Ted Rall's Bernie Bio Has Extra Relevance in the Wake of the Democrats' Presidential Defeat

[portlander23]

Ted Rall's Bernie Bio Has Extra Relevance in the Wake of the Democrats' Presidential Defeat
Hans Rollman
Pop Matters

The opening third of the book, summarizing Democratic political strategy since the ‘60s, resonates even more strongly in the wake of Clinton’s defeat, because her defeat proves Rall’s thesis right. Successive (yet for the most part unsuccessful) Democratic strategists and political consultants argued that the Democratic Party was too far to the left of the average voter. He illustrates how, ever since Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern in 1972, the Democrats have become obsessed with the notion that they can only win by moving to the right.

Indeed, people continued doing so until 1992, when Democrat Bill Clinton won the presidency. Rall attributes this to his challenger (and predecessor) George H. W. Bush’s failure to address the ongoing recession, as well as the Reform Party candidacy of billionaire Ross Perot, who was able to use his enormous personal wealth to make his third party a viable challenge. Clinton claimed Democratic cred by ceding tiny ground on social issues—gays in the military, for example—while continuing to push the party to the right on everything else, from free trade to corporate investment. The right-wing Democrats were convinced their strategy was working and continued trying to chip away at the Republican voter base by adopting increasingly right-wing policies; all the while ignoring the fact that they were losing their left and progressive voter and support base.

Rall published his biography of Sanders before the presidential nominations were decided; hopeful, no doubt, that it might do its part in boosting support for Sanders. In retrospect however, the 2016 US election proved Rall’s argument. By moving to the right over the past four decades, the Democratic party has lost its progressive support base. It’s also alienated the very ‘swing votes’ it was obsessed with following. Voters aren’t stupid, and they recognized that the Democrats were simply putting forward right-wingers in disguise. Why vote for seemingly dishonest right-wingers pretending to be progressive, when you can vote for someone just as right-wing who doesn’t try to deceive you by hiding their stripes?

There will be many short-term challenges for Democrats and liberals and progressives of all stripes. But the long-term challenge for Democrats, if they wish to rebuild their party, will be to figure out how to reverse a rightward shift that has become deeply structural and deeply ingrained in the party.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. "Bernie Bro"?

What nonsense.

[JudyM]

3. Bio

[JudyM]

5. The OP doesn't say Bernie bro, bro.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. I've been assessing whether a new eye exam would be needed...

...and I realize I misread the OP.

However, given how the term "bro" has been thrown around here as a term of misogyny in the lst six months, I'd appreciate that you would rescind your ",bro" comment.

[JudyM]

10. We Berners need to recapture/rehab it, is my opinion.

[Cooley Hurd]

11. The last 2 years can only make the movement stronger.

[JudyM]

2. .

[lapucelle]

6. Was the Pop Matters writer familiar with this year's Democratic platform

or this year's Democratic candidates?

"Voters aren’t stupid, and they recognized that the Democrats were simply putting forward right-wingers in disguise."

I can't take stuff reported from an alternate universe seriously.

[JHan]

7. ACA, Gay Marriage, the so called "obsession" with "Identity Politics" , investing in renewables..

strengthening regulatory bodies ( too much some argue) .. yes , these things are really "right wing" issues from "right wing" politicians in dem clothing.


Right.

[portlander23]

8. Well

The Affordable Care Act forces people to buy for-profit private insurance policies or pay a fine. Certainly people who had no access to coverage at all have been helped by subsidies or medicaid expansion, but people have been harmed as well. A friend of mine was able to have his first child because he'd never had coverage before. On the contrary, my sister who lives in NYC lost her existing coverage and was forced onto a plan that did not cover any out of network or out of state expenses, and was not accepted by any of her cancer doctors.

A market based solution that looks a lot like RomneyCare is hardly a win for liberals.

And on gay marriage, as someone who was out on the streets working on marriage equality referendums, this was a victory by activists through state by state action and ultimately in the courts. I don't recall a Democratic piece of legislation that passed marriage equality for the nation.

I do think the author of this piece is too hard on the Democratic Party, but that's not to pretend that the party hasn't drifted to the right.

[JHan]

12. So an imperfect system as it stands..

is enough reason to question the liberalism of Democrats? And is a sign the party has drifted to the right? Incremental steps in an environment where we have a VERY conservative congress matters little?

