dailykos--2020-02-23--Things really important to me

Things really important to me

Health care was , in 2018 , perhaps the most important issue motivating turnout , and it is still an important issue in 2020 .
My approach is shaped not only by the recent medical travails of my wife and myself , but also by what is now more than a decade of volunteering at free dental events in Southwest Virginia through the Virginia Dental Foundation ’ s Mission of Mercy .
That was the total amount billed to my insurance company for my stroke treatment in November .
That does not include the ambulance bill , also largely paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include separate charges by some of the doctor ’ s who consulted on my case .
Insurance covered the vast majority of the bills , either by payment or by negotiating the charges downward .
But just take that one figure .
It is more than 2/3 of the average family income in the US .
Ofter $ 26,000 was for one injection that was critical , that was given quickly enough to limit and reverse the effects of the stroke , and without which I almost certainly would not have been able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week .
So let ’ s talk about healthcare .
It should be a basic human right .
IT should include vision , dental , hearing , and psychological services .
It should cover all necessary prescriptions , devices , and treatments , I have no problem with people able to make money from providing services , but profits shoulod be controlled like the costs of public utilities ( usually natural monopolies ) are controlled , and large profits to passive investors at the expense of public health is an obscenity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Medicare for All , for a number of reasons , not all of which I will explore here .
We as a country have yet to make what Medicare ( and Medicaid ) we have cover all necessary expenses , the reimbursement rates are regularly too low and need to be supplemented by Congressional action that is usually insufficient , and in offering that approach we often do not address the number of jobs that might be lost in the private sector — there are after all many people serving the health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is NOT accounted for in the costs proposed for Medicare for All .
There are the further issues of access to health care in rural areas — remember that many have limited numbers of all kinds of physicians , are seeing hospitals close , and the costs of ambulance services ( which increase more quickly than the distance traveled ) can be astronomical .
I do believe in a commitment to universal health care , but believe that there are models ( Germany for example ) where public/private partnerships udner government regulation/supervision might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thus I want access to robust public options as well as government regulation .
For health reasons , I want even the undocumented aliens to have access to more that just stabilizing emergency care ( which in itself is very expensive ) .
I would like to see development of public urgent care facilities ( less expensive than full emercency care ) .
The Government funds the development of many pharmaceuticals , and should therefore be able to control the pricing — which BTW perhaps should have restrictions on advertising to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — think how many different ads we see for similar type drugs that treat conditions that few of us have .
Yes , I fully understand the First Amendment , but it was not aimed primarily at protecting COMMERCIAL speech , and there are precedents that allow its limitations .
Criminal Justice Reform .
Let ’ s get real about it .
First and foremost , there should not be for profit private prisons/jails .
We have seen far too much of what that represents .
Second , we should not be building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their inmates , because that cuts the connections with family and community , which makes it harder to reintegrate former prisoners productively back into society .
I will address racial/economic aspects of this anon , but one further point : if the prisoners are going to be counted as part of the population for census purposes where they are incarcerated , they should also be given full voting rights in those communities .
Their presence already contributes to the tax base .
Yes , the 13th Amendment allows involuntary servitude as punishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of our prisons our counting prisoners in those communities represents a transfer of both economic and political power away from their home communities in a way that seems alien to the original intent of the Amendment .
Voting Rights .
We can not claim we are a liberal democracy ( using those words with the political science meaning thereof ) when we place barriers against political participation , making it hard to register , to vote , and in some cases to run for office .
Those who use false rationalizations for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full political participation are cowards : they are afraid of submitting themselves and their policies to the will of the people they want to govern .
Rather than barriers to registering/voting , we should be moving to make both universal or at least far easier .
By the way , we should consider requiring at least all federal elections ( including primaries for those offices ) to have provisions for voting for a period of AT LEAST one week , including at least one weekend , to make voting more accessible .
Restricted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stations/equipment , is clearly intended to discourage/suppress the votes of certain groups .
Combined with this should be a move to eliminate partisan gerrymandering , the kinds of action that can lead a state to have one party get 60 % of the vote but only 40 % of the seats in a legislative body ( or that state ’ s Congressional Delegation ) .
Partisan gerrymjandering is also antithetical to liberal democracy .
It would be nice if Federal Judges , including the Justices on SCOTUS , would stop distorting the clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is especially true for those who deliberately misread the First Amendment to allow for religion to be used to discriminate in commercial activity .
It also should apply to the 2nd Amendment , which after all begins with a clause discussing the need for well-regulated militias , something ignored in the Heller decision ( even as Scalia still acknowledged the right of government to restrict and even ban certain weapons ) .
Race and Economic Class .
We are as a nation going backwards , becoming willfully less inclusive and allowing access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see this in moving funds from public schools open to all to entities that are for profit , not well regulated , that can deny services ( eg : special ed and English Language Learners ) .
We see it in impositions on instruction/curriculum/testing that do NOT meet the educational needs of many , particularly in less well-off communities ( which often overlap extensively with communities of color ) .
This continues on with the defunding of higher education — the notion of tuition free public college just about totally disappeared .
Combine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we are eliminating education as a pathway to improvement .
The notion of for-profit higher education , often institutions that provide substandard instruction at the public trough ( eg GI Bill ) and the intent of education as something that should open doors rather than create a class that is permanently indebted loses any meaning .
Issues of race and economics applies on many levels — the ability to build wealth , red-lining , food deserts , etc .
All of these need to be addressed .
So does our tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the highest incremental tax rate to be less than 50 % .
We thrived as a country and build an expanding middle class when it was in the 90s .
I think we need more tax brackets , perhaps a top rate of 60 or 70 .
The cap on income subject to FICA should be lifted .
Deductible limits need to be raised for the middle class , and cut for the wealthy .
There should be an EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate of 25 % , with the equivalent of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon and Apple and GE are paying for the services they get from governments .
This should include taxes on income held outside the US and not subject to taxes in the nations where it is held .
I will not address military policy in this post .
Nor will I explore the issues of the distortion of the rule of law .
Each of these requires a great number of words .
There is one topic I must at least address .
That is the existential threat posed by Climate Change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nothing else will matter .
We will see pandemics that will dwarf anything in human memory .
We will live through fires that will dwarf Australia ’ s recent horrors .
Species will go extinct as their habitat is destroyed .
We will see mass starvation as food supplies are disrupted .
This country may see flooding we can not imagine , that will make the failure of the levees during Katrina seem trivial : remember how much of our population and infrastructure is in coastal cities , many with little elevation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Greenland and Antarctica will have devastating effects here , and will cause some island nations to largely disappear .
We need to do much more than rejoin the Paris agreement .
We need to move to elimination of vehicles powered solely by petroleum fueled internal combustion engines .
We need to conserve power of all kinds and move to retrofit buildings , and prohibit the building and expanding of structures that are not energy efficient .
As a model I note that the Americans With Disabilities Act required retrofitting of existing buildings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disabled .
My own political participation will be shaped by these and other issues I have not addressed .
I will have to make choices among these priorities given the candidates before me .
I am not going to run for office myself .
I am also responsible for my own individual actions and choices , that they are as much as I can make them in conformity with what I believe is important .
For if I do not model what I believe , how can I teach or challenge others on @ @ @ @ @ @ @

