Seattle’s Liberal Reckoning

EMT and Police give first aid to a shooting victim in downtown on January 22 , 2020 in Seattle , Washington .
( Photo by Chris Porter/Getty Images ) Seattle is in the grip of a far-left mindset .
That became all the more evident , as if evidence were needed , during last year ’ s city council elections .
Many foresaw these as likely to bring to leadership a new breed of business-backed politicians bent on repudiating the council ’ s progressive-socialist leanings .
Finally , it was predicted , a sane brand of political moderation would emerge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t happen .
In the campaign ’ s final days , the top issue became the intent of Amazon and its leader Jeff Bezos to “ buy ” the election with a $ 1.5 million cash infusion into the coffers of the city ’ s business coalition .
“ Within days , ” wrote Christopher Rufo of Seattle ’ s City Journal , “ the referendum on a failed city council had been transformed into a referendum on corporate power.
” There could be no question as to who would win that contest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ the most liberal city council in history , ” one that seems to be “ out for revenge ” against business interests and their moderate supporters .
The stated agenda of many city council members now includes rent control , drug-consumption sites , the decriminalization of prostitution , the legalization of homeless encampments , the defunding of significant police programs , free public transit , and big new taxes on the rich , with particular emphasis , not surprisingly , on Amazon and its top executives .
A question that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what extent this potent liberal sensibility contributed to the ghastly downtown event that occurred in January 2019 .
That was when three men , apparently street gang members , got embroiled in a rush-hour gunfight at the crowded intersection of Pine Street and Third Avenue .
A 50-year-old female , described by the Seattle Times as a “ joyful woman who lived a rich life , ” was killed , and seven others were wounded , including one of the shooters .
After the melee , police found some 20 shell casings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper ’ s extensive coverage of the event and its aftermath didn ’ t explicitly raise the question of liberalism ’ s culpability , it nevertheless seemed to be on the minds of some Seattleites interviewed by the Times .
A main focus for many was why these men were on the street in the first place and why city officials can ’ t find effective ways to combat such violence .
Those who initiated the gun battle had extensive criminal records that reflected a certain persistent laxity in the application of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Tragic violence , unsurprising story.
” The subhead : “ Seattle ’ s long-running effort to address crime and sporadic violence downtown falls short.
” Attention turned inevitably to the three suspects .
One of them , Jamel Jackson , 21 , had previously been involved in a violent incident at the same downtown intersection , when he allegedly punched and kicked a victim who got embroiled with a female gang member in the middle of a large crowd .
He had in his possession a loaded 9-mm handgun .
He avoided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to illegal firearm possession , for which he was sentenced to four months of home detention .
According to the Times , he had been told by at least four superior court judges that he was not to possess firearms , a proscription that he apparently ignored with impunity .
The other suspects , Marquis Tolbert and William Tolliver , both 24 , had extensive criminal records when apprehended by police in Nevada on February 1 .
The Times reported that Tolbert had been arrested by Seattle-area police at least 50 times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 times .
Both were taken into custody in 2018 in connection with a drive-by shooting , but the charge against Tolliver was dismissed “ in the interest of justice , ” according to court documents that didn ’ t elaborate .
Tolbert got the drive-by shooting charge dismissed , along with two other felony charges , when he pleaded guilty to ripping a $ 1,500 gold necklace from the neck of a woman in a Seattle suburb .
For that crime , he was sentenced to a year and a day in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and 18 months of “ community supervision ” after the prison term .
Almost immediately he violated the terms of his community supervision , and an arrest warrant was issued for him last August 19 .
But he was never apprehended and thus was at large on January 22 to involve himself in the bloody Seattle gun battle .
That ’ s the problem , in the view of Jon Scholes , president of a group called the Downtown Seattle Association .
The Times quoted him as saying , “ What we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the heart of our city is a haven for criminals.
” He advocated a police force expansion , redeployment of officers from special units to patrol duties , and greater efforts to apprehend people with open warrants such as Tolliver and Tolbert .
“ We need… ” said Scholes , “ more dedicated resources to deal with the people that we know are cycling through the criminal justice system .
They ’ re thumbing their nose at the system and the community.
” But city officials , true to their liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ availability of guns .
The Times quoted Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best as saying that the problem was “ people with guns who shouldn ’ t have had the guns , in an area firing shots.
” And Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan , while pledging to fight crime on many fronts , also emphasized the gun issue .
“ If this had been a fistfight eight people would not have ended up at the hospital , ” she said .
“ There are too many guns in our country.
” Former mayor Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem of violent crime simply couldn ’ t be addressed effectively through greater police efforts .
“ We ’ ve tried more arrests , ” he said .
“ That doesn ’ t actually work.
” He favored youth programs and “ reentry ” efforts to wean criminals away from criminal activity .
Seattle is not a high-crime city , at least in terms of violent crime .
But it is grappling with a homelessness crisis that is sapping civic stability and fostering a large increase in petty lawbreaking .
Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem incapable of addressing this erosion in any serious way .
In his searing documentary of last year , “ Seattle is Dying , ” KOMO-TV ’ s Eric Johnson painted a dire picture by citing police officers who say the city ’ s lax enforcement regimen has tied their hands , quoting citizens saying they ’ re fed up with growing theft , and showing the frustrations of local business owners whose livelihoods are threatened by what they consider official inertia in the face of these problems .
Writing on KOMO ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ about citizens who don ’ t feel safe taking their families into downtown Seattle….about parents who won ’ t take their children into public parks they pay for .
It ’ s about filth and degradation all around us .
And theft and crime .
It ’ s about people who don ’ t feel protected anymore , who don ’ t feel like their voices are being heard.
” Johnson ’ s documentary was aired in March of last year , some seven months before the Seattle City Council elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seattleites and kicked up gale-force winds of controversy throughout the city and beyond .
In the end , though , it didn ’ t have much impact .
It will take a lot more civic chaos , dysfunction , and violence for this city to make the connection between that decay and the kind of leadership it so avidly favors .
Seattle may or may not be dying , but it is in a far more ominous state of civic health than most of its citizens realize .
Robert W. Merry , longtime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and author , lives on Whidbey Island , north of Seattle .

Seattle is in the grip of a far-left mindset. That became all the more evident, as if evidence were needed, during last year’s city council elections. Many foresaw these as likely to bring to leadership a new breed of business-backed politicians bent on repudiating the council’s progressive-socialist leanings. Finally, it was predicted, a sane brand of political moderation would emerge in Seattle government.
It didn’t happen. In the campaign’s final days, the top issue became the intent of Amazon and its leader Jeff Bezos to “buy” the election with a $1.5 million cash infusion into the coffers of the city’s business coalition. “Within days,” wrote Christopher Rufo of City Journal, “the referendum on a failed city council had been transformed into a referendum on corporate power.” There could be no question as to who would win that contest.
The result, said Rufo, was “the most liberal city council in history,” one that seems to be “out for revenge” against business interests and their moderate supporters. The stated agenda of many city council members now includes rent control, drug-consumption sites, the decriminalization of prostitution, the legalization of homeless encampments, the defunding of significant police programs, free public transit, and big new taxes on the rich, with particular emphasis, not surprisingly, on Amazon and its top executives.
A question that has haunted this city in recent weeks is to what extent this potent liberal sensibility contributed to the ghastly downtown event that occurred January 22. That was when three men, apparently street gang members, got embroiled in a rush-hour gunfight at the crowded intersection of Pine Street and Third Avenue. A 50-year-old female, described by the Seattle Times as a “joyful woman who lived a rich life,” was killed, and seven others were wounded, including one of the shooters. After the melee, police found some 20 shell casings at the scene.
While the local paper’s extensive coverage of the event and its aftermath didn’t explicitly raise the question of liberalism’s culpability, it nevertheless seemed to be on the minds of some Seattleites interviewed by the Times. A main focus for many was why these men were on the street in the first place and why city officials can’t find effective ways to combat such violence. Those who initiated the gun battle had extensive criminal records that reflected a certain persistent laxity in the application of the law. One Times headline read: “Tragic violence, unsurprising story.” The subhead: “Seattle’s long-running effort to address crime and sporadic violence downtown falls short.”
Attention turned inevitably to the three suspects. One of them, Jamel Jackson, 21, had previously been involved in a violent incident at the same downtown intersection, when he allegedly punched and kicked a victim who got embroiled with a female gang member in the middle of a large crowd. He had in his possession a loaded 9-mm handgun. He avoided prosecution for the assault by pleading guilty to illegal firearm possession, for which he was sentenced to four months of home detention. According to the Times, he had been told by at least four superior court judges that he was not to possess firearms, a proscription that he apparently ignored with impunity.
The other suspects, Marquis Tolbert and William Tolliver, both 24, had extensive criminal records when apprehended by police in Nevada on February 1. The Times reported that Tolbert had been arrested by Seattle-area police at least 50 times, while Tolliver had been arrested only around 25 times. Both were taken into custody in 2018 in connection with a drive-by shooting, but the charge against Tolliver was dismissed “in the interest of justice,” according to court documents that didn’t elaborate.