For instance, I don't agree with an artificial increase to the minimum wage of $15. Not because I don't believe that workers shouldn't have decent wages, but I know the impact this will have on small-medium sized business owners - if they can't match the increase they will fire workers- so how about a phase out- an incremental increase. Ideally I would love the minimum wage to be around $24 to match inflation, but growth, as it stands, makes it difficult for struggling businesses to meet the target of $15, let alone my wish ($24) Does this make me less of a liberal?

I admire France's healthcare set up - it includes private insurers with enough government expansion to ensure wide coverage-while giving the French the option of private plans - Do I have to drop my liberal cred now?

I also believe one of the reasons Crony Capitalism has become rampant is because the FDA has fallen into "regulatory capture", needs regulatory reform, because as it stands, companies enjoy monopolising the market without competition from smaller start ups or companies on the up and up - should I stop calling myself a liberal?

Free College - I don't agree with Sander's approach to solving tuition inflation , I do agree colleges should be more affordable, but his plan didn't make sense to me - expressing misgivings means I'm leaning to the right?

Where I can agree with the idea of "moving to the right" , is the way the Democrats have capitulated to the Republican path of unnecessary military intervention, perhaps they had no choice. The wheels were set in motion since the 80's ( and even before that) and we're playing catch up and trying to close the pandora's box we opened. Still drones - is a shift, but hardly the fault of Democrats alone.

Because we disagree on solutions, doesn't make me or anyone else who has misgivings about the progressive agenda, any less of a liberal.

[portlander23]

13. Case in point

For instance, I don't agree with an artificial increase to the minimum wage of $15. Not because I don't believe that workers shouldn't have decent wages, but I know the impact this will have on small-medium sized business owners - if they can't match the increase they will fire workers- so how about a phase out- an incremental increase. Ideally I would love the minimum wage to be around $24 to match inflation, but growth, as it stands, makes it difficult for struggling businesses to meet the target of $15, let alone my wish ($24) Does this make me less of a liberal?

This is precisely the right wing critique of the minimum wage. That raising the minimum wage puts too much of a burden on business and will cut jobs.

The position from the left is that if businesses pay workers less than a living wage and government has to step in with programs like food assistance, then we're all subsidizing employers.

I also believe one of the reasons Crony Capitalism has become rampant is because the FDA has fallen into "regulatory capture", needs regulatory reform, because as it stands, companies enjoy monopolising the market without competition from smaller start ups or companies on the up and up - should I stop calling myself a liberal?

While regulatory capture is a real problem, the notion that regulations exist to protect entrenched players is the libertarian critique of government regulation.

I can't say much about your position on education as you've not made and specific proposals. I do think education should be funded by the government up to the PHD level or even trade schools. It just makes economic sense to invest in a person as you more than make it back in tax revenue.

But yes, this market-view of the world is in fact historically less liberal than the Democratic party has been before Carter, and certainly before Clinton.

When we look at the exit polls, it's clear that class issues were a major issue in the election:

Stop Obsessing Over White Working-Class Voters
Joshua Holland
Rolling Stone

It's true that in 2016, non-college whites swung to the GOP by a 15-point margin relative to 2012. But Clinton underperformed Obama among voters of all races who make less than $30,000 per year by an identical margin. If the pundits were churning out hundreds of columns about how the Dems need to win back low-income voters, it would likely have a more salutary effect on Democratic policy.

Economic justice does matter. It's hard to imaging that the working poor wouldn't have been attracted to a platform that proposed education and health care as a right, a real commitment to living wages, and a move away from free trade agreements that move jobs to the lowest cost labor markets across the globe.

So, I don't think this is a superficial difference. The primary showed that there is a very real rift on the left, and I haven't seen any evidence that it's gone away.

[JHan]

15. You're proving my point in a way...

Dismissing a point as "right wing" shuts down debate. Let's engage with the point -

You immediately jumped to assume I was against the minimum wage. I favor an incremental increase pegged to inflation rather than a hike of $15 immediately. To implement an immediate hike will be disruptive - it will increase the cost of hiring workers, there will be a fall on effect on prices ,some businesses will just fire their staff and some will reduce the hours of their workers. Increasing the miniumn wage to 15 and assuming that will solve our wage stagnation woes is selling false hope-- I'm not a growth-addict but current growth levels don't cut it - that should be the priority.