First an apology. My post yesterday on my decision to vote for Warren (which I did at about 9:45 AM) and to contribute to her campaign ($100 online) was my first posting here in more than a month. Some may remember that in mid-November I suffered a stroke, later had surgery to relieve the stenosis in my carotid artery that caused the stent, followed by a brief TIA. I am still not fully back to energy, and have had less to spend online and writing, because I am still teaching full-time (and grateful that my school has been so generous and supportive of me through my medical travails).
I am not yet committing to the level of regular blogging that was so much a part of my life a few years ago, but after the positive response of yesterday, and the number of people who told me they value what I have to offer, I decided to offer this piece.
Let me be clear. There are things very important to me that will NOT be a part of this — our now almost 19 year old rescued cat is one example. Other things, like the health issues my wife and I have addressed over the past 7+ years are a part because they undergird the thinking that has led to this piece, which given where I am posting it is of course political in nature.
Political in nature — I say that in a very broad sense. That is, this is an explanation of how I shape my own thinking when it comes to political matters: what issues I consider, what aspects of those issues, the moral decisions with which they confront me.
I do not fit into easy categories. As an early Baby Boomer (born May 1946) I lived through and participated in and knew well some of the activists of the political activities of the 1960s and later, but my own politics can be considered very eclectic. After all, the political campaigns in which I have been active have included people fairly conservative on some issues of importance to Democrats, like Webb and Hollings, and others who were considered too far “left” by many, including McGovern.
These will be the musings of one man now approaching 74, who still thinks very much about the future because he spends his working hours teaching teenagers.
Make of it what you will, if you are interested enough to keep reading.
Health care was, in 2018, perhaps the most important issue motivating turnout, and it is still an important issue in 2020. My approach is shaped not only by the recent medical travails of my wife and myself, but also by what is now more than a decade of volunteering at free dental events in Southwest Virginia through the Virginia Dental Foundation’s Mission of Mercy.
$41,133.92.
That was the total amount billed to my insurance company for my stroke treatment in November. That does not include the ambulance bill, also largely paid by my insurance. Nor does it include separate charges by some of the doctor’s who consulted on my case.
Insurance covered the vast majority of the bills, either by payment or by negotiating the charges downward.
But just take that one figure. It is more than 2/3 of the average family income in the US. Ofter $26,000 was for one injection that was critical, that was given quickly enough to limit and reverse the effects of the stroke, and without which I almost certainly would not have been able to return to work in less than a week.
So let’s talk about healthcare. It should be a basic human right. IT should include vision, dental, hearing, and psychological services. It should cover all necessary prescriptions, devices, and treatments, I have no problem with people able to make money from providing services, but profits shoulod be controlled like the costs of public utilities (usually natural monopolies) are controlled, and large profits to passive investors at the expense of public health is an obscenity.
I am not committed to the notion of Medicare for All, for a number of reasons, not all of which I will explore here. We as a country have yet to make what Medicare (and Medicaid) we have cover all necessary expenses, the reimbursement rates are regularly too low and need to be supplemented by Congressional action that is usually insufficient, and in offering that approach we often do not address the number of jobs that might be lost in the private sector — there are after all many people serving the health care sector through private entities whose employment is NOT accounted for in the costs proposed for Medicare for All. There are the further issues of access to health care in rural areas — remember that many have limited numbers of all kinds of physicians, are seeing hospitals close, and the costs of ambulance services (which increase more quickly than the distance traveled) can be astronomical.
I do believe in a commitment to universal health care, but believe that there are models (Germany for example) where public/private partnerships udner government regulation/supervision might move us more quickly to complete coverage. Thus I want access to robust public options as well as government regulation. For health reasons, I want even the undocumented aliens to have access to more that just stabilizing emergency care (which in itself is very expensive). I would like to see development of public urgent care facilities (less expensive than full emercency care). The Government funds the development of many pharmaceuticals, and should therefore be able to control the pricing — which BTW perhaps should have restrictions on advertising to the public, which costs far too much — think how many different ads we see for similar type drugs that treat conditions that few of us have. Yes, I fully understand the First Amendment, but it was not aimed primarily at protecting COMMERCIAL speech, and there are precedents that allow its limitations.
Criminal Justice Reform. Let’s get real about it. First and foremost, there should not be for profit private prisons/jails. We have seen far too much of what that represents. Second, we should not be building prisons in communities remote from the source of their inmates, because that cuts the connections with family and community, which makes it harder to reintegrate former prisoners productively back into society. I will address racial/economic aspects of this anon, but one further point: if the prisoners are going to be counted as part of the population for census purposes where they are incarcerated, they should also be given full voting rights in those communities. Their presence already contributes to the tax base. Yes, the 13th Amendment allows involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, but give where many of our prisons our counting prisoners in those communities represents a transfer of both economic and political power away from their home communities in a way that seems alien to the original intent of the Amendment.
Voting Rights. We cannot claim we are a liberal democracy (using those words with the political science meaning thereof) when we place barriers against political participation, making it hard to register, to vote, and in some cases to run for office. Those who use false rationalizations for actions/laws/etc intended to keep SOME people from full political participation are cowards: they are afraid of submitting themselves and their policies to the will of the people they want to govern. Rather than barriers to registering/voting, we should be moving to make both universal or at least far easier. By the way, we should consider requiring at least all federal elections (including primaries for those offices) to have provisions for voting for a period of AT LEAST one week, including at least one weekend, to make voting more accessible. Restricted days/hours, especially when combined with insufficient stations/equipment, is clearly intended to discourage/suppress the votes of certain groups.
Combined with this should be a move to eliminate partisan gerrymandering, the kinds of action that can lead a state to have one party get 60% of the vote but only 40% of the seats in a legislative body (or that state’s Congressional Delegation). Partisan gerrymjandering is also antithetical to liberal democracy.
It would be nice if Federal Judges, including the Justices on SCOTUS, would stop distorting the clear intent of the Bill of Rights. This is especially true for those who deliberately misread the First Amendment to allow for religion to be used to discriminate in commercial activity. It also should apply to the 2nd Amendment, which after all begins with a clause discussing the need for well-regulated militias, something ignored in the Heller decision (even as Scalia still acknowledged the right of government to restrict and even ban certain weapons).
Race and Economic Class. We are as a nation going backwards, becoming willfully less inclusive and allowing access and opportunity to be stifled. We see this in moving funds from public schools open to all to entities that are for profit, not well regulated, that can deny services (eg: special ed and English Language Learners). We see it in impositions on instruction/curriculum/testing that do NOT meet the educational needs of many, particularly in less well-off communities (which often overlap extensively with communities of color). This continues on with the defunding of higher education — the notion of tuition free public college just about totally disappeared. Combine with this the for-profit educational loan industry, and we are eliminating education as a pathway to improvement. The notion of for-profit higher education, often institutions that provide substandard instruction at the public trough (eg GI Bill) and the intent of education as something that should open doors rather than create a class that is permanently indebted loses any meaning.
Issues of race and economics applies on many levels — the ability to build wealth, red-lining, food deserts, etc. All of these need to be addressed.
So does our tax policy. There is NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON for the highest incremental tax rate to be less than 50%. We thrived as a country and build an expanding middle class when it was in the 90s. I think we need more tax brackets, perhaps a top rate of 60 or 70. The cap on income subject to FICA should be lifted. Deductible limits need to be raised for the middle class, and cut for the wealthy. There should be an EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate of 25%, with the equivalent of an Alternative Minimum Tax so that entities like Amazon and Apple and GE are paying for the services they get from governments. This should include taxes on income held outside the US and not subject to taxes in the nations where it is held.
I will not address military policy in this post. Nor will I explore the issues of the distortion of the rule of law. Each of these requires a great number of words.
There is one topic I must at least address. That is the existential threat posed by Climate Change. IF we do not address that IMMEDIATELY, nothing else will matter. We will see pandemics that will dwarf anything in human memory. We will live through fires that will dwarf Australia’s recent horrors. Species will go extinct as their habitat is destroyed. We will see mass starvation as food supplies are disrupted. This country may see flooding we cannot imagine, that will make the failure of the levees during Katrina seem trivial: remember how much of our population and infrastructure is in coastal cities, many with little elevation. Loss of massive amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica will have devastating effects here, and will cause some island nations to largely disappear.
We need to do much more than rejoin the Paris agreement. We need to move to elimination of vehicles powered solely by petroleum fueled internal combustion engines. We need to conserve power of all kinds and move to retrofit buildings, and prohibit the building and expanding of structures that are not energy efficient. As a model I note that the Americans With Disabilities Act required retrofitting of existing buildings being modified to provide access to the disabled.
My own political participation will be shaped by these and other issues I have not addressed. I will have to make choices among these priorities given the candidates before me. I am not going to run for office myself.
I am also responsible for my own individual actions and choices, that they are as much as I can make them in conformity with what I believe is important.
For if I do not model what I believe, how can I teach or challenge others on these — and other — issues?
Peace?


