Begich 110,203 (49.0%) to 102,054 (45.3%). In Nebraska, voters decided, by a margin of 59.2% to 40.8% to increase the minimum wage-- while electing minimum wage opponent Ben Sasse with 64.8%. Republicans had banner nights in South Dakota and West Virginia as well-- both of which had majorities in favor of minimum wage increases-- and new Republicans elected who oppose minimum wages on principle-- or, more to the point-- support the concept of slavery for the working class. In Illinois, voters approved a nonbinding advisory question that calls on the state Legislature to approve a $10 minimum wage-- and elected sleazy anti-minimum wage billionaire Bruce Rauner governor. At the same time, Illinois Republicans managed to defeat 2 Democratic congressional incumbents, Brad Schneider and Bill Enyart-- both confused, conflicted conservatives-- while electing Robert Dold and GOP sociopath Mike Bost.

The AFL-CIO has post-election data that shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor Democratic Party progressive positions-- from a more specific one like raising the minimum wage to a more amorphous one like reducing the power of Wall Street and Big Business. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka says that there's a disconnect with voters because over half of them agreed that "politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties do too much to support Wall Street financial interests and not enough to help average Americans." That explains why most of the pain and suffering Tuesday was among members of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- Blue Dogs, New Dems and other corporate whores-- and, with a few exceptions, not among normal progressive Democrats. "If a candidate goes out with a strong economic message, and says, 'Here’s how I’m gonna solve your economic problems,' that candidate’s gonna do well," said Trumka. "It doesn’t matter whether they’re a Democrat or Republican. But the economic message that voters heard, they heard stronger from the Republican side than from the Democrats."

On Friday, I talked a little about why voters didn't vote but this morning I found a perspective worth looking at by George Lakoff. "Democratic strategists," he wrote "have been segmenting the electorate and seeking individual self-interest-based issues in each electoral block. The strategists also keep suggesting a move to right. This has left no room for the Democrats to have an overriding authentic moral identity that Americans can recognize." That's the crux of it. Pelosi appointed Israel because he's greasy crook with strong ties to slimy lobbyists, Wall Street predators and Big Business interests. His job was to raise money-- and he did. The problem was that he was an abject failure at crafting any kind of strategy (mystery meatism could not have possibly worked) or in recruiting viable candidates capable of independent thought and carrying a progressive message and vision-- both of which are abhorent to Israel himself. Israel's base is not working families; it is the strategic infrastructure on which Lakoff bases part of his critique: "PR firms, pollsters, consultants, researchers, trainers, communication specialists, speechwriters, and their funders."

Lakoff points to a dozen strategic points the Beltway Democrats use as an excuse for strategy:

• Use demographic categories to segment the electorate, categories from the census (race, gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, income, zip code), as well as publicly available party registration.

• Assume uniformity across the demographic categories. Poll on which issues are "most important," e.g., for women (or single women), for each minority group, for young people, and so on. This separates the issues from one another and creates "issue silos." It does not include segmentation for moral worldviews that differ between conservatives and progressives.

• Assume language is neutral and that the same poll questions will have the same meaning for everyone polled. In reality, language is defined relative to conceptual frames. And the same words can be "contested," that is, they can have opposite meanings depending on one's moral values.

• Assume that people vote on the basis of material self-interest and design different message to appeal to different demographic groups. In reality, poor conservatives will vote against their material interests when they identify with a candidate and his or her values.

• In polling, apply statistical methods to the answers given in each demographic group. This will impose a "bell curve" in the results. The bell curve will impose a "middle" in each case.

• Assume that most voters are in the middle imposed by the bell curve. Move to the middle. If your beliefs are on the left of the "middle," move to the right to be where most voters are. You will be helping conservatives, by supporting their beliefs. And you may be saying things you don't believe.

• Check the polls to see how popular the present Democratic president is; if he is not popular, design you message to dissociate yourself from the president. It will reinforce the unpopularity of the president when members of his own party, as well as the opposition, disown him.

• Attack your opponents as being "extremists" when they hold views typical of the far right. This will help your opponents as standing up for what they believe among those of their constituents that share any of those views.

• Attack you opponents for getting money from rich corporations or individuals. This will help your opponent among Republicans (and some Democrats) who respect the values of the wealthy and successful.

• Argue against your opponents by quoting them, using their language and negating that language. Negating a frame reinforces the frame, as in the sentence "Don't think of an elephant!" This practice will mostly reinforce the views of your opponent.

• Privatization: When significant public resources become owned or controlled by private corporations, the public has lost an essential element of freedom.

