Today Is My Birthday

I never thought I'd live to be 72. The thought of it actually shocks me-- and it's a really good feeling. Look forward to it-- especially if we haveMedicare-for-All headed our way.

I've been getting a ton of well-wishes, especially on Facebook. Instead of sending a card or anything, can you consider contributing to any congressional candidate dedicated to passing Medicare-for-All? Personally, I would surely have died without Medicare. You can find 33 Medicare-for-All candidates by clicking the thermometer on the right, both Senate candidates and House candidates. Even if you just want to give one dollar to one candidate... it would be a mitzvah. I know we're all thinking about the presidential race right now, but unless we get some good solid progressives into Congress, we're not going to get the fundamental, transformative change we need. Even if we elect a great president like Bernie or Elizabeth (or a Bernie-Elizabeth ticket), we're going to need more members like Ro Khanna and Pramila Jayapal and Ted Lieu, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Andy Levin and Jamie Raskin to pass the kind of progressive agenda the status quo establishment is going to fight ever step of the way to keep from being enacted.

Do Endorsements From Musicians Mean Anything When It Comes To Voting?

A reporter from Billboard called the other day to ask if association with musicians who endorse candidates is dangerous. I was right in the middle of putting together our next Blue America contest, which is a benefit for Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), the prize being an ultra-rare original Nirvana gold record (Nevermind) before they were really famous. Is the association with Nirvana going to help or hurt Jayapal, who has a strong presence of her own as the author of the new and improved Medicare-for-All bill and as the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Congress. Nope, it won't mean much to voters, even if it gives them the idea that Jayapal is a hipster.

I was in the music business for a long time. Musicians' involvement with candidates is fun and may draw a crowd, but I can't imagine anyone votes for or against a candidate because of an endorsement by a musician-- or any other cultural figure. Can you? Same with political figures. Biden's endorsements by some of the most reactionary, foot-dragging Democrats in Congress might make discerning voters decide to not vote for him. The tune Dianne Feinstein (CA), Doug Jones (AL), Chris Coons (DE), Tom Carper (DE), Stephen Lynch (MA), Lou Correa (CA), Charlie Crist (FL), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Filemon Vela (TX) is a cacophany of conservatism and corruption. Compare it to the sweet harmonies Bernie endorsers AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaib and Ro Khanna are singing.





Anyway, Annie Grayner, reporting for CNN, noted that all the coolest music energy is around Bernie (the coolest candidate): Ariana Grande, Cardi B, Jack White, New Power Generation (Prince's backing band), Killer Mike, Jason Mraz... On the other end of the spectrum, Mayo Pete has been endorsed by a mayonnaise sandwich on white bread and Mandy Moore.

But so far, Sanders is gaining traction in this musical primary.

On Wednesday, two members of indie band Dispatch joined the ranks. Brad Corrigan and Chad Stokes Urmston performed at Sanders' rally in New Hampshire and shared their support.

"It's a real honor to be here" Stokes Urmston told the crowd. "We've been Bernie fans for a long time now and really admire his courage to say what he believes all these years. It's the same thing from 30, 40 years ago, he's been saying the same thing and finally the world caught up to him."

"Let's get behind Bernie with all that we have" Corrigan added.

And ahead of Sanders' joint rally with Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis on Sunday, New Power Generation, Prince's longtime backing band, announced its endorsement.

"We're really proud to stand with Sen. Bernie Sanders as he attempts to bring America back to the people. It's time for the people to take back the government," said Morris Hayes, the late star's musical director and longest standing band member. "Like the good Senator says, it's not me or him, it's us."

Such support has come as the campaign aims to make live music central to its events, Sanders deputy campaign manager Ari Rabin-Havt said.

"One of the questions Bernie always asks before an event is do we have a band. So we try to have a musical event at every rally because that's something he really believes in" Rabin-Havt told CNN. "For Bernie, political events should be fun, should be cultural and should be entertaining. And it's not just I'm about getting famous musicians to perform. We try to have local musicians of a variety of genres from rap to blue grass to reggae perform."