dailykos--2020-02-24--Can you imagine not having access to a grocery store?

It ’ s hard to live in a town without a grocery store -- but that ’ s the reality for many families in Iowa ’ s 4th congressional district , where J.D .
Scholten is running for Congress .
These families are forced to rely on gas stations or dollar stores for food to put on their kitchen tables .
But these places don ’ t sell fresh produce or fresh meat , which undermines our overall nutrition , health , and ability to reach our fullest potential .
Many of our rural communities are fighting hard to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gowrie ( pop .
1,037 ) , folks heroically came together to buy their grocery store to keep it open .
Shortly after , the town of Manson ( pop .
300 ) followed Gowrie ’ s example and are now rallying to reopen their grocery store .
These stories are both heart-breaking and heart-warming , but we need to shine a light on them and share what ’ s really going on in the lives of everyday people .
Food deserts aren ’ t just in rural America , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our country like Chicago , Baltimore , and New York City .
No matter what zip code you live in , you should have access to affordable , quality , and healthy food .
To keep our grocery stores alive , we need to start by : • Expanding and investing in local and regional food systems • Addressing the impacts of climate change on our farms and communities Grocery stores are the linchpin of a community , keeping everything else afloat .
Once a town loses its grocery store , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closes , then the school or the bank , and then folks move away .
We need you with us to fight for everyday people who deserve healthy , affordable food to eat .

It’s hard to live in a town without a grocery store -- but that’s the reality for many families in Iowa’s 4th congressional district, where J.D. Scholten is running for Congress.
These families are forced to rely on gas stations or dollar stores for food to put on their kitchen tables. But these places don’t sell fresh produce or fresh meat, which undermines our overall nutrition, health, and ability to reach our fullest potential.
Many of our rural communities are fighting hard to keep their last remaining grocery store. In Gowrie (pop. 1,037), folks heroically came together to buy their grocery store to keep it open. Shortly after, the town of Manson (pop. 1,796) followed Gowrie’s example and are now rallying to reopen their grocery store.
These stories are both heart-breaking and heart-warming, but we need to shine a light on them and share what’s really going on in the lives of everyday people.
Food deserts aren’t just in rural America, they’re also in some of the biggest cities in our country like Chicago, Baltimore, and New York City. No matter what zip code you live in, you should have access to affordable, quality, and healthy food.
To keep our grocery stores alive, we need to start by:
Enforcing antitrust laws
Protecting small businesses from big retail
Strengthening unions
Eliminating tax loopholes and subsidies for big corporations
Supporting critical nutrition programs like SNAP and WIC
Expanding and investing in local and regional food systems
Backing local grocery stores, mobile grocery units, food hubs & co-ops
Addressing the impacts of climate change on our farms and communities
Grocery stores are the linchpin of a community, keeping everything else afloat. Once a town loses its grocery store, it’s not long before the pharmacy closes, then the school or the bank, and then folks move away.
We need you with us to fight for everyday people who deserve healthy, affordable food to eat.


dailykos--2020-02-28--Who is Your Dream Vice President Pick?

Who is Your Dream Vice President Pick?

We may still be only at the beginning of the Democratic primary to select the top of the ticket , but one aspect of the presidential ticket we generally don ’ t get to vote on is the # 2 spot : The Vice President pick .
While the VP nod may not draw a dramatic change in voter preference , I think the 2016 election showed that a milquetoast choice for the # 2 spot certainly doesn ’ t help to invigorate interest even among devout followers of the presidential candidate .
In other words , we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With our top candidates being 70+ years old , we not only need ( comparative ) youth , but also some vigor .
Blah , blah , blah… Regardless of your choice for the nomination for President , who would you most like to see as the vice presidential candidate on that person ’ s campaign ?
( Qualify your answer if different people would provide better support to different front runners . )
-- Edit— I should have included Michelle Obama .
I doubt she would entertain the idea , but… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the race .

We may still be only at the beginning of the Democratic primary to select the top of the ticket, but one aspect of the presidential ticket we generally don’t get to vote on is the #2 spot: The Vice President pick.
While the VP nod may not draw a dramatic change in voter preference, I think the 2016 election showed that a milquetoast choice for the #2 spot certainly doesn’t help to invigorate interest even among devout followers of the presidential candidate.
In other words, we don’t need a Tim Kaine this year. With our top candidates being 70+ years old, we not only need (comparative) youth, but also some vigor.
Blah, blah, blah… Regardless of your choice for the nomination for President, who would you most like to see as the vice presidential candidate on that person’s campaign? (Qualify your answer if different people would provide better support to different front runners.)
--Edit— I should have included Michelle Obama. I doubt she would entertain the idea, but… she would bring extreme interest and dynamism to the race.