Tolbert got the drive-by shooting charge dismissed, along with two other felony charges, when he pleaded guilty to ripping a $1,500 gold necklace from the neck of a woman in a Seattle suburb. For that crime, he was sentenced to a year and a day in prison, with credit for time served, and 18 months of “community supervision” after the prison term. Almost immediately he violated the terms of his community supervision, and an arrest warrant was issued for him last August 19. But he was never apprehended and thus was at large on January 22 to involve himself in the bloody Seattle gun battle.
That’s the problem, in the view of Jon Scholes, president of a group called the Downtown Seattle Association. The Times quoted him as saying, “What we’ve all known way too long is that the heart of our city is a haven for criminals.” He advocated a police force expansion, redeployment of officers from special units to patrol duties, and greater efforts to apprehend people with open warrants such as Tolliver and Tolbert. “We need…” said Scholes, “more dedicated resources to deal with the people that we know are cycling through the criminal justice system. They’re thumbing their nose at the system and the community.”
But city officials, true to their liberal sensibility, seem more focused on the availability of guns. The Times quoted Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best as saying that the problem was “people with guns who shouldn’t have had the guns, in an area firing shots.” And Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, while pledging to fight crime on many fronts, also emphasized the gun issue. “If this had been a fistfight eight people would not have ended up at the hospital,” she said. “There are too many guns in our country.” Former mayor Mike McGinn, meanwhile, lamely suggested that the problem of violent crime simply couldn’t be addressed effectively through greater police efforts. “We’ve tried more arrests,” he said. “That doesn’t actually work.” He favored youth programs and “reentry” efforts to wean criminals away from criminal activity.
Seattle is not a high-crime city, at least in terms of violent crime. But it is grappling with a homelessness crisis that is sapping civic stability and fostering a large increase in petty lawbreaking. Meanwhile, city officials such as Durkan and Best seem incapable of addressing this erosion in any serious way.
In his searing documentary of last year, “Seattle is Dying,” KOMO-TV’s Eric Johnson painted a dire picture by citing police officers who say the city’s lax enforcement regimen has tied their hands, quoting citizens saying they’re fed up with growing theft, and showing the frustrations of local business owners whose livelihoods are threatened by what they consider official inertia in the face of these problems.
Writing on KOMO’s website, Johnson said his documentary was “about citizens who don’t feel safe taking their families into downtown Seattle….about parents who won’t take their children into public parks they pay for. It’s about filth and degradation all around us. And theft and crime. It’s about people who don’t feel protected anymore, who don’t feel like their voices are being heard.”
Johnson’s documentary was aired in March of last year, some seven months before the Seattle City Council elections. It touched a nerve among many Seattleites and kicked up gale-force winds of controversy throughout the city and beyond. In the end, though, it didn’t have much impact. It will take a lot more civic chaos, dysfunction, and violence for this city to make the connection between that decay and the kind of leadership it so avidly favors. Seattle may or may not be dying, but it is in a far more ominous state of civic health than most of its citizens realize.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., publishing figure, and author, lives on Whidbey Island, north of Seattle.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-06--In Pete Buttigieg, the Establishment Finds Their Man

He is n't Donald Trump and he is n't a socialist .
For a certain American voter today , that may be just enough .
2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Mayor of South Bend , Indiana Pete Buttigieg speaks at the Wing Ding Dinner on August 9 , 2019 in Clear Lake , Iowa .
- The dinner has become a must attend for Democratic presidential hopefuls ahead of the of Iowa Caucus .
( Photo by ALEX EDELMAN / AFP ) ( Photo credit should read ALEX EDELMAN/AFP via Getty Images ) Not that he was ever a lock , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hawkeye State demonstrate clearly he was not .
But rather that he was generally mischaracterized as the establishment ’ s gunner .
There was a tidal wave of evidence to the contrary—from Barack Obama ’ s ice-cold distance from his former lieutenant , both in 2016 and this time around , to longtime ally John Kerry ’ s barstool musings over the weekend that he himself should jump in .
Biden enjoyed compulsory respect from a news media generally incredulous over the rise of Donald Trump , due deference for his service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his rapturous support among African Americans wouldn ’ t be litigated .
But he wasn ’ t one of them .
As liberal historian Thomas Frank notes , the unspoken credo of the Democratic Party ’ s establishment today is simple : education and the meritocracy .
Bill Clinton vaulted from white trash to the White House ; in the back of his mind , he always thanked Georgetown , Yale , and the Rhodes program for rescuing a kid from Hope .
And Obama ascended through Columbia , Harvard , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a journey of personal clarification before writing The Audacity of Hope .
Biden ’ s story is different .
And Biden ’ s story may be over .
After what appears to be a surprise strong showing for former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg , career Democrats are poised to dump Biden , the Amtrak amateur , for Mayor Pete , McKinsey ’ s man in the Midwest .
It ’ s a better fit .
The clarion call is clear : the contented and pragmatic in the Democratic ranks must unite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who can stop Bernie Sanders .
Sanders is the candidate of those who have fallen out of the middle class .
Buttigieg , though he would decidedly be the most liberal candidate to win the Democratic nomination in at least a generation , is nonetheless the avatar of the arrived , those who feel America is , in some way , still working .
This is , of course , an interesting sentiment for anyone who witnessed the scene at Cedar Rapids Monday night .
That doesn ’ t mean it won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraordinary to watch .
Buttigieg is Barack Obama without the charm , the youthful visage of the technocratic elite , even as technocracy melts down ( on live TV , if the caucus room floor is any evidence ) .
He offers the audacity of hope with little audacity and only a perfunctory pretense of hope .
“ Something is stirring in America , ” Buttigieg tweeted Tuesday in a remark that could have been made in any year .
“ I believe in American unity .
I believe in American boldness , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no elaboration .
Buttigieg ’ s preemptive victory declaration Tuesday morning took on the air of a dare .
He says he won , and he would be the youngest president in history .
Goldman Sachs , Google , and the deep state of the government are with him , he noted almost explicitly .
The last three years of Donald Trump ’ s presidency have been dominated by hushed , or not so hushed , talk of a coup .
On Tuesday morning , America ’ s politics felt , if only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Buttigieg is defined by his raw intelligence , which is obvious , but also by what he is not .
He is not an 80-year-old front-runner with a half-century of political baggage .
He is not a socialist .
He is not Donald Trump .
Is it not enough ?
Apparently , for a high percentage of Iowans whose votes have been tallied and announced , it is .
Curt Mills is senior writer for The American Conservative .

Joe Biden was always a weak establishment front-runner.
Not that he was ever a lock, as the delirious early results out of the Hawkeye State demonstrate clearly he was not. But rather that he was generally mischaracterized as the establishment’s gunner. There was a tidal wave of evidence to the contrary—from Barack Obama’s ice-cold distance from his former lieutenant, both in 2016 and this time around, to longtime ally John Kerry’s barstool musings over the weekend that he himself should jump in. Biden enjoyed compulsory respect from a news media generally incredulous over the rise of Donald Trump, due deference for his service as vice president, and a commitment that his rapturous support among African Americans wouldn’t be litigated.
But he wasn’t one of them. As liberal historian Thomas Frank notes, the unspoken credo of the Democratic Party’s establishment today is simple: education and the meritocracy. Bill Clinton vaulted from white trash to the White House; in the back of his mind, he always thanked Georgetown, Yale, and the Rhodes program for rescuing a kid from Hope. And Obama ascended through Columbia, Harvard, a blue-chip law firm, and U Chicago on a journey of personal clarification before writing The Audacity of Hope.
Biden’s story is different. And Biden’s story may be over.
After what appears to be a surprise strong showing for former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, career Democrats are poised to dump Biden, the Amtrak amateur, for Mayor Pete, McKinsey’s man in the Midwest. It’s a better fit. The clarion call is clear: the contented and pragmatic in the Democratic ranks must unite, right now, against a candidate who can stop Bernie Sanders.
Sanders is the candidate of those who have fallen out of the middle class. Buttigieg, though he would decidedly be the most liberal candidate to win the Democratic nomination in at least a generation, is nonetheless the avatar of the arrived, those who feel America is, in some way, still working. This is, of course, an interesting sentiment for anyone who witnessed the scene at Cedar Rapids Monday night.
That doesn’t mean it won’t work. But it will be extraordinary to watch. Buttigieg is Barack Obama without the charm, the youthful visage of the technocratic elite, even as technocracy melts down (on live TV, if the caucus room floor is any evidence). He offers the audacity of hope with little audacity and only a perfunctory pretense of hope. “Something is stirring in America,” Buttigieg tweeted Tuesday in a remark that could have been made in any year. “I believe in American unity. I believe in American boldness,” he said this week, with no elaboration.
Buttigieg’s preemptive victory declaration Tuesday morning took on the air of a dare.
He says he won, and he would be the youngest president in history. Goldman Sachs, Google, and the deep state of the government are with him, he noted almost explicitly. The last three years of Donald Trump’s presidency have been dominated by hushed, or not so hushed, talk of a coup. On Tuesday morning, America’s politics felt, if only for a moment, truly Latin American.
Buttigieg is defined by his raw intelligence, which is obvious, but also by what he is not.
He is not an 80-year-old front-runner with a half-century of political baggage. He is not a socialist. He is not Donald Trump. Is it not enough? Apparently, for a high percentage of Iowans whose votes have been tallied and announced, it is.