"While regulatory capture is a real problem, the notion that regulations exist to protect entrenched players is the libertarian critique of government regulation. "

And there's merit to that argument. Unfortunately, there's a strong temptation to constantly frame regulatory excess in the context of wanting to hold large corporations to account, but that myopia blinds us to how excessive regulations harm small businesses in a variety of professions. Take hair braiding for example:

"For almost 20 years, Isis has fought Texas over her right to braid hair and to pass on her knowledge to others. Her struggle recently culminated in a major federal court decision earlier this month, which shined a spotlight on occupational licensing. Today, millions of Americans, like Isis, have to seek permission from the government—or fight back—before they can do their jobs.

Isis has been braiding since 1979 and has taught others in the art of natural hair care since 1984. Like many African braiders, Isis doesn’t use chemicals, dyes or coloring agents when she braids, twists or weaves hair. As she put it, her personal philosophy is “healing through hair.”

But in 1997, seven uniformed and undercover officers handcuffed Isis in front of her customers and dragged her out of her salon in Dallas. She had previously been found guilty and convicted for the surreal offense of braiding hair without a cosmetology license.


After a decade of fighting for reform, in 2007, Texas acquiesced and created a separate, 35-hour hair-braiding certificate. The state “grandfathered” Isis in, and honored her as the first natural-hair-care expert in the state. Finally, Isis could legally braid hair for a living."

All this is a reflection of an obsession with regulation throughout the federal government.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/01/29/hair-braiding-and-occupational-licensing/2/#116bd618837a

wanting regulatory reform doesn't mean I want massive deregulation - it also doesn't make me less of a liberal.

As for College:

First time I heard Bernie's plan I had a problem. This is my understanding of it - He made comparisons with Germany but Germany's set up is different. Germany applies stringent price controls - Sanders wants to beef up Federal Grants for undergraduates instead of imposing price controls. The problem with Grants is that it's no incentive for Universities to lower their costs. A study by the New York Federal Reserve found :

"When students fund their education through loans, changes in student borrowing and tuition are interlinked. Higher tuition costs raise loan demand, but loan supply also affects equilibrium tuition costs—for example, by relaxing students’ funding constraints. To resolve this simultaneity problem, we exploit detailed student-level financial data and changes in federal student aid programs to identify the impact of increased student loan funding on tuition. We find that institutions more exposed to changes in the subsidized federal loan program increased their tuition disproportionately around these policy changes, with a sizable pass-through effect on tuition of about 65 percent. We also find that Pell Grant aid and the unsubsidized federal loan program have pass-through effects on tuition, although these are economically and statistically not as strong. The subsidized loan effect on tuition is most pronounced for expensive, private institutions that are somewhat, but not among the most, selective."

So colleges that benefit most from federal aid programs slapped on a 65 cent increase, on the dollar, courtesy these Assistance Grants. This further has an effect on student debt ( it becomes a vicious cycle)

In Germany, the culture is also different. There are jobs you can get without a degree, that require a degree here - Sanders once correctly assessed that we treat College degrees like high school diplomas. So we need to focus more on creating alternative paths to prosperity which don't require a degree - the sort of apprenticeship programs both he and Hillary talked about.

This article is a good summary of the flaws in Bernie's Free College Plan.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/31/back-to-school-why-bernie-sanders-college-plan-fails-to-make-the-grade

[portlander23]

17. No one's calling for an immediate hike

All proposed minimum wage legislation increases the wage over time. However, the idea that minimum wage increases hurt employers and kill jobs is literally the right-wing position.

On the topic of regulation, yes regulations can be used to erect market barriers, but they can also be used to make sure the air we breathe is clean. Without getting into one-offs, the idea that regulations primary exist to erect market barriers and to interfere with markets is indeed a libertarian position.

Again, the market view of tuition is a right-wing worldview. If you want to look at why tuition has been going up, you need to look at more than what students are paying.

Why Tuition Has Skyrocketed at State Schools
CATHERINE RAMPELL
New York Times

Some of the rising cost has to do with other services schools have been adding over the last few decades, like mental health counselors and emergency alert systems. And certainly there are other inefficiencies that have crept into the system as higher education has become more things to more people.

But at least at public colleges and universities — which enroll three out of every four American college students — the main cause of tuition growth has been huge state funding cuts.