dailykos--2020-02-26--Democratic Socialism - Bernie Sanders in His Own Words

What follows is taken directly from Bernie Sanders 's own writing in which he describes what he means when he calls himself Democratic Socialist .
He is n't advocating government ownership of the private property or of replacing capitalism with `` government ownership of the means of production '' as extremists claim on the right .
It is more about building on what Franklin D. Roosevelt began almost 100 years ago that remain so popular today .
It is about how we must reign in oligarchs and harness capitalism to better serve everyone and not just the rich .
IN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was ever a moment when we needed to stand up and fight against the forces of oligarchy and authoritarianism , this is that time .
– Sanders , 2019 · On one hand , there is a growing movement towards oligarchy and authoritarianism in which a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country .
· On the other hand , in opposition to oligarchy , there is a movement of working people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers , are fighting for justice .
· When we talk about oligarchy , let us be clear about what we mean .
Right now , in the United States of America , three families control more wealth than the bottom half of our country , some 160 million American [ while ] tens of millions of working-class people , in the wealthiest country on earth , are suffering under incredible economic hardship , desperately trying to survive .
· Today , nearly 40 million Americans live in poverty and tonight [ every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sleeping out on the streets .
About half of the country lives paycheck to paycheck · After decades of policies that have encouraged and subsidized unbridled corporate greed , we now have an economy that is fundamentally broken and grotesquely unfair .
· Even while … the stock market and the unemployment rate are strong , millions of middle class and working people struggle to keep their heads above water · In America today the very rich live on average 15 years longer than the poorest Americans .
· The issue of unfettered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , poverty , economic distress and despair are life-threatening issues for millions of working people in the country .
· Across the globe , the movement toward oligarchy runs parallel to the growth of authoritarian regimes – like Putin in Russia , Xi in China , Mohamed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia , Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines , Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil , and Viktor Orbán in Hungary · These leaders meld corporatist economics with xenophobia and authoritarianism .
· They redirect popular anger about inequality and declining economic conditions into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are immigrants , racial minorities , religious minorities or the LGBT community · In the United States , we have our own version of this movement… led by President Trump and many of his Republican allies who are attempting to divide our country up and attack these same communities .
· The challenge we confront today as a nation , and as a world , is in many ways not different from the one we faced a little less than a century ago , during and after the Great Depression ... deeply-rooted and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the rise of right-wing nationalist forces all over the world .
· Anger and despair were ultimately harnessed by authoritarian demagogues who fused corporatism , nationalism , racism , and xenophobia into a political movement that amassed totalitarian power , destroyed democracy , and ultimately murder [ ed ] millions of people — including members of my own family .
· We rejected the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler · We instead embraced the bold and visionary leadership of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt , then the leader of the progressive wing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transformation of the American government and the American economy… at transformative change opposed by big business , Wall Street , the political establishment , by the Republican Party and by the conservative wing of FDR ’ s own Democratic Party .
And he faced the same scare tactics then that we experience today — red-baiting , xenophobia , racism , and anti-Semitism .
“ We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace : · We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world is once again moving towards authoritarianism — and the same right-wing forces of oligarchy , corporatism , nationalism , racism , and xenophobia are on the march , pushing us to make the apocalyptically wrong choice that Europe made in the last century .
· Today , we have a demagogue in the White House who… support brutal family separations , border walls , Muslim bans , anti-LGBT policies , deportations , and voter suppression .
· The United States must reject that path of hatred and divisiveness and instead find the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a higher path , a path of compassion , justice and love .
· It is the path that I call democratic socialism .
· We must take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry it to completion .
· [ We must commit ] committing ourselves to protect political rights , to protecting civil rights – and to protect the economic rights of all people in this country .
As FDR stated in his 1944 State of the Union address : “ We have come to a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom can not exist without economic security and independence.
” · Now , we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man , woman , and child in our country basic economic rights • The right to quality health care • The right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society • The right to a good job that pays a living wage • The right to affordable housing • The right to a secure retirement , and • The right to live in a clean environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of the world , economic rights are human rights .
That is what I mean by democratic socialism .
“ Call it democracy , or call it democratic socialism , but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God ’ s children.
” · We must see ourselves as part of one nation , one community and one society regardless of race , gender , religion , sexual orientation , or country of origin .
This quintessentially American idea is literally emblazoned on our coins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many , one .
· I do understand that I and other progressives will face massive attacks from those who attempt to use the word “ socialism ” as a slur .
· President Harry Truman was right when he said that : “ Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years…Socialism is what they called Social Security .
Socialism is what they called farm price supports .
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance .
Socialism is what they called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations .
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
” · When Trump attacks socialism , I am reminded of what Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. said , “ This country has socialism for the rich , rugged individualism for the poor.
” · And that is the difference between Donald Trump and me .
He believes in corporate socialism for the rich and powerful .
I believe in a democratic socialism that works for the working families of this country .
· Freedom is an often-used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took a hard look at what that word actually means .
Ask yourself : what does it actually mean to be free ?
· Are you truly free if you are unable to go to a doctor when you are sick or face financial bankruptcy when you leave the hospital ?
· Are you truly free if you can not afford the prescription drug you need to stay alive ?
· Are you truly free when you spend half of your limited income on housing and are forced to borrow money from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
· Are you truly free if you are 70 years old and forced to work because you lack a pension or enough money to retire ?
· Are you truly free if you are unable to go to attend college or a trade school because your family lacks the income ?
· Are you truly free if you are forced to work 60 or 80 hours a week because you can ’ t find a job that pays a living wage ?
· Are you truly free if you are a mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are forced to go back to work immediately after the birth because you lack paid family leave ?
· Are you truly free if you are a small business owner or family farmer who is driven out by the monopolistic practices of big business ?
· Are you truly free if you are a veteran , who put your life on the line to defend this country , and now sleep out on the streets ?
· In 1944 , FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vision .
· I am proposing an Economic Bill of Rights… that establishes once and for all that every American…is entitled to the right to : · Democratic socialism to me requires achieving political and economic freedom in every community… the only way we achieve these goals is through a political revolution where millions of people get involved in the political process and reclaim our democracy · At the end of the day , the one percent may have enormous wealth and power , but they are just the one percent .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can transform society .
· These are my values , and [ this ] is why I call myself a democratic socialist .
· At its core is a deep and abiding faith in the American people to peacefully and democratically enact the transformative change that will create ...

What follows is taken directly from Bernie Sanders's own writing in which he describes what he means when he calls himself Democratic Socialist. He isn't advocating government ownership of the private property or of replacing capitalism with "government ownership of the means of production" as extremists claim on the right. It is more about building on what Franklin D. Roosevelt began almost 100 years ago that remain so popular today. It is about how we must reign in oligarchs and harness capitalism to better serve everyone and not just the rich.
But Senator Sanders expresses it better than most, so, here is Bernie Sanders defining his vision for democratic socialism in the United States...
IN HIS OWN WORDS:
“If there was ever a moment when we needed to stand up and fight against the forces of oligarchy and authoritarianism, this is that time. – Sanders, 2019
· On one hand, there is a growing movement towards oligarchy and authoritarianism in which a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country.
· On the other hand, in opposition to oligarchy, there is a movement of working people and young people who, in ever-increasing numbers, are fighting for justice.
· When we talk about oligarchy, let us be clear about what we mean. Right now, in the United States of America, three families control more wealth than the bottom half of our country, some 160 million American [while] tens of millions of working-class people, in the wealthiest country on earth, are suffering under incredible economic hardship, desperately trying to survive.
· Today, nearly 40 million Americans live in poverty and tonight [every night], 500,000 people will be sleeping out on the streets. About half of the country lives paycheck to paycheck
· After decades of policies that have encouraged and subsidized unbridled corporate greed, we now have an economy that is fundamentally broken and grotesquely unfair.
· Even while … the stock market and the unemployment rate are strong, millions of middle class and working people struggle to keep their heads above water
· In America today the very rich live on average 15 years longer than the poorest Americans.
· The issue of unfettered capitalism is not just an academic debate, poverty, economic distress and despair are life-threatening issues for millions of working people in the country.
· Across the globe, the movement toward oligarchy runs parallel to the growth of authoritarian regimes – like Putin in Russia, Xi in China, Mohamed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary
· These leaders meld corporatist economics with xenophobia and authoritarianism.
· They redirect popular anger about inequality and declining economic conditions into a violent rage against minorities — whether they are immigrants, racial minorities, religious minorities or the LGBT community
· In the United States, we have our own version of this movement… led by President Trump and many of his Republican allies who are attempting to divide our country up and attack these same communities.
· The challenge we confront today as a nation, and as a world, is in many ways not different from the one we faced a little less than a century ago, during and after the Great Depression... deeply-rooted and seemingly intractable economic and social disparities led to the rise of right-wing nationalist forces all over the world.
· Anger and despair were ultimately harnessed by authoritarian demagogues who fused corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia into a political movement that amassed totalitarian power, destroyed democracy, and ultimately murder[ed] millions of people — including members of my own family.
· We rejected the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler
· We instead embraced the bold and visionary leadership of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then the leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Roosevelt led a transformation of the American government and the American economy… at transformative change opposed by big business, Wall Street, the political establishment, by the Republican Party and by the conservative wing of FDR’s own Democratic Party. And he faced the same scare tactics then that we experience today — red-baiting, xenophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism.
· In a famous 1936 campaign speech, Roosevelt stated,