Curt Mills is senior writer for The American Conservative.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-07--The Socialist Versus The Billionaire: Can Either Beat The Donald?

The Democratic race is already counting up its losers , first among them Joe Biden .
By the end of February , the race for the Democratic nomination may have come down to a choice of one of three white men .
Two are well into their 70s , and either would be the oldest president ever inaugurated .
The third is a 38-year-old gay man in a same-sex marriage who would be our youngest president ever .
How is it possible , if not probable , that Bernie Sanders , Michael Bloomberg , and Pete Buttigieg will be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iowa caucuses produced—after the Democrats figured out how to count votes .
Sanders won the popular vote on both the first and second ballots .
As of Thursday , with 547 state delegates , he was only three shy of Buttigieg ’ s total .
And the caucus yet to report is in Sanders country .
By week ’ s end , Sanders could be the declared winner of Iowa .
And though he was denied the bounce he would have gotten if that news had been posted Monday night , Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is running a clear first in the latest New Hampshire polls .
If Sanders , with cash on hand unmatched by any rival save billionaire Bloomberg , wins the Granite State , he becomes the progressives ’ champion over rival Elizabeth Warren and is in the race all the way to the convention .
Consider the prospects of Mayor Pete .
Even before the first returns were reported in Iowa , he declared his campaign “ victorious ” and left for New Hampshire .
By Wednesday , after two thirds of the ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have won the battle for delegates .
By Thursday , in the latest polls of New Hampshire , Buttigieg had vaulted into second place .
As of now , it looks like a Buttigieg-Sanders race in New Hampshire on Tuesday , with the big losers from Iowa—Warren , Joe Biden , and Amy Klobuchar—the big losers again .
If the trends do not change and polls do not shift over the weekend , former vice president Joe Biden appears headed for another “ gut punch ” like the one he says he suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get up off the canvas after this one .
Thursday , the Boston Globe/Suffolk and WHDH/Emerson polls both showed Sanders beating Biden like a drum , better than two-to-one .
Moreover , Biden ’ s fundraising has fallen off , and it is unlikely major donors are going to send cash to a candidate who just ran fourth in Iowa and could run fourth or fifth in New Hampshire .
Buttigieg is the candidate whose stock is rising .
He has surged to second place , just six points and 10 points behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls , while Biden is lagging a distant 13 and 19 points behind Sanders .
Now , consider Klobuchar .
As a senator from Minnesota , she was expected to do well , indeed , her personal best , in the neighboring state of Iowa .
She ran fifth .
And though she has the endorsement of the leading newspaper in New Hampshire , the Union-Leader , she , too , is trailing Sanders in the latest polls by more than three-to-one .
If Klobuchar runs fifth in Iowa and third , fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in what state does she win her first primary ?
And as her fundraising has never matched that of the front-runners , where does she get the money to match Sanders or Bloomberg on Super Tuesday , now just three weeks off ?
Klobuchar is now in the second tier in New Hampshire , behind Sanders and Buttigieg , but right alongside Biden and Warren .
A third- , fourth- , or fifth-place finish would be near-fatal for them all .
As for Warren , in her battle with Sanders for the progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finish in Iowa and her expected third-place finish in New Hampshire , at best , would seem to settle that issue for this election .
Sanders beat Warren in Iowa , raised far more money in January than she did , and is now beating her two- and three-to-one in the New Hampshire polls .
So again , the same question is raised .
Is what state does Elizabeth Warren beat her progressive rival ?
There are two more lingering questions .
If Biden is thrashed in New Hampshire on Tuesday , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain viable in South Carolina , where he was so strong before the new year ?
Will African-American voters in South Carolina stick by Biden and his claim to be “ the most electable ” Democrat if he has been floored twice by Sanders and Buttigieg , and can ’ t seem to win within his own party ?
What I wrote before Iowa seems even more true today : “ If Bernie can beat Biden two or three times in the first four primary states in February , the last remaining roadblock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination could be Mike Bloomberg ’ s billions.
” The Socialist versus The Billionaire .
Could either really beat The Donald ?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists , visit the Creators website at www.creators.com .

By the end of February, the race for the Democratic nomination may have come down to a choice of one of three white men.
Two are well into their 70s, and either would be the oldest president ever inaugurated. The third is a 38-year-old gay man in a same-sex marriage who would be our youngest president ever.
How is it possible, if not probable, that Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg, and Pete Buttigieg will be the last three Democrats standing?
Consider what the Iowa caucuses produced—after the Democrats figured out how to count votes.
Sanders won the popular vote on both the first and second ballots. As of Thursday, with 547 state delegates, he was only three shy of Buttigieg’s total. And the caucus yet to report is in Sanders country.
By week’s end, Sanders could be the declared winner of Iowa. And though he was denied the bounce he would have gotten if that news had been posted Monday night, Sanders raised $25 million in January and is running a clear first in the latest New Hampshire polls.
If Sanders, with cash on hand unmatched by any rival save billionaire Bloomberg, wins the Granite State, he becomes the progressives’ champion over rival Elizabeth Warren and is in the race all the way to the convention.
Consider the prospects of Mayor Pete.
Even before the first returns were reported in Iowa, he declared his campaign “victorious” and left for New Hampshire. By Wednesday, after two thirds of the ballots had been counted, he appeared to have won the battle for delegates.
By Thursday, in the latest polls of New Hampshire, Buttigieg had vaulted into second place. As of now, it looks like a Buttigieg-Sanders race in New Hampshire on Tuesday, with the big losers from Iowa—Warren, Joe Biden, and Amy Klobuchar—the big losers again.
If the trends do not change and polls do not shift over the weekend, former vice president Joe Biden appears headed for another “gut punch” like the one he says he suffered in Iowa.
And Biden may not get up off the canvas after this one.
Thursday, the Boston Globe/Suffolk and WHDH/Emerson polls both showed Sanders beating Biden like a drum, better than two-to-one.
Moreover, Biden’s fundraising has fallen off, and it is unlikely major donors are going to send cash to a candidate who just ran fourth in Iowa and could run fourth or fifth in New Hampshire.
Buttigieg is the candidate whose stock is rising. He has surged to second place, just six points and 10 points behind Sanders in the two latest New Hampshire polls, while Biden is lagging a distant 13 and 19 points behind Sanders.
Now, consider Klobuchar. As a senator from Minnesota, she was expected to do well, indeed, her personal best, in the neighboring state of Iowa. She ran fifth. And though she has the endorsement of the leading newspaper in New Hampshire, the Union-Leader, she, too, is trailing Sanders in the latest polls by more than three-to-one.
If Klobuchar runs fifth in Iowa and third, fourth, or fifth in New Hampshire, in what state does she win her first primary? And as her fundraising has never matched that of the front-runners, where does she get the money to match Sanders or Bloomberg on Super Tuesday, now just three weeks off?
Klobuchar is now in the second tier in New Hampshire, behind Sanders and Buttigieg, but right alongside Biden and Warren. A third-, fourth-, or fifth-place finish would be near-fatal for them all.
As for Warren, in her battle with Sanders for the progressive wing of the party, her third-place finish in Iowa and her expected third-place finish in New Hampshire, at best, would seem to settle that issue for this election.
Sanders beat Warren in Iowa, raised far more money in January than she did, and is now beating her two- and three-to-one in the New Hampshire polls.
So again, the same question is raised. Is what state does Elizabeth Warren beat her progressive rival?
There are two more lingering questions.
If Biden is thrashed in New Hampshire on Tuesday, as he was in Iowa, does he remain viable in South Carolina, where he was so strong before the new year?
Will African-American voters in South Carolina stick by Biden and his claim to be “the most electable” Democrat if he has been floored twice by Sanders and Buttigieg, and can’t seem to win within his own party?
What I wrote before Iowa seems even more true today: “If Bernie can beat Biden two or three times in the first four primary states in February, the last remaining roadblock on Bernie’s path to the nomination could be Mike Bloomberg’s billions.”
The Socialist versus The Billionaire. Could either really beat The Donald?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-07--Biden Faces an Uncertain Fate in New Hampshire

Jumping Joe seems more confident in front of audiences here , but he knows the fall could come on Tuesday .
Joe Biden in New Hampshire .
( Photo by Scott Eisen/Getty Images ) CONCORD , N.H. – Joe Biden can play the hits .
Speaking to 200 or so patient Granite Staters in a union hall last night , the former vice president invoked Barack Obama sparingly .
But he otherwise pulled his listeners back three years , even 10 , to the halcyon days of Democrats in the White House , international respect , and a modicum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden told the crowd , “ It ’ s good to be back in New Hampshire…more than you know.
” His disastrous fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses chaos acknowledged , Biden returned to familiar ground .
Biden promises two things : he ’ s not Donald Trump and he ’ ll be a steady hand on the tiller of state .
He invoked Obamacare , the Brady gun control bill , and reaching across the aisle , using Charlottesville , gun violence , and the general nastiness of the current president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejoin the Paris climate accord on his first day in the White House .
The centrist crouch , that Audacity of Nope that so galls progressive Democrats , got its innings .
Biden attacked Bernie Sanders explicitly and Elizabeth Warren implicitly over the cost of Medicare for All .