Every recession, states face a budget squeeze as their tax revenue falls and demand for their services rises. They have to cut something, and higher education is often a prime target.

Why? Struggling states have to prioritize other mandatory spending, like Medicaid. Higher education usually falls under the “discretionary spending” part of the budget — and in fact is often one of the biggest programs, if not the biggest, in the discretionary category.

I think we can find common ground in the danger of leaving certain spending decisions to states run by the GOP - which is most of them, lest we break our arms patting ourselves on the back for a symbolic popular vote win, but the idea the education is a public good, not a market commodity, is the liberal perspective. So while we can argue about how to do that, I don't support the government making loans out to students, at a profit, to spend on either public or private for-profit institutions.

Education is a national infrastructure, and should be treated as such.

So, yes, I do think there is a very real rift in the Democratic Party from FDR/Great Society Liberals, and DLC Neoliberals. Turning to the markets to solve the problems of governing the commons, even though we agree on what the problems are, is and will likely continue to be something that divides the left from the "center".

[JHan]

19. again I have to stress..

I am not for "Deregulation"- I don't want to see massive deregulation. Of course we need regulations to keep us safe - but when we see unintended consequences as a result of excessive regulation, we should admit the need for reform. Not treat regulatory reform as though it's a dirty right wing idea.

"kill jobs is literally the right-wing position. " - It's just logic. Higher costs to hiring means business owners will find ways to cover the expense. Even Bernie admitted the increase would have a fall on effect on prices. This is basic stuff. check Seattle: there's nothing here to make me question the data: http://www.aei.org/publication/early-evidence-suggests-that-seattles-radical-experiment-might-be-a-model-for-the-rest-of-the-nation-not-to-follow/

"So, yes, I do think there is a very real rift in the Democratic Party from FDR/Great Society Liberals, and DNC Neoliberals. Turning to the markets to solve problems, even though we agree on what the problems are, is and will likely continue to be something that divides the left from the "center". " - what we should not do is treat "the market" as though it were a dirty word. Or "capitalism".

I'm ok with disagreements, as long as we hash them out honestly. But the name calling and accusations merely because we have different solutions to the same problems we recognize are problems don't help - this is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives- Liberals agree on the things that are problems, but may disagree on the solutions: Conservatives don't agree with us on what the problems are in the first place.

[portlander23]

20. kill jobs is literally the right-wing position

"kill jobs is literally the right-wing position. " - it's an observable fact in Seattle: there's nothing here to make me question the data: http://www.aei.org/publication/early-evidence-suggests-that-seattles-radical-experiment-might-be-a-model-for-the-rest-of-the-nation-not-to-follow/

You do realize that the American Enterprise Institute is a right wing think tank and that AEI staff members were the architects of the Bush public and foreign policy? People like John R. Bolton, Lynne Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz? I'm not trying being dismissive when I say this is the right-wing position, I'm trying to be descriptive.

We do have disagreements, but I don't think they're skin deep. I would also disagree that conservatives don't agree with liberal on core problems- conservatives are the heroes of their own narrative and want the country to be better. They just have a very different world view of what that means.

Similarly I do think there is a idealogical difference between the pre-DLC view and the post view and I don't know how that gets resolved.

[JHan]

21. is the data cited wrong?

which is why I said there was nothing in the data he shared for me to question it...And on top of all the subsidies businesses receive, why is this still an issue? All these businesses can't just be greedy and morally decrepit right? either they can meet the costs or they should shut down - which will cost jobs.

And who decides what the perfect minimum wage ceiling should be ? why $15? Why not $24 ( as I would prefer- I'd LOVE wages to rise) My issue is implementing an immediate hike, set by legislative fiat, and the unintended consequences of doing so ..

I edited my previous post by adding that even Bernie acknowledged in the debates that there would be a fall on effect on prices- (price inflation) even though he dismissed it nonchalantly ( he should not have). But It makes sense- higher costs in hiring results in businesses finding ways to cover expenses. This isn't even arguable. That businesses will see decreased profits - this is not even arguable - they WILL find ways to circumvent this by one of the ways I mentioned.

[portlander23]

22. Yes, the report is wrong

And it comes from a group with an agenda.

States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says
SCOTT NEUMAN
NPR
July 19, 2014

New data released by the Department of Labor shows that raising the minimum wage in some states does not appear to have had a negative impact on job growth, contrary to what critics said would happen.