dailykos--2020-02-26--Are Minority Voters Ready To Flex Their Political Muscle?

Though the political class punditry appears to have picked up right where they left off following 2016 , I get the feeling they are speaking to dead air as it relates to their ability to mold public opinion to the degree they have been able to in the past .
After all , listening to them got us Donald Trump at the end of the day .
They were exposed as possessing no special wisdom .
The old guard politicos are still relying on past indicators for predicting the 2020 race , ringing the alarms about the middle way being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they are floundering because this time around it seems that voters have taken charge as if to say “ enough this nonsense ” .
Polling suggests , none more so than minority voters .
In this election we may see the Hispanic block , who have flirted with the idea of flexing their political muscle in the past but didn ’ t , bring it this time .
This election is a referendum on their personal liberties and status as Americans in many ways .
African American voters seem energized as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , no one has a larger stake in the upcoming election .
They got to see last time around what happens when there are no checks against the white majority ’ s bad judgement .
Watch what happens in Texas , California and the Southern states come March 3rd , if we see a significant turn out in minority primary voters like we saw in Nevada , Democrats can relax a bit .

Though the political class punditry appears to have picked up right where they left off following 2016, I get the feeling they are speaking to dead air as it relates to their ability to mold public opinion to the degree they have been able to in the past. After all, listening to them got us Donald Trump at the end of the day. They were exposed as possessing no special wisdom.
The old guard politicos are still relying on past indicators for predicting the 2020 race, ringing the alarms about the middle way being the path to victory for Democrats, and they are floundering because this time around it seems that voters have taken charge as if to say “enough this nonsense”. Polling suggests, none more so than minority voters.
In this election we may see the Hispanic block, who have flirted with the idea of flexing their political muscle in the past but didn’t, bring it this time. This election is a referendum on their personal liberties and status as Americans in many ways. African American voters seem energized as well. If you are a minority in America, no one has a larger stake in the upcoming election. They got to see last time around what happens when there are no checks against the white majority’s bad judgement.
Watch what happens in Texas, California and the Southern states come March 3rd, if we see a significant turn out in minority primary voters like we saw in Nevada, Democrats can relax a bit.


dailykos--2020-02-26--Bloomberg’s Debate Strategy Will Backfire. Democrats Don’t Like Mean

Bloomberg ’ s camp is signaling they are going to take a no holds barred strategy go after Bernie Sanders tonight .
Mixing in old personal history and remarks he made going back 40 years in an attempt to create an open avenue for himself next Tuesday .
I think this will backfire on him , here ’ s why .
Bloomberg as a Republican , ran a bare knuckles type mayoral campaign in New York City .
His personal style appealed to that city ’ s sensibilities .
It ’ s a tough town .
He had a reputation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street backed him as did the large Jewish community .
The levers of power in NYC were in his corner .
Running a national election for the highest office in the land is nothing like running for mayor obviously , but that ’ s not the biggest differences Bloomberg will face , it ’ s in the decorum Democrats expect from their candidates .
They don ’ t like mean .
Republicans like their candidates to be on the angry combative side , even running against each other .
Also , if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it so be it , they know that Fox will clean up after them later .
Democrats generally don ’ t appreciate that style of politics , especially if it ’ s directed at another candidate in a primary .
Even if it has the desired affect , the perpetrator gets diminished as well most of the time .
Case in point when Amy Klobuchar went off on Buttigieg in the Nevada debate last week .
Primary voters were turned off it seems .
Bloomberg hasn ’ t gained sufficient rapport with Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attack a respected candidate on stage and not experience some kind of repercussions .
Agree or disagree with Bernie ’ s policies , he is reasonably well liked by Democrats , a party that tends to reject bullies .
Bloomberg can come off as a bully whose wealth substitutes for his fist .
That is not the kind of candidate Democratic voters feel comfortable with .
My experience around them is that the notion that the end justifies the means is not a stance they are willing to adopt .

Bloomberg’s camp is signaling they are going to take a no holds barred strategy go after Bernie Sanders tonight. Mixing in old personal history and remarks he made going back 40 years in an attempt to create an open avenue for himself next Tuesday.
I think this will backfire on him, here’s why. Bloomberg as a Republican, ran a bare knuckles type mayoral campaign in New York City. His personal style appealed to that city’s sensibilities. It’s a tough town. He had a reputation there, people knew him. Wall Street backed him as did the large Jewish community. The levers of power in NYC were in his corner.
Running a national election for the highest office in the land is nothing like running for mayor obviously, but that’s not the biggest differences Bloomberg will face, it’s in the decorum Democrats expect from their candidates. They don’t like mean. Republicans like their candidates to be on the angry combative side, even running against each other. Also, if they have to stretch the truth to do it so be it, they know that Fox will clean up after them later.
Democrats generally don’t appreciate that style of politics, especially if it’s directed at another candidate in a primary. Even if it has the desired affect, the perpetrator gets diminished as well most of the time. Case in point when Amy Klobuchar went off on Buttigieg in the Nevada debate last week. Primary voters were turned off it seems.
Bloomberg hasn’t gained sufficient rapport with Democratic primary voters to have earned the right to attack a respected candidate on stage and not experience some kind of repercussions.
Agree or disagree with Bernie’s policies, he is reasonably well liked by Democrats, a party that tends to reject bullies. Bloomberg can come off as a bully whose wealth substitutes for his fist. That is not the kind of candidate Democratic voters feel comfortable with. My experience around them is that the notion that the end justifies the means is not a stance they are willing to adopt.


dailykos--2020-02-25--Bernie Sanders, Ethical Populist
(and make no mistake - the people want a populist)