In a near-verbatim imitation of Hillary Clinton ’ s debate jabs at Sanders in 2016 , Biden billed himself as a man who could turn “ progressive plans…into progress.
” “ How ” is the operative word for Biden .
In a thinly veiled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg , Biden warned the crowd that the presidency afforded “ no time for on-the-job training.
” One had to be “ ready on day one…to command the world stage.
” And command it is what Biden intends to do .
The foreign policy failures of the Obama administration , manifested in hundreds of Libyan militias and millions of starving Yemenis , have made little impact on his views .
“ The world , ” Biden warned , “ is not self-organizing.
” Somewhere in his Brookings jungle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were no odd moments , no stuttering or faltering .
Biden spoke with clarity and conviction , though of course he drew the most applause from a rote Vladimir Putin condemnation , our inescapable Cold War 2.0 .
Biden handled a lone Second Amendment heckler with aplomb , using the asinine assertion , beloved by the late lamented Beto O ’ Rourke , that the only way to protect yourself from your government was with “ an F-15.
” Steve Shurtleff , speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives , told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from Manchester ’ s Saint Anselm College , had Biden tied for first in New Hampshire .
True enough—but the other six new polls from Monday and Tuesday mostly show Sanders with comfortable if not commanding leads .
Biden later insisted that “ I like my chances ” and that he has “ nothing to come back from.
” The reality is that he got off easy on Monday .
The chaos and ineptitude in Iowa ( more results pending any minute ! )
helped to mute the story of Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 15.6 percent after being projected to be the runner-up in the Hawkeye State , Biden ’ s front-runner narrative rings hollow .
Electability , despite the lesson of 2016 , remains Biden ’ s best case for the nomination .
A second embarrassment in New Hampshire would endanger if not cripple his plans to build a firewall in Nevada or South Carolina .
He also has far less cash on hand than Sanders , Warren , or Buttigieg .
Perhaps Biden will make an improbable stand in the Granite State and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Far more likely is another humbling finish and a looming knife fight among the three Bs ( Biden , Buttigieg , and Michael Bloomberg ) for the centrist mantle against the dreaded Sanders .
Despite the understandable rage of some of his most online supporters , the Iowa debacle actually turned out reasonably well for Sanders .
Biden ’ s fall and Buttigieg ’ s rise crowds the centrist lane , preventing the Democratic establishment—and the supposed moderate mass of Democratic voters—from coalescing around one candidate .
It is easy to envision Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists , and a very high floor of support , taking the 2016 Trump path to the nomination : winning primary after primary with fairly low percentages , while the party is unable to pick one clear leader to oppose him .
The one real negative : turnout in Iowa , as Sanders himself was the first to admit , wasn ’ t much higher than normal .
The Sanders revolution is premised on massively increased turnout among young voters and the disenfranchised , especially in the Midwestern states that Trump flipped .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ matched that of 2016 , does not appear to be encouraging news for Sanders and his sans-culottes .
Gil Barndollar is a New Hampshire native and a fellow at the Catholic University of America ’ s Center for the Study of Statesmanship .

CONCORD, N.H. – Joe Biden can play the hits. Speaking to 200 or so patient Granite Staters in a union hall last night, the former vice president invoked Barack Obama sparingly. But he otherwise pulled his listeners back three years, even 10, to the halcyon days of Democrats in the White House, international respect, and a modicum of political civility. With a wry smile, Biden told the crowd, “It’s good to be back in New Hampshire…more than you know.” His disastrous fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses chaos acknowledged, Biden returned to familiar ground.
Biden promises two things: he’s not Donald Trump and he’ll be a steady hand on the tiller of state. He invoked Obamacare, the Brady gun control bill, and reaching across the aisle, using Charlottesville, gun violence, and the general nastiness of the current president as convenient foils. He vowed to rejoin the Paris climate accord on his first day in the White House.
The centrist crouch, that Audacity of Nope that so galls progressive Democrats, got its innings. Biden attacked Bernie Sanders explicitly and Elizabeth Warren implicitly over the cost of Medicare for All. In a near-verbatim imitation of Hillary Clinton’s debate jabs at Sanders in 2016, Biden billed himself as a man who could turn “progressive plans…into progress.” “How” is the operative word for Biden.
In a thinly veiled shot at his most callow challenger, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Biden warned the crowd that the presidency afforded “no time for on-the-job training.” One had to be “ready on day one…to command the world stage.”
And command it is what Biden intends to do. The foreign policy failures of the Obama administration, manifested in hundreds of Libyan militias and millions of starving Yemenis, have made little impact on his views. “The world,” Biden warned, “is not self-organizing.” Somewhere in his Brookings jungle, Robert Kagan was smiling.
There were no odd moments, no stuttering or faltering. Biden spoke with clarity and conviction, though of course he drew the most applause from a rote Vladimir Putin condemnation, our inescapable Cold War 2.0. Biden handled a lone Second Amendment heckler with aplomb, using the asinine assertion, beloved by the late lamented Beto O’Rourke, that the only way to protect yourself from your government was with “an F-15.”
Steve Shurtleff, speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, told the crowd that a poll that very day, from Manchester’s Saint Anselm College, had Biden tied for first in New Hampshire. True enough—but the other six new polls from Monday and Tuesday mostly show Sanders with comfortable if not commanding leads.
Biden later insisted that “I like my chances” and that he has “nothing to come back from.” The reality is that he got off easy on Monday. The chaos and ineptitude in Iowa (more results pending any minute!) helped to mute the story of Biden’s horrible fourth-place finish. Currently sitting at 15.6 percent after being projected to be the runner-up in the Hawkeye State, Biden’s front-runner narrative rings hollow. Electability, despite the lesson of 2016, remains Biden’s best case for the nomination. A second embarrassment in New Hampshire would endanger if not cripple his plans to build a firewall in Nevada or South Carolina. He also has far less cash on hand than Sanders, Warren, or Buttigieg.
Perhaps Biden will make an improbable stand in the Granite State and this jostling Democratic pack will again reshuffle. Far more likely is another humbling finish and a looming knife fight among the three Bs (Biden, Buttigieg, and Michael Bloomberg) for the centrist mantle against the dreaded Sanders.
Despite the understandable rage of some of his most online supporters, the Iowa debacle actually turned out reasonably well for Sanders. Biden’s fall and Buttigieg’s rise crowds the centrist lane, preventing the Democratic establishment—and the supposed moderate mass of Democratic voters—from coalescing around one candidate. It is easy to envision Sanders, with unprecedented low-dollar donations, energized activists, and a very high floor of support, taking the 2016 Trump path to the nomination: winning primary after primary with fairly low percentages, while the party is unable to pick one clear leader to oppose him.
The one real negative: turnout in Iowa, as Sanders himself was the first to admit, wasn’t much higher than normal. The Sanders revolution is premised on massively increased turnout among young voters and the disenfranchised, especially in the Midwestern states that Trump flipped. Iowa’s turnout, which roughly matched that of 2016, does not appear to be encouraging news for Sanders and his sans-culottes.
Gil Barndollar is a New Hampshire native and a fellow at the Catholic University of America’s Center for the Study of Statesmanship.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-10--For the First Time, No Big Texas Welcome for Refugees

Trump allows states to opt out of resettlement and Governor Greg Abbott says yes .
But is that right ?
Texas Governor Greg Abbott ( R ) speaks with US President Donald Trump ( L ) during a briefing on hurricane relief efforts in Dallas , Texas , on October 25 , 2017 .
( JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images ) Legendary frontiersman David Crockett famously said : “ You can go to hell but I ’ m going to Texas.
” That sentiment seems less apt these days in the Lone Star State , after Governor Greg Abbott recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new refugees in 2020 .
This has made Texas the first state to reject refugee resettlements under a new rule from President Trump , which says that states and municipalities must give written consent before refugees can be resettled .
About 40 other governors have signaled their willingness to continue accepting refugees—but not Abbott .
“ Texas has carried more than its share in assisting the refugee resettlement process , ” Abbott said in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
“ Since FY2010 , more refugees have been received in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , over that decade , roughly 10 % of all refugees resettled in the United States have been placed in Texas.
” The governor also noted that Texas has been feeling the brunt of migration issues at the southern border due to a “ broken federal immigration system.
” That justification , however , has found little resonance among those who deal with refugees in Texas .
“ This would amount to a whopping blow to people who need our help the most , ” says Rebecca Lightsey with American Gateways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who have escaped hardship in their home countries .
“ We ’ d urge the governor to decide otherwise .
Be Texas friendly.
” According to Pew Research , the Trump administration has set a cap on the admittance of total refugees to the U.S. in 2020 at 18,000—that ’ s down from 30,000 in 2019 .
From 2017 to 2019 , the U.S. took in about 76,000 refugees .
That ’ s down too .
In 2016 alone , the U.S. accepted some 85,000 refugees .
As for Texas , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropping dramatically , some 64 percent year over year .
According to the Texas Tribune , there were 1,697 people settled in Texas over the last fiscal year ending September 30 .
Some 4,768 were admitted during the same period the year before .
Texas currently boasts an estimated population of 2.8 million people .