In a report on Friday, the 13 states that raised their minimum wages on Jan. 1 have added jobs at a faster pace than those that did not. The data run counter to a Congressional Budget Office report in February that said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as the White House supports, could cost as many as 500,000 jobs.

Raise Wages, Kill Jobs? Seven Decades of Historical Data Find no Correlation Between Minimum Wage Increases and Employment Levels
National Employment Law Project
Paul K. Sonn and Yannet Lathrop

Since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, business interests and conservative politicians have warned that raising the minimum wage would be ruinous. Even modest increases, they’ve asserted, will cause the U.S. economy to hemorrhage jobs, shutter businesses, reduce labor hours, and disproportionately cast young people, so-called low-skilled workers, and workers of color to the bread lines. As recently as this year, the same claims have been repeated, nearly verbatim.

Raise wages, lose jobs, the refrain seems to go.

If the claims of minimum-wage opponents are akin to saying “the sky is falling,” this report is an effort to check whether the sky did indeed fall. In this report, we examine the historical data relating to the 22 increases in the federal minimum wage between 1938 and 2009 to determine whether or not these claims—that if you raise wages, you will lose jobs—can be substantiated. We examine employment trends before and after minimum-wage increases, looking both at the overall labor market and at key indicator sectors that are most affected by minimum-wage increases. Rather than an academic study that seeks to measure causal effects using techniques such as regression analysis, this report assesses opponents’ claims about raising the minimum wage on their own terms by examining simple indicators and job trends.

And who decides what the perfect minimum wage ceiling should be ? why $15? Why not $24

And, the "why not $X?" is a right wing frame.

Why Not a $100 Per Hour Minimum Wage?
American Thinker
Dan Nagasaki and Glenn Doi

President Obama announced that he's supporting a federal, inflation-adjusted minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $9.00 per hour. Even if he settles for $8 per hour, this seems irresponsible in light of our stubbornly slow economic recovery. But if the government is going to raise the minimum wage, why stop at such a low wage rate? If higher minimum wages are so wonderful, why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $50 or $100 per hour? I'll answer that and conclude with why I believe the assumption that employees need to be protected from employers, and the resulting legislation which places the primary responsibility for a successful employer-employee relationship on the employer, makes for less productive employees, and results in employees who stay and stagnate, instead of moving on to other jobs and responsibilities to earn more money, respect, or job satisfaction.

For the sake of argument, let's say that this figure is $7 per hour. Some employers will begin outsourcing certain jobs or tasks to other U.S. companies or overseas operations. Others will begin to reduce work hours or employees. Others will be less generous to existing employees in terms of pay raises or benefits. Others will begin relying more on mechanical or technological methods, because long-term, the expense of these methods now makes sense in the face of rising wages. Others will be less willing to hire those with no job experience or skills (students and the undereducated poor, for example), because these workers, at least for a while, are not very productive and certainly aren't worth the higher wages, benefits, and risk of lawsuit. The effects aren't always immediately apparent, but long-term, a high enough minimum wage level will start to have a negative effect on jobs.

This is literally the right wing argument against living wages, and it's wrong.

[JHan]

23. you didn't address the actual report.

you cited articles which don't address the report in question : You can't cite an article written in 2014 to refute a report done as a result of a minimum wage increase to $15 in Seattle in 2015. You can go to the census bureau page the article linked to see the data yourself.

And you ignored the economic argument I made: Increased costs have fall on effects. This is not arguable.

Personally, I would rather a Universal basic income. It's about time we did that. ..

We're obsessed with jobs. :http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028313107

[portlander23]

24. OK we're just going to have to disagree

I don't think a report from the AEI is credible. They have an agenda and all their reports will meet that agenda. On the other side we have actual results across recent increases in 13 states, and several decades of evidence.

If making the right-wing argument about how employers can't bear the cost of minimum wage increases is the hill you want to die on, have at it.

[JHan]

25. I've edited my post, check it..

It's economics. We don't have to like it, but it is what it is.

[portlander23]

26. Sure. We just disagree on what it is

One more party division.

[SidDithers]

14. Ted Rall is a racist piece of shit, who drew Obama as an ape...nt

Sid

[portlander23]

18. Is this the right wing meme that government jobs aren't real jobs?