In the 2016 election cycle , it was clear on both sides .
The people wanted a populist .
On the Left , Bernie ’ s crowds were bigger , louder , happier , and more resilient in the rain than any other candidate .
It was undeniable .
There was a thrill in the air .
We wanted a populist !
( Many of us also loved the quality and craft and grit of Hillary Clinton .
We loved the idea of a woman taking the office right after a black man .
Progress !
Yes !
But…she wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ( maybe even fair-and-square , if we ’ re being honest ) , but not because she was the most popular .
She won because she had her hands closer to the levers of power in the party .
Superdelegates .
Insiders .
The Establishment .
Wall Street .
She played by the rules , and she played to win , and she won .
( And we lost . )
On the other side , the Republicans put up every different flavor they had , and the creepiest guy took the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtually ZERO populists in establishment Republican governance .
The reasons should be obvious .
Establishment Republicans govern from privilege and power , hierarchy and patriarchy .
Not populism .
You ’ ll find the occasional demagogue who bellows , but rarely a true populist — at least in modern history .
Back when rural America was less lonely , less empty , before the big post-war suburbanization , there may have been some .
More recently , one could make the argument that Ronald Reagan was a populist .
And in somesenses he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how he ’ s lionized by the Right — because he was such a rare bird .
That alone should illustrate just how powerful a populist can be , to both sides of the aisle . )
Other than Reagan , I don ’ t see populists making political progress on the Right .
I see demagogues .
Rush Limbaugh et .
al .
But they don ’ t run for office .
They are bullies , not populists .
And then , along came Donald Trump .
Liar .
Cheat .
Bully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narcissistic authoritarian .
How much and how often he lied about his bona fides didn ’ t matter .
What we heard was that he was anti-establishment .
That was the message that stuck .
What many missed was that he was only anti-establishment because they had wronged him , and he was gon na prove that he was as good as they thought they were .
( And… cough-cough…take what they had for himself . )
He was gon na tear the place down .
Burn it to the ground if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d do it for us .
This is a classic appeal to the Right .
Already authoritarian in bent , the Right ’ s “ might makes right ” attitude under the thin veil of “ law and order ” loved his tough-guy , punch first attitude .
Of course , he lied — over and over and over .
But it didn ’ t matter .
In spite of all his grotesque flaws , the people wanted a populist .
He was the only one on the stage .
And he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punching the establishment Republicans in the face , one by one .
Donald Trump is the epitome of the mendacious populist .
Con-artist as populist .
Narcissist as populist .
On the Left , on the other hand , there is room for real populists .
Populists who actually have the best interests of the people at heart .
In some sense , it ’ s almost a defining characteristic of the Left — the big tent , compassion first , power-to-the-people , we ’ re all in this together .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Left have a little populist ring to them .
Over the last years , though , as the country has convulsively lurched right ( starting with Reagan ) , the Democrats have tried to govern responsibly , with an open , bi-partisan policy-making hand .
And that has driven the party right-ward .
And now , the people are sick of it .
They ’ re sick of the political establishment doing nothing to deal with the decay of the middle class , the decay of opportunities for our kids , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure .
Sure , the stock market is at an all time high .
But that doesn ’ t really serve the average American , now , does it ?
And job opportunities suck .
Yes , unemployment is at an all-time low .
But the quality of the jobs has deteriorated .
Income inequality is at absurd levels , and the vicarious “ lifestyles of the rich and famous ” porn-thrill has worn off , and we ’ ve all got a bad hangover .
Along comes Bernie Sanders , Ethical Populist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news is , he ’ s been Bernie Sanders , Ethical Populist for , what , 40 years now ?
And he ’ s calling for a political revolution , to ( fortunately , figuratively ) bring out the pitchforks and torches , and bring down the out-of-touch feudal lords who run the estate .
Much like Donald Trump ’ s message in 2016 , but without the lying .
For this reason , he will carry traditionally red states .
Those who voted for Trump in 2016 voted AGAINST the political establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with what Trump has done , they will do so again — especially if we put an ethical populist on the ballot .
Now is our chance .
Bernie Sanders , Ethical Populist .
Stop him ?
FUCK NO !
Get on the band-wagon .
Because it ’ s either that , or actual pitchforks and torches .
And we REALLY don ’ t want that to be our legacy .
Unless it ’ s the only choice left .

In the 2016 election cycle, it was clear on both sides. The people wanted a populist.
On the Left, Bernie’s crowds were bigger, louder, happier, and more resilient in the rain than any other candidate. It was undeniable. There was a thrill in the air. We wanted a populist! (Many of us also loved the quality and craft and grit of Hillary Clinton. We loved the idea of a woman taking the office right after a black man. Progress! Yes! But…she wasn’t a populist.)
Hillary won (maybe even fair-and-square, if we’re being honest), but not because she was the most popular. She won because she had her hands closer to the levers of power in the party. Superdelegates. Insiders. The Establishment. Wall Street.
She played by the rules, and she played to win, and she won. (And we lost.)
On the other side, the Republicans put up every different flavor they had, and the creepiest guy took the banner. Why? Because there are virtually ZERO populists in establishment Republican governance. The reasons should be obvious. Establishment Republicans govern from privilege and power, hierarchy and patriarchy. Not populism. You’ll find the occasional demagogue who bellows, but rarely a true populist — at least in modern history. Back when rural America was less lonely, less empty, before the big post-war suburbanization, there may have been some. More recently, one could make the argument that Ronald Reagan was a populist. And in somesenses he was. (And you can see how he’s lionized by the Right — because he was such a rare bird. That alone should illustrate just how powerful a populist can be, to both sides of the aisle.)
Other than Reagan, I don’t see populists making political progress on the Right. I see demagogues. Rush Limbaugh et. al. But they don’t run for office. They are bullies, not populists.
And then, along came Donald Trump. Liar. Cheat. Bully. Demagogue. Mendacious, fake, narcissistic authoritarian.
Pitched, packaged, and sold as a Populist.
How much and how often he lied about his bona fides didn’t matter. What we heard was that he was anti-establishment. That was the message that stuck. What many missed was that he was only anti-establishment because they had wronged him, and he was gonna prove that he was as good as they thought they were. (And… cough-cough…take what they had for himself.) He was gonna tear the place down. Burn it to the ground if he had to.
And he said he’d do it for us.
This is a classic appeal to the Right. Already authoritarian in bent, the Right’s “might makes right” attitude under the thin veil of “law and order” loved his tough-guy, punch first attitude. Of course, he lied — over and over and over. But it didn’t matter. In spite of all his grotesque flaws, the people wanted a populist. He was the only one on the stage.
And he ran away with the nomination. By punching the establishment Republicans in the face, one by one.
Donald Trump is the epitome of the mendacious populist. Con-artist as populist. Narcissist as populist.
On the Left, on the other hand, there is room for real populists. Populists who actually have the best interests of the people at heart. In some sense, it’s almost a defining characteristic of the Left — the big tent, compassion first, power-to-the-people, we’re all in this together. In a good political season, all the candidates on the Left have a little populist ring to them. Over the last years, though, as the country has convulsively lurched right (starting with Reagan), the Democrats have tried to govern responsibly, with an open, bi-partisan policy-making hand. And that has driven the party right-ward.
Big mistake.
And now, the people are sick of it. They’re sick of the political establishment doing nothing to deal with the decay of the middle class, the decay of opportunities for our kids, the decay of our public institutions and infrastructure. Sure, the stock market is at an all time high. But that doesn’t really serve the average American, now, does it? And job opportunities suck. Yes, unemployment is at an all-time low. But the quality of the jobs has deteriorated. Income inequality is at absurd levels, and the vicarious “lifestyles of the rich and famous” porn-thrill has worn off, and we’ve all got a bad hangover.
Along comes Bernie Sanders, Ethical Populist to the national stage. The good news is, he’s been Bernie Sanders, Ethical Populist for, what, 40 years now?
And he’s calling for a political revolution, to (fortunately, figuratively) bring out the pitchforks and torches, and bring down the out-of-touch feudal lords who run the estate. Much like Donald Trump’s message in 2016, but without the lying.
For this reason, he will carry traditionally red states. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 voted AGAINST the political establishment. And while many are terribly disappointed with what Trump has done, they will do so again — especially if we put an ethical populist on the ballot.
Now is our chance.
Bernie Sanders, Ethical Populist. Stop him? FUCK NO! Get on the band-wagon. Because it’s either that, or actual pitchforks and torches. And we REALLY don’t want that to be our legacy.
Unless it’s the only choice left.