Criticism of the governor ’ s decision only intensified after he doubled down by saying that groups working with refugees should instead prioritize other Texans in need .
He singled out the state ’ s homeless population , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state capital , Austin , after new laws were passed allowing the homeless to camp in public spaces .
“ I am putting my citizens first , ” Abbott says .
“ We have challenges in the state of Texas that must be addressed by these very same nonprofit organizations .
We have a growing homeless population in the state of Texas , and I refuse to allow the state of Texas to go down the same pathway of what we ’ ve seen in California.
” That argument has been criticized for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working for nonprofit resettlement agencies pointing out that their federal funding comes with limits of use ; hence it can ’ t be used elsewhere .
Further , others note that the economic burden of helping refugees is a moot point , especially in a state as wealthy as Texas , which with a $ 1.8 trillion GDP would be the 10th largest economy in the world if it were a stand-alone country , and to whose wealth refugees actually end up contributing .
“ Texas is a famously wealthy state , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theological and social ethics at Fordham University in New York City .
“ It can afford to absorb a small number of refugees which may cost money in the short term but will almost certainly not in the medium- and long-term.
” A 2015 study by New American Economy found that refugees in Texas had a combined spending power of $ 4.6 billion and paid a total of $ 1.6 billion in taxes .
“ This is an economic mistake , but more than that , it ’ s a humanitarian mistake , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has seen the Texas governor—who is a practicing Catholic—taken to task by Texas ’ s Catholic bishops , who issued a statement that called his decision “ discouraging and disheartening , ” and added , “ As Catholics , an essential aspect of our faith is to welcome the stranger and care for the alien.
” In response to the bishops , the governor ’ s office noted that no one seeking refugee status in the United States will be denied it because of the Texas decision , nor would refugees be prevented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in another state .
The inference appears to be that the rest of America can pick up the slack .
But can and should it ?
The wider question of what a nation like America should be doing for others when increasingly its own citizens are suffering appears more pressing than ever .
Beyond homelessness , the country is rent by the likes of joblessness , drug addiction , despair , and suicide .
A recent sobering article in Foreign Affairs details what it calls an epidemic of “ deaths of despair ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resulted in “ an astonishing development : life expectancy at birth for Americans declined for three consecutive years , from 2015 through 2017 , something that had not happened since the influenza pandemic at the end of World War I.
” America isn ’ t alone in experiencing these kinds of frictions .
In Italy , as in other European countries , refugees and migrants have often been well cared for thanks to European Union funds , while the native poor have been neglected .
This has resulted in a surge of support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skeptical of immigration .
“ One thing can not be denied , ” says Father Alexander Lucie-Smith , a Catholic priest , doctor of moral theology , and consulting editor of the Catholic Herald .
“ Every country has an upper limit as to how many refugees and migrants it can take .
You are not required to help ( foreign ) others if it means hurting ( native ) others .
The welfare and the survival of the country must come first.
” But , Lucie-Smith emphasizes , the U.S. is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which has the highest proportion of migrants in the world and has been “ seriously destabilized by immigration.
” “ The real problem we have , it seems to me , is one of perception , ” Lucie-Smith says .
“ The migrants have all the coverage in the media , whereas the poverty-stricken drug addicts in places like West Virginia , or in the suburbs of Naples , get very little coverage of sympathy .
Certain types of poverty are ‘ sexy , ’ others not .
Certain types of help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others not .
There is a lot of posturing in this .
Posturing is not Christian.
” Abbott doesn ’ t appear in his actions to be succumbing to the temptation of virtue signaling .
But according to his critics , he may be guilty of another type of signaling that involves political posturing for expedient gain .
Refugee advocates are also concerned that Abbott ’ s decision would separate families , as some family members were earlier resettled in the state and are now awaiting the arrivals of their loved ones .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains theoretical .
A federal judge has halted Trump ’ s executive order .
While an appeal is expected , organizations in Texas such as American Gateways are hoping to move forward with the resettlement of refugees who have already been pre-cleared by authorities .
“ The traditional view is that refugees need help , and are entitled to it under international law , but economic migrants must fend for themselves , generally speaking , ” Lucie-Smith says .
“ This is rather piquant in America where the people who arrived in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many were genuine refugees.
” James Jeffrey is a freelance journalist who splits his time between the U.S. , the UK , and further afield , and writes for various international media .
Follow him on Twitter @ jrfjeffrey .

Legendary frontiersman David Crockett famously said: “You can go to hell but I’m going to Texas.” That sentiment seems less apt these days in the Lone Star State, after Governor Greg Abbott recently announced that Texas will not accept any new refugees in 2020.
This has made Texas the first state to reject refugee resettlements under a new rule from President Trump, which says that states and municipalities must give written consent before refugees can be resettled. About 40 other governors have signaled their willingness to continue accepting refugees—but not Abbott.
“Texas has carried more than its share in assisting the refugee resettlement process,” Abbott said in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “Since FY2010, more refugees have been received in Texas than in any other state. In fact, over that decade, roughly 10% of all refugees resettled in the United States have been placed in Texas.”
The governor also noted that Texas has been feeling the brunt of migration issues at the southern border due to a “broken federal immigration system.”
That justification, however, has found little resonance among those who deal with refugees in Texas.
“This would amount to a whopping blow to people who need our help the most,” says Rebecca Lightsey with American Gateways, who has worked with thousands of people who have escaped hardship in their home countries. “We’d urge the governor to decide otherwise. Be Texas friendly.”
According to Pew Research, the Trump administration has set a cap on the admittance of total refugees to the U.S. in 2020 at 18,000—that’s down from 30,000 in 2019. From 2017 to 2019, the U.S. took in about 76,000 refugees. That’s down too. In 2016 alone, the U.S. accepted some 85,000 refugees.
As for Texas, the number of refugees settled there was already dropping dramatically, some 64 percent year over year. According to the Texas Tribune, there were 1,697 people settled in Texas over the last fiscal year ending September 30. Some 4,768 were admitted during the same period the year before. Texas currently boasts an estimated population of nearly 29 million people.
Criticism of the governor’s decision only intensified after he doubled down by saying that groups working with refugees should instead prioritize other Texans in need. He singled out the state’s homeless population, which has recently gained attention—and notoriety—in the state capital, Austin, after new laws were passed allowing the homeless to camp in public spaces.
“I am putting my citizens first,” Abbott says. “We have challenges in the state of Texas that must be addressed by these very same nonprofit organizations. We have a growing homeless population in the state of Texas, and I refuse to allow the state of Texas to go down the same pathway of what we’ve seen in California.”
That argument has been criticized for conflating two separate issues, with those working for nonprofit resettlement agencies pointing out that their federal funding comes with limits of use; hence it can’t be used elsewhere.
Further, others note that the economic burden of helping refugees is a moot point, especially in a state as wealthy as Texas, which with a $1.8 trillion GDP would be the 10th largest economy in the world if it were a stand-alone country, and to whose wealth refugees actually end up contributing.
“Texas is a famously wealthy state,” says Charles Camosy, associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University in New York City. “It can afford to absorb a small number of refugees which may cost money in the short term but will almost certainly not in the medium- and long-term.”
A 2015 study by New American Economy found that refugees in Texas had a combined spending power of $4.6 billion and paid a total of $1.6 billion in taxes.
“This is an economic mistake, but more than that, it’s a humanitarian mistake,” Lightsey says.
The moral imperative has seen the Texas governor—who is a practicing Catholic—taken to task by Texas’s Catholic bishops, who issued a statement that called his decision “discouraging and disheartening,” and added, “As Catholics, an essential aspect of our faith is to welcome the stranger and care for the alien.”
In response to the bishops, the governor’s office noted that no one seeking refugee status in the United States will be denied it because of the Texas decision, nor would refugees be prevented from moving to Texas after initially settling in another state.
The inference appears to be that the rest of America can pick up the slack. But can and should it? The wider question of what a nation like America should be doing for others when increasingly its own citizens are suffering appears more pressing than ever. Beyond homelessness, the country is rent by the likes of joblessness, drug addiction, despair, and suicide.
A recent sobering article in Foreign Affairs details what it calls an epidemic of “deaths of despair” in the United States, which has resulted in “an astonishing development: life expectancy at birth for Americans declined for three consecutive years, from 2015 through 2017, something that had not happened since the influenza pandemic at the end of World War I.”
America isn’t alone in experiencing these kinds of frictions. In Italy, as in other European countries, refugees and migrants have often been well cared for thanks to European Union funds, while the native poor have been neglected. This has resulted in a surge of support for the Lega party, which is skeptical of immigration.
“One thing cannot be denied,” says Father Alexander Lucie-Smith, a Catholic priest, doctor of moral theology, and consulting editor of the Catholic Herald. “Every country has an upper limit as to how many refugees and migrants it can take. You are not required to help (foreign) others if it means hurting (native) others. The welfare and the survival of the country must come first.”
But, Lucie-Smith emphasizes, the U.S. is a long way from the likes of Lebanon, which has the highest proportion of migrants in the world and has been “seriously destabilized by immigration.”
“The real problem we have, it seems to me, is one of perception,” Lucie-Smith says. “The migrants have all the coverage in the media, whereas the poverty-stricken drug addicts in places like West Virginia, or in the suburbs of Naples, get very little coverage of sympathy. Certain types of poverty are ‘sexy,’ others not. Certain types of help send out a big virtue signal, others not. There is a lot of posturing in this. Posturing is not Christian.”