That was on display last weekend, when Jack White, of the former band White Stripes, opened at Sanders' rally in Detroit, where Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib offered her endorsement to the Vermont senator.

In the middle of his seven-song set, White, performing at his high school alma mater, told the crowd why he backed Sanders.

"Listen, I've never done a political rally before. I'm not really politically affiliated too much. I don't consider myself a member of any party or anything I just listen to the issues" White said. "I want to listen to someone and understand that they're telling me the truth if I trust them. Bernie Sanders is telling the truth, and I really do trust him."

White noted that Sanders' position on abolishing the electoral college is what drew him toward the senator's candidacy. That endorsement came just days after singer Jason Mraz also announced his support for Sanders.

"To me, he's the only candidate who can continue to drain the swamp," Mraz wrote on his website.

...The Sanders campaign, of course, has incorporated other celebrities into their campaign. Actress Susan Sarandon, who supported and campaigned for Sanders in 2016, joined the senator once more on the campaign trail in Iowa over the summer. Rapper Killer Mike and actor and activist Danny Glover, who both endorsed Sanders in 2016, have also repeatedly joined Sanders on the campaign trail this time around. Actor Danny DeVito and John Cusack have also made appearance in support of the senator.

But the sway he holds with musicians continues on. Many have not gone as far as formally endorsing Sanders, but still have suggested an affinity for the politician.

On the day she released a remix of "Good as Hell" with Lizzo, Ariana Grande tweeted the lyric, "baby how u feelin."

Sanders, unprompted and not opting for the obvious lyrical reply ("Good as hell"), said, "Ready to fight for Medicare for All."

Grande retweeted Sanders' response: "screaming."

Lizzo has also shown an appreciation for Sanders. Over the summer, the singer called on her followers not to focus on Sanders' age and think critically about the Democratic presidential candidates.

And of course, rapper Cardi B has continued to show her support for Sanders.

Cardi B filmed a video with Sanders in July to talk about how his agenda will address raising the minimum wage and unemployment. The rapper tweeted earlier that month: "I been reading about Bernie Sanders and I'm really sad how we let him down in 2016."

Sanders returned the compliment.

"What it means is, what Cardi B does, not only is she an enormously popular entertainer, what she is doing is speaking to young people about the important issues that are on their minds and I applaud that very much," Sanders told CNN in July.

In 2006, Blue America persuaded Rickie Lee Jones to join with a couple of the guys from the Squirrel Nut Zippers, Tom Maxwell and Ken Mosher, to record a song, "Have You Had Enough," that was easily turned into customized radio spots and online ads for Democratic challengers like Kirsten Gillibrand and Chris Murphy (both of whom ousted Republican House incumbents that year and are now senators).

It's a shame none of the presidential candidates have persuaded Max Frost to turn his "Adderall" smash into an anti-Trump campaign song. Or, maybe it already is. The video would just need a few image swaps.

Can Trump Turn The Fed Into A Bastion Of Trumpnomics-- Enough To Make The Coming Recession Into A Depression?

When Trump nominated crackpot Stephen Moore for a spot on the Fed, I was shocked. That's even a crazy move for Trump. What was I missing? I asked the smartest economist I know, Stephanie Kelton. All she would say is that "It’s not an inspired choice, to say the least. Paul McCulley would have been an inspired choice." Conservative economist Greg Mankiw was considerably more forthcoming on his thoughts about the nomination.

Mankiw isn't famous because he teaches economics at Harvard, though he does. He's famous because he worked for both Bush-- for whom he served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors-- and for Mitt Romney. In 2011, while he was advising Romney and teaching at Harvard, dozens of students walked out of his lecture and went to a Occupy Wall Street demonstration, handing him an open letter on the way out:

Today, we are walking out of your class, Economics 10, in order to express our discontent with the bias inherent in this introductory economics course. We are deeply concerned about the way that this bias affects students, the University, and our greater society.