dailykos--2020-02-25--A View of Expedient Politics

A View of Expedient Politics

A BBC programme ( February 5 , I first heard it ) “ The Moral Maze , ” https : //www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000f080had very disturbing twist to the content , at least to me .
Although itdeals with British situations , the issues are current for all of us.I have listened to the programme a number of times and I have done mybest to present an objective view .
I apologise if I have been unfair.I do have strong opinions The show is aboutthe aftermaths of Brexit , and is entitled “ Healing the Nation .
Ithought , instead of showing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path todisunity and it is instructive to the tactics and politicaltrajectory in much of the world .
A post a few weeksago introduced me to the PBS series “ Ghost History.
” I have sincebeen thinking of the differences between what I think of as “ expediency ” politics and the more familiar “ consensus ” politics .
What I am looking at as a difference between the two .
Thereis no wall between sides .
The “ expediency group is not necessarilyideological , but based on the desire for power .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
The win is everything .
This process tends tomake them exclusive .
Pandering to the votes instead of the voters .
To begin , the reasondivision in Britain is considered is that the Brexit vote was 52 % leave and 49 % remain .
The turnout was , I understand , the largest voter turnout ever and the record number of votes was held on bothsides .
The remain voters may represent more voters than any party inthe country has ever received .
That is an important consideration , Ithink .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ very divided country , roughly halfthe country on each side , after the victory of Brexit and so the showlistened to some people an both sides and have a panel that try toadjudicate the positions .
The first speaker , Jane Robins , an author ( sorry .
No wikipedia entry for her ) and aBrexit supporter .
She stated that she was banned from her book clubbecause she supported the leave side .
She co-wrote a play aboutsomeone forced from a book club ( “ People Like Us , ” here is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) during the Brexit campaign .
The Guardian is a quite liberal paperwith an anti brexit position .
I like to think they tend to be moreobjective , in my opinion .
Her position is thatshe was forced to leave her book club because of her support for theleave campaign .
I can be sympathetic to that , although I find bookclubs tend to be quite focused ( not always on books ! )
and so I had acertain thought that there might have been much more to this story .
Ms Robins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was from a “ working class ” background and stated that she had very recently seen ( on twitter ) that people were calling the leave side supporters “ racists andbigots.
” Her basic premiseseems to be that the “ urban elite ” ( she may have used anotherterm that comes down to the same thing ) resented her because of herworking class roots .
I might note that she works in Cambridge and herbook club was in North London .
That is a substantial commute , soeither she lives in Cambridge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelives in North London and commuted to Cambridge .
Cambridge is farcheaper to live than London , and the community must reflect thathigher income status .
The second guest , Jennifer Nadal , ( https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Nadel ) was a representative of “ Compassion in Politics ” who openedwith the comment that we all have to look for common ground .
Herposition was that we had to ignore the politics for a time andconcentrate on what we have in common rather than what drives usapart .
I think that just about sums up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that division is not a natural state and consensus can befound if we look for it .
She was not happy to state her position onBrexit and did not state her vote .
The third speakerwas David Goodhart .
He wrote a book critiqued here by the Guardian : https : //www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/22/the-road-to-somewhere-david-goodhart-populist-revolt-future-politics He sees the questionas being a conflict between “ somewheres ” as opposed to “ anywheres.
” He defines “ somewheres ” as people rooted to the land they live in as opposedto “ anywheres ” who are more transient and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” have been dominant and they like “ openness and autonomy ” and are “ comfortable with the modern , changing world ” as opposed to “ somewheres ” who are “ rootedand value familiarity and security.
” He goes on to say thisdominance by the “ anywheres ” has created “ disequilibrium ” inour ( British ) politics.
” He goes on to say that minoritycommunities “ probably have more “ somewhere ” tendencies , oftenconnected to other countries .
He says the dominantview has been in favour of , among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and has been in favour of “ the laddersup and out and in favour of mobility ” and “ minority communitiesare not in favour of many of those things ” and “ in favour ofstability , of slower change and absorbing new populations into ourexisting populations .
He goes on tocriticize “ Militant Remainers ” who “ Want the enterprise tofail ” ( as he says all oppositions do . )
He says “ The MilitantRemainers don ’ t have a leg to stand on because they have anextremely unpopular platform ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( he did not mention that they were all pro brexit ) partieswere swept aside in the last elections , as evidence .
He states thereis a great political force for people to “ get on ” and this willheal the divisions of the country .
The last speaker isDairmaid MacCullough ( https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmaid_MacCulloch ) a retired professor and , by his name and especially his first nameand its spelling , is certainly Celtic .
His academic speciality wasreligion His position is thatthe UK is not united and is more a vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He offers as evidence the fact that there reallyis no common vision any more and that the disunity is far deeper thanjust the referendum vote .
He pointed out thatthe current government has virtually no representation from Scotland , Northern Ireland or Wales .
He points out that the other countries arepowerless against England and this is not democratic .
A panel memberMichael Portillo ( https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Portillo ) contended that the other countries were represented , just not inthe government and that is how democracy worked .
Mr MacCullough wenton to point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norepresentation from Scotland , Northern Ireland or Wales .
This isquite true , but the countries outside of England have , by far thelowest representation or the chance of a fair representation .
Mr MacCullough seesEnglishness as being an identity and , possibly , an arrogant identitythat ignores the other three identities .
He says Britain ( theoriginal unity ) was four countries uniting to support Anglicanprotestantism .
He says this was strengthened by empire but withoutempire , the hold of Britain has been ( fatally ? )
weakened .
The show ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guest speakers .
Expediencypoliticians are looking to gain votes and really do not much care forvoters .
They have a tendency to salami slice the electorate intosegments that can be persuaded with short term inducements .
Theconsensus politicians tend to be looking for more long term votes andare therefore more likely to indulge in negotiation and compromise.One sees a changing landscape each time and the other sees a nearstatic landscape .
Possibly one side sees it all as a periodic race towin and the other as a voyage of some distance .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : • Prove yourself better than your competitors • Prove yourself less bad than your competitors • Discourage those who support your opponent from voting at all Only the first wayis often acceptable to the consensus candidate , although theysometimes stray into the second .
Now let me look atthe presentations from the show .
Truth in advertising , I thoughtBritain leaving the EU was a very foolish thing to do and I thinklosing the British veto will be a very good thing for the EU .
The first speaker , Jane Robins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against theremain side .
I never heard a single remain leader speak of prejudiceor bigotry on the part of the leave supporters , but I heard itbrought up as an accusation all the time from the leave campaign .
Theleave side painted themselves as victims from the beginning to theend and stereotyped the remain supporters as elitists and vestedinterests .
It is also to benoted that during the campaign there were quite a lot of cases whereminorities in Britain were “ invited to get out ” by leavesupporters , but I heard no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There was even a case ( https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox ) where a strong leave supporter saw fit to murder a remainpolitician .
Although condemned by all sides , there was much lesscondemnation from the leave side and they stressed the fact that theperpetrator had been under psychiatric care at some point during hislife .
The entire tactic ofnot confronting the victimising by your side and using the mere hintof it as evidence that you are being victimised , is dirty dealing inmy books .
To repeat it after the campaign is evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position .
The fact that shewas a member of this book club for some time and never found theother members to be “ elitists ” before the Brexit campaign makesme very much wonder if this is a case of class war , but of aconvenient accusation to hang her leave position on .
Were there noother book clubs about that suited her better ?
I would assume thereare plenty of “ working class ” book clubs around .
In myexperience , your profession and education has nothing to do with yourliterary ambitions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sync with the othersbecause of her “ working class ” background , then why did she stayso long .
Once again .
Theleave campaign loved to accuse the remainers of being “ educatedelitists.
” If the book club was designed for educated elitists , then that must have been evident when she joined and if so , she musthave wished to join such a club .
Ms Robins co-author for her play isoften in print , radio and television and seems to find it difficultto refer to remain supporters without calling them “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wounds to heal .
What better way to hold power than tokeep the wounds open and hold onto your very slim majority if youthink there no chance of converting the other side .
Forget them , theydo not count for you .
The second speaker , Jennifer Nadal , was possibly the only speaker that seemed interestedin healing the country .
I , for one , do not care what side shesupported ; supporting the nation and the national cohesion is plentyfor me .
She does represent what I consider to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us and we can work the rest out .
The third speaker , David Goodhart , I have real difficulty with but there is nothingextra I choose to include here .
Let him stand or fall on what isevident here .
He seems to imply ifyou are not rooted to your community , you are , somehow , not quiteinterested in the long term results .
I know he did not put it exactlylike that , but that was what I thought he really meant .
He speaks of the “ anywhere ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half thepopulation to university .
I think he is ignoring the fact that morethan thirty per cent of the British economy is in financial servicesand that employment in the UK mostly depends on a very goodeducation .
Is he honestly saying that half the population wants areasonably stable work career and a decent income and that ambitionis elitist ?
I doubt there are any ex coal miners that would be happyif their children did not go to university , let alone the universityeducated .
He also said thatthe immigrant population , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ often had ties to other countries ” ( He hasexpressed views on “ minority communities ” before . )
He states “ minority communities ” were more like the “ somewhere ” peopleand did not agree with , the very things they moved to Britain for.Social mobility , multinational acceptance .
They are now trying topull up the drawbridge ?
I have heard those arguments for many yearsfrom many countries .
It always surprises me that the accusationalways comes from the “ majority ” community and never seems to getmuch traction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What could thatsignify ?
A good exampleexists here in Spain .
A very right wing party is complaining thatlaws to stem violence against women are discriminatory and the lawsshould be generally against violence .
That sounds reasonable save thefact that there is a significant problem with violence against women.Are they implying that this aberration in statistics should beignored ?
They are trying to use this as a wedge and they havepublicly favoured removing women ’ s rights .
What better way of doingit than convincing people you are tempered and moderate , until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to be tempered or moderate .
He also states that “ Militant Remainers ” want the entire enterprise to fail .
Thissupposes that the people in Britain that voted against Brexit arecomplete anarchists and are prepared to bring everything , includingtheir own situations , down in order to prove themselves correct .
I also wonder justwhere the “ anywheres ” live ?
Are they not living in a community ?
Have they no social interactions with their neighbours or theirfamilies ?
Are they all in for whatever change comes down the line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divide is a canard to press aless than savoury point .
The vast majority ofthe expert observers both inside and outside the country , saidpublicly that Brexit was a recipe for long term difficulty and a fewsaid disaster .
If you believed those experts , why would you stopbelieving them after the referendum ?
Is he saying that they shouldignore their concerns and get on the bandwagon ?
That is what itsounds like .
The last speaker , Dairmaid MacCoullough , brought up some interesting points .
First , for thosereaders not familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ofScotland , Wales and Northern Ireland do not have rights anywhere nearthe rights of any American state and they did not even have their ownlegislatures before the 1999 Two of those countries votedoverwhelmingly against leaving the EU and one , Wales , was a close runthing .
In the lastelections for the UK government , the ruling party won a largemajority without real representation from any of the three countries.In other words , the present UK government does not include much , ifany , representation from outside England .
The election was very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour party leader was made outto be .
The three other countries went , not for the more moderateLabour , but for real fire breathing radicals instead ofConservatives .
The ruling party was rejected out of hand everywherebut England .
Mr MacCullough isright when he says there is no representation in London for the othercountries .
They do have representatives , but they can , will and havebeen ignored by the English parliament .
The parliament is made up ofexpedient politics and consensus is not important to them .
Hence thecontinued use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the support frompeople who they can convince are victims .
Mr Portillo ’ scomments are not really surprising , since he was a cabinet ministerunder Thatcher who really was never interested in sharing power withanybody and bulldozed her policies through , only pausing to placatewhen an election was due .
Democracy is aconsensus game .
Being the majority does not make you democratic.There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority and we areseeing it frequently .
Consensus politicians get things done much moreslowly and never speak in clearly partisan ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Expedient politicians are looking forvotes and they really do not care much how they get them .
Voters aredisposable and if they can identify a few issues that they canattract votes with , they will work those and ignore all else .
Let me recap .
Theexpedient tricks used are • Victimise the other side and claim victimhood for yourself .
• Portray the opponents as being “ out of touch ” with your target supporters • Do not let up on the demeaning of all things and people opposed to your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voters , they are just stupid enough to fall for the same games next time and maybe the time after that