Abbott doesn’t appear in his actions to be succumbing to the temptation of virtue signaling. But according to his critics, he may be guilty of another type of signaling that involves political posturing for expedient gain.
Refugee advocates are also concerned that Abbott’s decision would separate families, as some family members were earlier resettled in the state and are now awaiting the arrivals of their loved ones.
For now, Abbott’s decision remains theoretical. A federal judge has halted Trump’s executive order. While an appeal is expected, organizations in Texas such as American Gateways are hoping to move forward with the resettlement of refugees who have already been pre-cleared by authorities.
“The traditional view is that refugees need help, and are entitled to it under international law, but economic migrants must fend for themselves, generally speaking,” Lucie-Smith says. “This is rather piquant in America where the people who arrived in the nineteenth century got very little government help—and many were genuine refugees.”
James Jeffrey is a freelance journalist who splits his time between the U.S., the UK, and further afield, and writes for various international media. Follow him on Twitter @jrfjeffrey.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-10--A Tale Of Two Veterans on the New Hampshire Trail

PEte Buttigieg ( Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images ) and Tulsi Gabbard ( Photo by Scott Eisen/Getty Images ) MERRIMACK , N.H. – Pete Buttigieg showed up to his veterans event last week with a hop in his step , as well he might .
Still the ostensible winner in Iowa , normal math be damned , the former South Bend , Indiana , mayor is riding a wave of press attention and a potential polling surge .
The American Legion hall hosting the event was at capacity , to the chagrin of both a Dane and a Canadian waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrity .
Some of the media , too , found themselves on the outside looking in , trawling the line for voters with something to say .
Buttigieg briefly dismounted from his SUV convoy to thank the supporters stuck outside , before pulling away to a back entrance to the building .
Inside , cameramen peeked around flag stands to get shots of the candidate as he unspooled a message of doing right by America ’ s veterans .
Buttigieg extolled homecomings , better military housing , and the unity in diversity he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” in the parlance of the sociologists ) .
He rightly raised the issue of veterans hamstrung by “ bad paper ” discharges for failings often linked to trauma they suffered overseas .
Buttigieg occasionally found himself on more uncertain ground .
As the technocrat ’ s technocrat , he is never more at ease than when explaining a problem that should be amenable to a procedural fix—like when “ systems aren ’ t talking to each other.
” Confronted with a human issue , he contorts himself into phrases like “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country in uniform.
” If that means what it sounds like , reality will rudely intrude .
Even the Nordic countries , probably the most egalitarian nations on earth and all with at least a loose conscription system on the books , are striving to get their militaries to 20 percent female .
In a tidy 50 minutes with Buttigieg , foreign policy—the actual ends to which American servicemen are dedicated and sometimes sacrificed—received scant attention .
It was an odd elephant in the room : Fawlty Towers ’ “ don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ongoing conflicts that most American politicians would just as soon ignore .
An Air Force veteran asked the mayor what he learned in Kabul .
Afghanistan itself , and what we ’ re still doing there , was all but absent from the long answer .
There were more questions ( one ) about Brexit than Iran .
The event was sponsored by VoteVets , a decade-old political action committee that endorsed Buttigieg in December .
Other veterans seem more inclined to be skeptical of a naval reservist who appeared to punch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then returned to climbing ladders Stateside .
Buttigieg advertises early and often : loud noises become a springboard to a brief , artful reference about what one “ learns on deployment.
” He uses his time in uniform to undercut Beto , level with Klobuchar , and attack Trump .
True , Buttigieg ventured “ outside the wire ” often ( and kept count when he did ) , and the threat of an improvised explosive device lurked on every Afghan road .
But the mayor ’ s descriptions of his service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His stories of service dwell far more on convoy duty than on the presumably more valuable work he was doing behind a desk in Kabul .
He writes of “ shipping out ” —a phrase surely last deployed in a war movie .
Buttigieg never internalized the enlisted rank structure ( the Marine Corps does not employ anyone who answers to “ gunny sergeant ” ) .
And cringe-worthy posed war zone photos drew predictable heat online .
Buttigieg ’ s military record would hardly be the least distinguished in presidential history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Army Air Force ’ s First Motion Picture Unit in California .
Naval reservist Lyndon Baines Johnson received a sham Silver Star despite never coming under fire .
The problem is not Pete Buttigieg ’ s service : it is what he seems to have learned , or rather not learned , from his time in Afghanistan .
Buttigieg ’ s campaign-ready memoir , Shortest Way Home , gives the mayor ’ s Afghanistan deployment due weight .
But why he served isn ’ t really clear .
What the eager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Afghanistan is even more opaque .
In the book , Buttigieg refers to John Kerry ’ s apt formulation : “ How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake ?
” All that the famously erudite , would-be Kerry 2.0 can offer is repeated platitudes about how wars don ’ t end anymore .
When the New York Times asked Democratic candidates about regime change wars and U.S. support for coups , “ Mr .
Buttigieg did not answer this question.
” Ditto for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afghanistan , the war upon which Buttigieg ’ s claims to foreign policy expertise hinge .
Buttigieg remains essentially a cipher on foreign policy , sensible words about the AUMF aside .
He sounds the right progressive notes but refuses to be pinned down on much of substance .
It is hard to imagine him diverging much from the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has wreaked so much havoc , in Afghanistan and elsewhere .
Ninety miles north in West Lebanon , just across the river from Vermont , the other veteran in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hall .
Clad in woodsman casual , Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard spoke to an audience perhaps a quarter the size of Buttigieg ’ s .
The Hawaiian struck similar notes to the Indianan : unity , bipartisanship , common sense .
She decried tribalism and described her successes in working across the aisle .
( Note : Tulsi Gabbard is on the unpaid Council of Advisors to the Center for the Study of Statesmanship .
She and the author had not met prior to Thursday night . )
Gabbard ’ s crowd spoke to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own party .
Just five hands went up when she asked who in the crowd was a Democrat ( seven claimed to be Republicans ) .
The vast majority in the room identified as independents or libertarians .
Several , and perhaps most , were Vermonters .
One man asked Gabbard point-blank : “ Have you ever considered changing parties , or maybe re-affiliating somewhere ?
” Though the Lebanon event did not focus on foreign policy , Gabbard ’ s supporters , animated by her lonely heresies on the subject , raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healing than strident , the congresswoman stuck to her guns .
Though not fully dismissing humanitarian intervention , she rightly noted that humanitarianism is often the guise under which intractable , unjustifiable U.S.-led wars proceed .
She vowed to reject “ all these people ” in the failed foreign policy establishment .
One feels confident that even Samantha Power , most sainted of the she-hawks , would not be welcome in a Gabbard Administration .
Gabbard , last graced with a CNN town hall in March , soldiers on .
Deval Patrick , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive a tenth of the New Hampshire votes she does , got his time on the big stage yesterday .
Polling indicates that Gabbard may receive over 5 percent of the vote in New Hampshire , where she has focused most of her attention .
Media dismissal and outright slander has knee-capped Gabbard ’ s campaign to be president .
Her fellow millennial veteran provided a small assist .
Interviewed a week ago by Bill Maher , the late night host told Buttigieg , “ You are the only military veteran in this.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayor , his sister-in-arms erased .
Tulsi Gabbard ’ s next move will be interesting .
Gabbard herself was vague on the subject last night .
She is not running for re-election to Congress ; this will be her last campaign for the moment .
Despite appearing to burn her bridges with the Democratic Party , she could have a place in a Sanders Administration .
Regardless , one hopes her voice will remain a part of the national conversation .
Tulsi Gabbard has far more to offer than the conventionally hollow Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire native and a fellow at the Catholic University of America ’ s Center for the Study of Statesmanship .

MERRIMACK, N.H. – Pete Buttigieg showed up to his veterans event last week with a hop in his step, as well he might. Still the ostensible winner in Iowa, normal math be damned, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor is riding a wave of press attention and a potential polling surge. The American Legion hall hosting the event was at capacity, to the chagrin of both a Dane and a Canadian waiting to see America’s newest political celebrity. Some of the media, too, found themselves on the outside looking in, trawling the line for voters with something to say. Buttigieg briefly dismounted from his SUV convoy to thank the supporters stuck outside, before pulling away to a back entrance to the building.
Inside, cameramen peeked around flag stands to get shots of the candidate as he unspooled a message of doing right by America’s veterans. Buttigieg extolled homecomings, better military housing, and the unity in diversity he found in uniform (“task cohesion,” in the parlance of the sociologists). He rightly raised the issue of veterans hamstrung by “bad paper” discharges for failings often linked to trauma they suffered overseas.
Buttigieg occasionally found himself on more uncertain ground. As the technocrat’s technocrat, he is never more at ease than when explaining a problem that should be amenable to a procedural fix—like when “systems aren’t talking to each other.” Confronted with a human issue, he contorts himself into phrases like “gender parity in the experience of serving this country in uniform.” If that means what it sounds like, reality will rudely intrude. Even the Nordic countries, probably the most egalitarian nations on earth and all with at least a loose conscription system on the books, are striving to get their militaries to 20 percent female.