• Fear: When you are emotionally gripped by fear, you are not free.

This is certainly how Steve Israel ran the DCCC (and how Michael Bennet ran the DSCC and how Debbie Wasserman Schultz runs the DNC). "Such strategies," writes Lakoff, "miss the opportunity to present an overriding moral stand that fits the individual issues, while saying clearly what ideals Democrats stand for as Democrats. There happens to be such an overriding ideal that most Democrats authentically believe in."

All politics is moral. When a politician says to do something, he is implicitly claiming that it is the right thing to do. No political will over say, do what I say because it's wrong-- pure evil! None will ever say, "Do what I say, though it doesn't matter." When politicians' policy prescriptions differ widely, it because their sense of what is right is very different. In short, they have different moral systems. That is true of progressives and conservatives alike. The political proposals conservatives and progressives make are based on different moral systems.

Progressive and conservatives have very different understandings of democracy. For progressives empathy is at the center of the very idea of democracy. Democracy is a governing system in which citizens care about their fellow citizens and work through their government to provide public resources for all. In short, in a democracy, the private depends on the public.

Elizabeth Warren says it out loud. If you have a business it depends on public resources: roads, bridges, the Interstate highway system, sewers, a water supply, airports and air traffic control, the Federal Reserve, a patent office, public education for your employees, public health, the electric grid, the satellite communication system, the internet, and all the government research behind computer science. You can't run a business without these. Private enterprise depends on the public.

The same is true of individuals, who depend on public resources like clean air, clean water, enough food, safe food and products, public safety, access to education and health care, housing, employment-- as well as those roads, bridges, sewers, satellite communication, electric grid, and so on. And most important-- voting in free elections, choosing the government to provide those resources. Private life depends on the public.

What public resources provide is freedom. Most progressive issues are freedom issues.

And one more, which had a major effect in the 2014 election:

• Voting: Without the ability to vote in free elections you are not free.

• Health: If you get cancer or even break a leg and don't have health care, you are not free.

• Education: Without education, you lack the knowledge and skills not just ot earn a decent living, but also to even be aware of the possibilities of life. Without education, you are therefore not free.

• Women: If you are denied control over your body, you are not free.

• Marriage: If you are in love and are denied the ability to marry with a publicly declared lifetime commitment, you are not free.

• Vast income inequality: When the economic gains that most people have worked go not the those who worked for them for go only to the wealthiest of the wealthy, those who did the work-- most people-- are not free.

• Race: When you are treated with suspicion and disdain, you are not free.

• Corporate Control: When corporations control your life for their benefit and not yours, you are not free.

As FDR pointed out, Freedom From Fear is a vital freedom. In the 2014 election, conservative played on fear - of Isis and Ebola.

Every progressive instinctively knows all this, but very few say it. Instead, progressives tend to talk not about such values, but instead about facts, policies, and programs.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have a very different view of democracy. For them democracy is supposed to provide them with the liberty to do what they want, without being responsible for others and without others being responsible for them. For them, there is only personal responsibility, not social responsibility. Indeed, providing public resources is, to a conservative, immoral, taking away personal responsibility, making people dependent, lazy, unable to take care of themselves. Removing public resources is seen as providing incentives, and individual liberty is seen as the condition in which you can carry out your incentives.

This is very much what conservative morality is about. If you cannot succeed through personal responsibility, you deserve what you get.

But these are not just two equally valid, though opposite, moral systems. Because the private really does depend on the public, because personal responsibility without public resources gets you nowhere, the conservative view of democracy has radically false consequences. It is immoral because it lacks empathy, but it also just plain false... Progressivism supports freedom. The private depends on the public. If you believe it, say it. Moral ideals matter. Authenticity matters.

Authenticity? I suppose some would argue that the words "inauthentic" and "politician" go together like a gin and tonic but if you want the ultimate definition of inauthentic look no further than losing conservative transactional Democrats like Charlie Crist (FL), John Barrow (GA), Pete Gallego (TX), Ron Barber (AZ), Joe Garcia (FL), Brad Schneider (IL), Ro Khanna (CA), Jennifer Garrison (OH), Andrew Romanoff (CO), Domenic Recchia (NY), Sean Eldridge (NY). Give me a break. These are a bunch of pointless careerists, not even politicians! Pelosi is about to replace the most inauthentic DCCC Chair in recent memoiry with a Wall Street puppet even less authentic, Jim Himes, a catastrophe in the making for working families who depend on the Democratic Party and are the real victims of the party's geriatric leadership's inability to see the errors of its own ways.