As Harvard undergraduates, we enrolled in Economics 10 hoping to gain a broad and introductory foundation of economic theory that would assist us in our various intellectual pursuits and diverse disciplines, which range from Economics, to Government, to Environmental Sciences and Public Policy, and beyond. Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific-- and limited-- view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today.

A legitimate academic study of economics must include a critical discussion of both the benefits and flaws of different economic simplifying models. As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics. There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.

Care in presenting an unbiased perspective on economics is particularly important for an introductory course of 700 students that nominally provides a sound foundation for further study in economics. Many Harvard students do not have the ability to opt out of Economics 10. This class is required for Economics and Environmental Science and Public Policy concentrators, while Social Studies concentrators must take an introductory economics course-- and the only other eligible class, Professor Steven Margolin’s class Critical Perspectives on Economics, is only offered every other year (and not this year). Many other students simply desire an analytic understanding of economics as part of a quality liberal arts education. Furthermore, Economics 10 makes it difficult for subsequent economics courses to teach effectively as it offers only one heavily skewed perspective rather than a solid grounding on which other courses can expand. Students should not be expected to avoid this class-- or the whole discipline of economics-- as a method of expressing discontent.

Harvard graduates play major roles in the financial institutions and in shaping public policy around the world. If Harvard fails to equip its students with a broad and critical understanding of economics, their actions are likely to harm the global financial system. The last five years of economic turmoil have been proof enough of this.

We are walking out today to join a Boston-wide march protesting the corporatization of higher education as part of the global Occupy movement. Since the biased nature of Economics 10 contributes to and symbolizes the increasing economic inequality in America, we are walking out of your class today both to protest your inadequate discussion of basic economic theory and to lend our support to a movement that is changing American discourse on economic injustice. Professor Mankiw, we ask that you take our concerns and our walk-out seriously.

His fame increased when he announced on CNBC that he wouldn't vote for Trump in 2016. On his blog he explained in more detail why he wouldn't vote for the Republican candidate for president:

I have Republican friends who think that things couldn't be worse than doubling down on Obama policies under Hillary Clinton. And, like them, I am no fan of the left's agenda of large government and high taxes. But they are wrong: Things could be worse. And I fear they would be under Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump has not laid out a coherent economic worldview, but one recurrent theme is hostility to a free and open system of international trade. From my perspective as an economics policy wonk, that by itself is disqualifying.

And then there are issues of temperament. I am not a psychologist, so I cannot figure out what Mr. Trump's personal demons are. But he does not show the admirable disposition that I saw in previous presidents and presidential candidates I have had the honor to work for.

I don't get the feeling he intends to vote for Trump in 2020 either. On Friday he wrote that the only good thing he credited Trump with, in his opinion, "making good appointments to the Fed.... Jay Powell, Rich Clarida, and Randy Quarles. Then today the president nominates Stephen Moore to be a Fed governor. Steve is a perfectly amiable guy, but he does not have the intellectual gravitas for this important job. If you doubt it, read his latest book Trumponomics (or my review of it). It is time for Senators to do their job. Mr. Moore should not be confirmed."

Moore wrote the universally panned book with Arthur Laffer and Mankiw's review for Foreign Affairs was titled Snake-Oil Economics-- The Bad Math Behind Trump’s Policies. Moore and Laffer, he wrote, presented their findings in the voice of "rah-rah partisans... who do not build their analysis on the foundation of professional consensus or serious studies from peer-reviewed journals. They deny that people who disagree with them may have some logical points and that there may be weaknesses in their own arguments. In their view, the world is simple, and the opposition is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Rah-rah partisans do not aim to persuade the undecided. They aim to rally the faithful." He feels that their "over-the-top enthusiasm" for Señor Trumpanzee's "sketchy economic agenda is not likely to convince anyone not already sporting a 'Make America Great Again' hat." 