In a tidy 50 minutes with Buttigieg, foreign policy—the actual ends to which American servicemen are dedicated and sometimes sacrificed—received scant attention. It was an odd elephant in the room: Fawlty Towers’ “don’t mention the war!” rebooted, ongoing conflicts that most American politicians would just as soon ignore. An Air Force veteran asked the mayor what he learned in Kabul. Afghanistan itself, and what we’re still doing there, was all but absent from the long answer. There were more questions (one) about Brexit than Iran.
The event was sponsored by VoteVets, a decade-old political action committee that endorsed Buttigieg in December. Other veterans seem more inclined to be skeptical of a naval reservist who appeared to punch a ticket with a short Afghan tour and then returned to climbing ladders Stateside. Buttigieg advetizes early and often: loud noises become a springboard to a brief, artful reference about what one “learns on deployment.” He uses his time in uniform to undercut Beto, level with Klobuchar, and attack Trump.
True, Buttigieg ventured “outside the wire” often (and kept count when he did), and the threat of an improvised explosive device lurked on every Afghan road. But the mayor’s descriptions of his service often have the ring of military LARPing. His stories of service dwell far more on convoy duty than on the presumably more valuable work he was doing behind a desk in Kabul. He writes of “shipping out”—a phrase surely last deployed in a war movie. Buttigieg never internalized the enlisted rank structure (the Marine Corps does not employ anyone who answers to “gunny sergeant”). And cringe-worthy posed war zone photos drew predictable heat online.
Buttigieg’s military record would hardly be the least distinguished in presidential history. Captain Ronald Reagan spent his war at the Army Air Force’s First Motion Picture Unit in California. Naval reservist Lyndon Baines Johnson received a sham Silver Star despite never coming under fire. The problem is not Pete Buttigieg’s service: it is what he seems to have learned, or rather not learned, from his time in Afghanistan.
Buttigieg’s campaign-ready memoir, Shortest Way Home, gives the mayor’s Afghanistan deployment due weight. But why he served isn’t really clear. What the eager young volunteer learned in his five months in Afghanistan is even more opaque. In the book, Buttigieg refers to John Kerry’s apt formulation: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” All that the famously erudite, would-be Kerry 2.0 can offer is repeated platitudes about how wars don’t end anymore.
When the New York Times asked Democratic candidates about regime change wars and U.S. support for coups, “Mr. Buttigieg did not answer this question.” Ditto for all of the Times’ questions about Afghanistan, the war upon which Buttigieg’s claims to foreign policy expertise hinge. Buttigieg remains essentially a cipher on foreign policy, sensible words about the AUMF aside. He sounds the right progressive notes but refuses to be pinned down on much of substance. It is hard to imagine him diverging much from the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has wreaked so much havoc, in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Ninety miles north in West Lebanon, just across the river from Vermont, the other veteran in the race helmed a far smaller town hall. Clad in woodsman casual, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard spoke to an audience perhaps a quarter the size of Buttigieg’s. The Hawaiian struck similar notes to the Hoosier: unity, bipartisanship, common sense. She decried tribalism and described her successes in working across the aisle. (Note: Tulsi Gabbard is on the unpaid Council of Advisors to the Center for the Study of Statesmanship. She and the author had not met prior to Thursday night.)
Gabbard’s crowd spoke to her cross-party appeal—or her alienation from her own party. Just five hands went up when she asked who in the crowd was a Democrat (seven claimed to be Republicans). The vast majority in the room identified as independents or libertarians. Several, and perhaps most, were Vermonters. One man asked Gabbard point-blank: “Have you ever considered changing parties, or maybe re-affiliating somewhere?”
Though the Lebanon event did not focus on foreign policy, Gabbard’s supporters, animated by her lonely heresies on the subject, raised the issue. In a tone more healing than strident, the congresswoman stuck to her guns. Though not fully dismissing humanitarian intervention, she rightly noted that humanitarianism is often the guise under which intractable, unjustifiable U.S.-led wars proceed. She vowed to reject “all these people” in the failed foreign policy establishment. One feels confident that even Samantha Power, most sainted of the she-hawks, would not be welcome in a Gabbard Administration.
Gabbard, last graced with a CNN town hall in March, soldiers on. Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor who will likely receive a tenth of the New Hampshire votes she does, got his time on the big stage yesterday. Polling indicates that Gabbard may receive over 5 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, where she has focused most of her attention. Media dismissal and outright slander has knee-capped Gabbard’s campaign to be president. Her fellow millennial veteran provided a small assist. Interviewed a week ago by Bill Maher, the late night host told Buttigieg, “You are the only military veteran in this.” “Yeah,” replied the mayor, his sister-in-arms erased.
Tulsi Gabbard’s next move will be interesting. Gabbard herself was vague on the subject last night. She is not running for re-election to Congress; this will be her last campaign for the moment. Despite appearing to burn her bridges with the Democratic Party, she could have a place in a Sanders Administration. Regardless, one hopes her voice will remain a part of the national conversation. Tulsi Gabbard has far more to offer than the conventionally hollow Mayor Pete.
Gil Barndollar is a New Hampshire native and a fellow at the Catholic University of America’s Center for the Study of Statesmanship.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-10--Reality Check: There is No Political Solution to Income Inequality

That 's because under the rigged rules of our system , things are working more or less as they are supposed to .
Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vermont , proposes bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $ 15 , April 2017 .
( U.S. Congress/public domain ) Sorry Sanders supporters : your guy might be well-meaning , but like everyone else he has no practical solutions .
Bernie , et al , imagine there exists some means to redistribute wealth , most likely following the economist Thomas Piketty , via a progressive tax on the rich .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scare the wealthy into putsching a corporate Democrat in Bernie ’ s place yet again , despite his human shield of nose-pierced volunteers .
But even if Sanders were to win , it would not be enough to change America .
It ’ s a reality problem .
The reality of wealth is that the gap between most Americans and those who sit atop our economy continues to grow .
During the two decades after 1960 , the real incomes of the top 5 percent and the remaining 95 percent increased at almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year .
But between 1980 and 2007 , incomes diverged , with those at the bottom seeing annual increases only half that of those at the top .
Then it got worse .
Lower savings and hyper-available credit ( remember fraudulent Countrywidemortgages , ARMs , and usurious re-fi ’ s ? )
put the middle and bottom portions of society on an unsustainable financial path that crashed into the Great Recession of 2008 .
Yet America ’ s top earners ’ wealth still grew ; the one percent captured 95 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market recovered , while the bottom people became poorer , as their missing homes did not .
Their wealth , such as it was , was a Potemkin vision , held in the form of houses they didn ’ t actually own .
The recession represented the largest redistribution of money in a century .
How did the rich pull this off ?
It came down to the reality of possession .
The wealthy own stock and real estate , not just personal homes .
Yet just under half of Americans own no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of all stock , along with 40 percent of America ’ s land ) .
Markets over time go up and those who own parts of them do well .
A rising tide lifts all yachts , as historian Morris Berman observed .
People who do not own homes have to rent them from those who do .
Owners can raise rents anytime they want more money .
It can be hard to comprehend the sheer level of wealth possessed by the rich : Redfin figured out Bill Gates could buy all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Candidate Michael Bloomberg , meanwhile , could pick up Anaheim .
Google ’ s Larry Page is able to buy Boca Raton .
Never mind yachts ; they can buy whole cities .
It is the reality of the system .
Walmart associates make minimum wage .
Most of them are nowhere near full-time , so their take-home pay is well below the poverty threshold .
Employer-assisted Obamacare , such as it is , only kicks in after one works 20 hours a week or more , so following the implementation of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than 20 hours , meaning they had to juggle multiple jobs to live and still did not have health care , as qualifying hours are not cumulative .
Walmart can pay low wages , creating a new status known as working poor , without having to see workers literally starve on the job , because their employees receive $ 2.66 billion in government poverty assistance each year .
That works out to about $ 5,815 per worker , or about $ 420,000 per store .
Food assistance is also key in profiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study , in a single year , nine Walmarts in Massachusetts received more than $ 33 million in food stamp dollars spent at their stores .
In two years , Walmart received about half of the $ 1 billion in food stamp expenditures in Oklahoma .
Overall , 18 percent of all food benefits money nationwide is spent at Walmart .
That ’ s about $ 14 billion .
So let ’ s Robin Hood the wealthy , Bernie , Elizabeth , and others say .
After all , Jeff Bezos ’ net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s everything he has , not just the 6 percent tax Elizabeth Warren wants him to pay .
The net worth of the entire Forbes 400 is under $ 3 trillion .
That ’ s everything they own .
The reforms Warren has proposed to address economic inequality will cost us some $ 20 trillion .
The gap has gotten too big to raise everyone up .
But you have to start somewhere , right ?
Given that America ’ s largest companies already pay little to no tax , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever be enforced in the long run , given that the wealthy will just offshore their money .
Taxes still leave in place other factors driving economic inequality , including inheritance laws ( money is immortal .
The children of rich people are born rich and unless they get really into hookers and blow , will inevitably get richer .
They almost can ’ t help it ) and the ability of the wealthy to control wages and the availability of jobs .