Moore and Laffer served as economic advisers to Trump during his campaign and after he was elected president (along with Larry Kudlow, the current director of the National Economic Council, who wrote the book’s foreword). From this experience, Moore and Laffer apparently learned the importance of flattering the boss. In the first chapter alone, they tell us that Trump is a “gifted orator” who is always “dressed immaculately.” He is “shrewd,” “open-minded,” “no-nonsense,” and “bigger than life.” He is a “commonsense conservative” who welcomes “honest and fair-minded policy debates.” He is the “Mick Jagger of politics” with a contagious “enthusiasm and can-doism.”

The authors’ approach to policy is similarly bereft of nuance. In Chapter 3, they sum it up by proudly recounting what Moore told Trump about U.S. President Barack Obama during the campaign: “Donald, just look at all the things that Obama has done on the economy over the past eight years, and then do just the opposite.”

It is hard to imagine more simplistic, misguided advice. To be sure, Moore and Laffer can reasonably hold policy positions and political values to the right of those of Obama. (As someone who chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the George W. Bush administration, so do I.) But the Obama administration was filled with prominent economic advisers who were well within the bounds of mainstream economics: Jason Furman, Austan Goolsbee, Alan Krueger, Christina Romer, and Lawrence Summers, to name but a few. It is not tenable to suggest that with all this talent, the administration made only wrong decisions, and that they were wrong simply because those who made them were Democrats.

The tribalism of Moore and Laffer’s approach stems primarily from their devotion to a single issue: the level of taxation. Obama pursued higher taxes, especially on higher-income households. His goal was to fund a federal government that was larger and more active than many Republicans would prefer and to use the tax system to “spread the wealth around,” as he famously told Joe Wurzelbacher, known as Joe the Plumber, a man he encountered at a campaign stop in Ohio in 2008. By contrast, Moore and Laffer want lower taxes, especially on businesses, which in their view would promote faster economic growth.

The debate over taxes reflects a classic, ongoing disagreement between the left and the right. In 1975, Arthur Okun, a Brookings economist and former adviser to President Lyndon Johnson, wrote a short book called Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Okun argued that by using taxes and transfers of wealth to equalize economic outcomes, the government distorts incentives-- or that, to put it metaphorically, the harder the government tries to ensure that the economic pie is cut into slices of a similar size, the smaller the pie becomes. Based on this argument, the main priority of the Democratic Party is to equalize the slices, whereas the main priority of the Republican Party is to grow the pie.

Yet Moore and Laffer aren’t willing to admit that making policy requires confronting such difficult tradeoffs. Laffer is famous for his eponymous curve, which shows that tax rates can reach levels high enough that cutting them would yield enough growth to actually increase tax revenue. In that scenario, the tradeoff between equality and efficiency vanishes. The government can cut taxes, increase growth, and use the greater tax revenue to help the less fortunate. Everyone is better off.

The Laffer curve is undeniable as a matter of economic theory. There is certainly some level of taxation at which cutting tax rates would be win-win. But few economists believe that tax rates in the United States have reached such heights in recent years; to the contrary, they are likely below the revenue-maximizing level. In practice, the big tradeoff between equality and efficiency just won’t go away.

Trumponomics is full of exhortations about the importance of economic growth. Why, Moore and Laffer ask, should Americans settle for the two percent growth that many economists have been projecting? Wouldn’t every problem be easier to solve with a more rapidly expanding economy? The book quotes Trump as claiming, when announcing his tax plan in December 2017, that it would not increase the budget deficit because it would raise growth rates to “three, or four, five, or even six percent.”

The authors offer no credible evidence that the tax changes passed will lead to such high growth. Most studies yield far more modest projections. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Trump tax cuts will increase growth rates by 0.2 percentage points per year over the first five years. A study by Robert Barro (a conservative economist at Harvard) and Furman (a liberal economist at Harvard) published in 2018 estimates that the tax bill will increase annual growth by 0.13 percentage points over a decade. And that is if the changes are made permanent. Barro and Furman estimate that as the legislation is written, with many of the provisions set to expire in 2025, it will increase annual growth by a mere 0.04 percentage points over ten years.

It is conceivable that standard economic models underestimate the impact of tax cuts on growth. A research paper by the economists Christina Romer and David Romer published in 2010 examined historical tax changes and found that they had larger effects on economic activity than standard models suggest. (It is worth noting that these two authors’ political leanings are left of center, so their findings are not the result of ideological taint.) One might reasonably argue that Trump’s tax cuts will increase growth over the next decade by as much as half a percentage point per year. But that is a long way from the one- to four-percentage-point boost that the president and his associates have bragged of, and that Moore and Laffer quote without explanation, caveat, or apology.

...Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Trumponomics is the long list of crucial issues on which the authors are largely silent. They offer no cogent plans to deal with global climate change, the long-term fiscal imbalance from growing entitlement spending, or the increase in economic inequality that has occurred over the past half century. Many reasonable Republicans would support a tax on carbon emissions, for example. Such a policy would slow climate change by incentivizing the movement toward cleaner energy, as well as provide revenue that could be used to close the fiscal gap or to help those struggling at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Rather than suggesting coherent policies, Moore and Laffer seem to hope that a much more rapidly growing economy will provide the resources to address all these problems, and they seem to believe that this growth will follow ineluctably from the lower taxes and deregulation that lie at the heart of Trump’s agenda. It would be wonderful if that were possible. Maybe rah-rah partisans really believe it is. But more likely, it is just wishful thinking. Trump appears eager to avoid most of the economic problems facing the nation. By banking on so much growth from cutting taxes, Moore and Laffer are, in effect, giving him a pass and kicking the can down the road to a future leader more interested in confronting hard policy choices.

Are there enough Republicans in the Senate with enough good sense and courage to deny Moore his confirmation? I doubt it. In fact, it's probably more likely that Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin vote to confirm that it is that more than one or two Republicans vote not to, even though some Republicans have been grumbling about Moore's column advocating that Trump fire Fed Chair Jay Powell (a Trump appointee who, like so many, Trump quickly soured on).

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?"

No, The Founding Fathers Weren't "Ordinary Men," Not In The Way Scott Walker Means It

Trump's knowledge of American history is as thorough as his knowledge of everything other than grifting. That's why so many morons love him so much; they see themselves in him. I guess there's nothing we can do about that. Even when Max Boot speculated in his Post column yesterday that "If Trump announced he were going to spit-roast immigrant kids and eat them on national TV (apologies to Jonathan Swift), most Republicans probably would approve of that too," he was right on target. Anyone-- including Boot-- who thinks there is anything Robert Mueller could find that will that will shatter his hold on the affections of his moron followers is just whistling Dixie. "Imagine," wrote Boot, "what would happen if special counsel Robert S. Mueller III finds clear evidence of criminality or if Trump’s trade wars tank the economy... if it does, it might-- just might-- shake the 88 percent GOP support that Trump currently enjoys. That, in turn, could open the way for a credible primary challenge... To use one of Boot's own metaphor sources, Wrong 'Em Boyo.



Remember when the idiot talked about what a great future he saw for Frederick Douglass? That's his knowledge of history. I don't want to say that the whole party don't know much about history... but... scholar's they don't tend to be these days. Another genius, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, getting his voters ready for some unconstitutional activities, has been a big proponent of spreading the idea that the founding fathers were "ordinary people."