Unions are increasingly a thing of the past and automation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when to pull the trigger on touch screens in fast food restaurants and deep-six cashier jobs .
And never mind the mass extinction that driverless delivery vehicles will bring on , to say nothing of the one after that when advances in AI crush entry-level coding jobs .
The single most significant factor is that financial growth via capital ownership ( what the rich do for money ) always outstrips wage growth ( what the rest of us do for money ) .
Getting richer by owning stuff is always a better deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for wages from the people who own stuff .
Even if a magic wand were to somehow reset society , the nature of capitalism would soon set things back on the path to income inequality .
Rich people get money through capital gains , via assets they buy cheaply that become worth more over time ( until slavery was replaced with the minimum wage , human beings were also considered a form of capital asset—seriously , check with human “ resources ” where you work ) .
That ’ s why a short-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( you lose what you have , like a home ) is ultimately good for most of them ( downturns are discount buying opportunities for those with spare money ) .
It ’ s why the stock market troubles that uninformed people wish for will not make Trump go away .
Math !
The only hope lies in the reality of politics , right ?
Over large swaths of the earth , there are no elections .
In some of the wealthiest countries in the Middle East and Asia , there is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Most governments are controlled by family ascension , not unlike the Middle Ages .
In more modern places , corruption and manipulation control things , as power and wealth work together .
Such is the case now in the United States .
According to the once-prescient Lawrence Lessing ( who has since lost his mind to Twitter and TDS ) , thanks to concentration of wealth , 132 people in the U.S. essentially control elections .
They do so by donating—just that handful of people—over 60 percent of Super PAC money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the total number of voters ; most other contributions to candidates are small , many below $ 200 .
It sounds nice when a candidate talks about this , but it diffuses power even as you think he owes you something now .
That ’ s because it ’ s impossible under such circumstances for government to create laws against the interests of the wealthy ; after all , they work for them .
The reality is there is no answer , no solution .
That ’ s because things are working more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
From a certain perspective , income inequality means things are going according to the rigged rules .
The system is designed to squeeze wealth up into a smaller and smaller group of hands .
A byproduct is the creation of more and more poor at the bottom .
It is the inevitable endpoint for a society set up to fund the wealthy via capital appreciation by paying low or stagnant wages to everyone else .
To say it can ’ t be is to ignore the last time it sort of was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by tens of thousands of serfs living in sloven conditions , with feudalism the dominant force .
A very , very few owned most everything of value .
The 99.999 percent majority—serfs then , valued Target associates now—worked for whatever the feudal lords allowed them to have .
It ’ s very American to believe there are always answers , that there are not forces stronger than change at work , especially in an election year .
Yet if you ’ re still looking for those answers—solutions—well , you ’ ve gotten to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent .

Sorry Sanders supporters: your guy might be well-meaning, but like everyone else he has no practical solutions.
Bernie, et al, imagine there exists some means to redistribute wealth, most likely following the economist Thomas Piketty, via a progressive tax on the rich. Just talking about that may be enough to scare the wealthy into putsching a corporate Democrat in Bernie’s place yet again, despite his human shield of nose-pierced volunteers. But even if Sanders were to win, it would not be enough to change America. It’s a reality problem.
The reality of wealth is that the gap between most Americans and those who sit atop our economy continues to grow. During the two decades after 1960, the real incomes of the top 5 percent and the remaining 95 percent increased at almost the same rate, about 4 percent a year. But between 1980 and 2007, incomes diverged, with those at the bottom seeing annual increases only half that of those at the top. Then it got worse.
Lower savings and hyper-available credit (remember fraudulent Countrywide mortgages, ARMs, and usurious re-fi’s?) put the middle and bottom portions of society on an unsustainable financial path that crashed into the Great Recession of 2008. Yet America’s top earners’ wealth still grew; the one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth, as the stock market recovered, while the bottom people became poorer, as their missing homes did not. Their wealth, such as it was, was a Potemkin vision, held in the form of houses they didn’t actually own. The recession represented the largest redistribution of money in a century. How did the rich pull this off?
It came down to the reality of possession. The wealthy own stock and real estate, not just personal homes. Yet just under half of Americans own no stock (the wealthiest own over 80 percent of all stock, along with 40 percent of America’s land). Markets over time go up and those who own parts of them do well. A rising tide lifts all yachts, as historian Morris Berman observed. People who do not own homes have to rent them from those who do. Owners can raise rents anytime they want more money.
It can be hard to comprehend the sheer level of wealth possessed by the rich: Redfin figured out Bill Gates could buy all of the real estate in Boston. Candidate Michael Bloomberg, meanwhile, could pick up Anaheim. Google’s Larry Page is able to buy Boca Raton. Never mind yachts; they can buy whole cities.
It is the reality of the system. Walmart associates make minimum wage. Most of them are nowhere near full-time, so their take-home pay is well below the poverty threshold. Employer-assisted Obamacare, such as it is, only kicks in after one works 20 hours a week or more, so following the implementation of that policy, most employees were cut to less than 20 hours, meaning they had to juggle multiple jobs to live and still did not have health care, as qualifying hours are not cumulative.
Walmart can pay low wages, creating a new status known as working poor, without having to see workers literally starve on the job, because their employees receive $2.66 billion in government poverty assistance each year. That works out to about $5,815 per worker, or about $420,000 per store.
Food assistance is also key in profiting from income inequality. According to one study, in a single year, nine Walmarts in Massachusetts received more than $33 million in food stamp dollars spent at their stores. In two years, Walmart received about half of the $1 billion in food stamp expenditures in Oklahoma. Overall, 18 percent of all food benefits money nationwide is spent at Walmart. That’s about $14 billion.
So let’s Robin Hood the wealthy, Bernie, Elizabeth, and others say. After all, Jeff Bezos’ net worth is $109 billion. But that’s everything he has, not just the 6 percent tax Elizabeth Warren wants him to pay. The net worth of the entire Forbes 400 is under $3 trillion. That’s everything they own. The reforms Warren has proposed to address economic inequality will cost us some $20 trillion. The gap has gotten too big to raise everyone up.
But you have to start somewhere, right? Given that America’s largest companies already pay little to no tax, it is unclear how such a system could ever be enforced in the long run, given that the wealthy will just offshore their money. Taxes still leave in place other factors driving economic inequality, including inheritance laws (money is immortal. The children of rich people are born rich and unless they get really into hookers and blow, will inevitably get richer. They almost can’t help it) and the ability of the wealthy to control wages and the availability of jobs. Unions are increasingly a thing of the past and automation threatens jobs daily. The rich decide when to pull the trigger on touch screens in fast food restaurants and deep-six cashier jobs. And never mind the mass extinction that driverless delivery vehicles will bring on, to say nothing of the one after that when advances in AI crush entry-level coding jobs.
The single most significant factor is that financial growth via capital ownership (what the rich do for money) always outstrips wage growth (what the rest of us do for money). Getting richer by owning stuff is always a better deal than trying to get rich by working for wages from the people who own stuff. Even if a magic wand were to somehow reset society, the nature of capitalism would soon set things back on the path to income inequality.
Rich people get money through capital gains, via assets they buy cheaply that become worth more over time (until slavery was replaced with the minimum wage, human beings were also considered a form of capital asset—seriously, check with human “resources” where you work). That’s why a short-term downturn that’s bad for you (you lose what you have, like a home) is ultimately good for most of them (downturns are discount buying opportunities for those with spare money). It’s why the stock market troubles that uninformed people wish for will not make Trump go away. Math!
The only hope lies in the reality of politics, right? Over large swaths of the earth, there are no elections. In some of the wealthiest countries in the Middle East and Asia, there is not even the pretext of anyone choosing a government. Most governments are controlled by family ascension, not unlike the Middle Ages. In more modern places, corruption and manipulation control things, as power and wealth work together.
Such is the case now in the United States. According to the once-prescient Lawrence Lessing (who has since lost his mind to Twitter and TDS), thanks to concentration of wealth, 132 people in the U.S. essentially control elections. They do so by donating—just that handful of people—over 60 percent of Super PAC money. Those 132 represent 0.000042 percent of the total number of voters; most other contributions to candidates are small, many below $200. It sounds nice when a candidate talks about this, but it diffuses power even as you think he owes you something now. That’s because it’s impossible under such circumstances for government to create laws against the interests of the wealthy; after all, they work for them.
The reality is there is no answer, no solution. That’s because things are working more or less as they are supposed to. From a certain perspective, income inequality means things are going according to the rigged rules. The system is designed to squeeze wealth up into a smaller and smaller group of hands. A byproduct is the creation of more and more poor at the bottom. It is the inevitable endpoint for a society set up to fund the wealthy via capital appreciation by paying low or stagnant wages to everyone else.
To say it can’t be is to ignore the last time it sort of was, one king in one castle sustained by tens of thousands of serfs living in sloven conditions, with feudalism the dominant force. A very, very few owned most everything of value. The 99.999 percent majority—serfs then, valued Target associates now—worked for whatever the feudal lords allowed them to have.
It’s very American to believe there are always answers, that there are not forces stronger than change at work, especially in an election year. Yet if you’re still looking for those answers—solutions—well, you’ve gotten to the end of the article.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.