Well, is some ways Scott Walker was correct. Here's half a dozen:

• each one had a nose from which he breathed
• each one ate food through a mouth
• each one got tired and slept
• each one had feet to walk with
• each one was born of a mother
• each one was, in Walker's own words, a patriot who risked his life for the freedoms we hold dear today

There are reasons their collective endeavor-- the founding of our country including the war for independence and then the Constitution-- has held up, had something to do with just how extraordinary these men were. PolitiFact Wisconsin though, decided that instead of contradicting Walker, they would give him and other Republicans a little history lesson about who the Founding Fathers' fathers were.

After consulting several scholars and other sources, we found that-- with some exceptions-- central figures in the nation’s founding generally came from privileged backgrounds, attended college at a time when very few people did and, by 1776, were prominent and wealthy.

"They weren't ordinary," said Brown University emeritus history professor Gordon Wood, author of Creation of the American Republic, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different and other books. "They were the elite of the day, involved in highest levels of the society."

Paul Finkelman, a scholar-in-residence at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, was among the historians who agreed with that assessment. But noting that Benjamin Franklin’s formal education ended when he was 10, Finkelman added, "the notion that some of the founding fathers were self-made is true."

While there is no set group of founding fathers, lists of the major ones usually include the following six, as listed by the National Archives’ Founders Online.

Here’s a look at their early years, as well as where they were by 1776:

John Adams

Adams was born into a "comfortable, but not wealthy, Massachusetts farming family," according to the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, which specializes in political history. His father earned a living as a farmer and shoemaker. His early education was strong enough that he entered Harvard College at the age of 15.

Adams became the lawyer with the largest number of clients in highly competitive Boston, said University of West Georgia history professor emeritus John Ferling, the author of 11 books on the American Revolution and its leaders.

In the Continental Congress-- the body of delegates who represented the people of the colony-states that later became the United States of America-- he was the leader of the faction pushing for independence in 1776. He later became vice president and then the nation’s second president.

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was the son of a man who made soap and candles, which Encyclopedia Britannica terms "one of the lowliest of the artisan crafts" at the time. Franklin learned to read very early and had one year in grammar school and another under a private teacher, but his formal education ended at age 10. At 12, he was apprenticed to one of his brothers as a printer and "taught himself to write effectively." He founded a weekly newspaper at age 16.

Franklin, Finkelman told us, "is the classic self-made American." He eventually became wealthy enough that, at age 42, he became "perhaps the first American we know of to retire," Finkelman said. He was a significant property owner, owned a successful publishing business and was an internationally known scientist. Franklin was a slave owner when he helped draft the Declaration of Independence, but became one of the early abolitionists when, at 81, he was at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Finkelman said.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton was born in the British West Indies, the illegitimate son of a "poor itinerant Scottish merchant of aristocratic descent and an English-French Huguenot mother who was a planter's daughter," according to the National Archives. He received a "basic education" and became an apprentice clerk in a mercantile establishment. The proprietor and others recognized Hamilton’s "ambition and superior intelligence" and raised money to further his education, which included time at what became Columbia University in New York.

Finkelman said that after Hamilton joined the Army, he quickly became George Washington’s aide-de-camp with rank of lieutenant colonel. Hamilton wrote pamphlets and newspaper essays favoring independence in 1774 and 1775. In 1789, he became the nation’s first secretary of the treasury. In 1804, he was mortally wounded in a duel with a political rival, Aaron Burr.

James Madison

Madison’s father inherited and married into substantial wealth, according to the Miller Center. Madison was a "sickly child" who also suffered from psychosomatic, or stress-induced, seizures, similar to epileptic fits, "that plagued him on and off throughout his youth." But by the time he entered what became Princeton University, Madison had mastered Greek and Latin under the direction of private tutors.

Ferling noted that Madison was a leading figure in the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, served as the leader in the First House of Representatives and drafted the Bill of Rights. According to Finkelman, Madison owned at least 100 slaves, inherited wealth and land from his father, and married into wealthy family. He was president from 1809 to 1817.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was born on a slave plantation in central Virginia, according to Monticello.org. His father was a planter and surveyor, and his mother was the daughter of a well-known Virginia family. When Jefferson was 14, his father died and he inherited about 3,000 acres of land and about 30 slaves. Jefferson went to the College of William and Mary, then studied and practiced law.

Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. According to Finkelman, he owned two major plantations and 150 to 200 slaves which, by modern standards, means he was a billionaire. Jefferson followed Washington and Adams as the third president.

George Washington

Washington was a member of Virginia’s gentry, born on his father’s plantation, according to MountVernon.org. Augustine Washington was a leading planter in the area and also served as a justice of the county court.

After Augustine died, when George was 11, "the income from what remained was just sufficient to maintain Mary Washington and her children" and George "undoubtedly helped his mother manage" the plantation where they lived. His formal education ended at age 15, before that of many gentlemen’s sons.

Washington trained as a surveyor before entering the military. Virginia’s governor appointed Washington, at age 22, to command the colony’s army in the French and Indian War, Ferling said. Washington went on to become a wealthy farmer and businessman before being appointed commander of the Continental army in 1775. Finkelman said by this time, Washington owned thousands of acres of land and hundreds of slaves. He served two terms as president.

PolitiFact added that the Founding Fathers "were all far from ordinary in terms of income, wealth, education, and social standing." But, to be fair, I don't think that's what Walker meant. Walker is an ordinary man, a profoundly flawed one. My guess is that he was trying to get across to Wisconsin voters that the Founding Fathers were also flawed-- ordinary like him in that way-- and could make mistakes that had to be corrected. And it is true that there are grievous historical errors in the Constitution, for example, errors that had to be corrected, something foreseen by the Founding Fathers, who included an amendment process, which gave us the Bill of Right, eventually abolished slavery, gave women legal equality, pohibited the denial of the right to vote based on race and then based on gender.

Constitutional Amendments generally gave more rights to people. Conservatives, Republicans, people like Scott Walker and Señor Trumpanzee aren't looking to expand rights; they look to narrow them and take them away.

I Am A Recovering Racist-- Guest Post By Bruce Mulkey

It’s in times such as these that I am compelled to acknowledge my own racism. For though I was raised by white liberal parents who early on supported Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights movement during the Sixties, I grew up in America, in fact, in the South, and thus I unconsciously took on common beliefs and attitudes prevalent in the dominant cultural paradigm about people whose skin was darker than mine. “White people are smarter.” “Black people are better athletes.” Etcetera. And though I’ve become conscious of those beliefs, I have not rooted them all out and doubt that I ever will. At the very least, however, I can notice when my mind makes snap judgments (young black man driving a late model SUV = drug dealer) and recognize them for the falsehoods they are.

It’s in times such as these that I am compelled to acknowledge how I’ve benefited and continue to benefit from white privilege. From attending high school in my youth in a new building with relatively current textbooks while black kids on the other side of town were all segregated into one old building with hand-me-down books from the white schools to currently walking down the streets of Asheville at any time of day or night without fear of being harassed by the police, I have benefited from white privilege.

It’s in times such as these that I am compelled to acknowledge that I live in a nation that was built on a foundation of white supremacy-- from the genocide of Native Americans whose land we stole, to the enslavement and subjugation of black people for the wealth their labor could bring, to the current slaughter of people of color in the Middle East for their oil.

It’s in times such as these that I’m compelled to acknowledge that all our thoughts and prayers, conversations about race, demonstrations against injustice, voting for worthy candidates, passing laws, etcetera, none of these efforts will bring about the reconciliation we say we seek until we come to grips with our sordid past and our ongoing deadly incursions into the affairs of other nations, until we ask for forgiveness from and offer reparations to the peoples we have harmed.



Bruce Mulkey is an essayist and author. He lives in Asheville. He is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post, the Good Men Project, and OpEd News. Learn more at his blog: brucemulkey.com