A BBC programme (February 5, I first heard it) “The Moral Maze,”https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000f080had very disturbing twist to the content, at least to me. Although itdeals with British situations, the issues are current for all of us.I have listened to the programme a number of times and I have done mybest to present an objective view. I apologise if I have been unfair.I do have strong opinions
The show is aboutthe aftermaths of Brexit, and is entitled “Healing the Nation. Ithought, instead of showing a path to healing, it showed a path todisunity and it is instructive to the tactics and politicaltrajectory in much of the world.
A post a few weeksago introduced me to the PBS series “Ghost History.” I have sincebeen thinking of the differences between what I think of as“expediency” politics and the more familiar “consensus”politics. What I am looking at as a difference between the two. Thereis no wall between sides. The “expediency group is not necessarilyideological, but based on the desire for power. The “expedient”is the method to power. The win is everything. This process tends tomake them exclusive. Pandering to the votes instead of the voters.
To begin, the reasondivision in Britain is considered is that the Brexit vote was 52%leave and 49% remain. The turnout was, I understand, the largest voter turnout ever and the record number of votes was held on bothsides. The remain voters may represent more voters than any party inthe country has ever received. That is an important consideration, Ithink.
The show assessesthe possibilities of reuniting a very divided country, roughly halfthe country on each side, after the victory of Brexit and so the showlistened to some people an both sides and have a panel that try toadjudicate the positions.
The first speaker,Jane Robins, an author ( sorry. No wikipedia entry for her ) and aBrexit supporter. She stated that she was banned from her book clubbecause she supported the leave side. She co-wrote a play aboutsomeone forced from a book club (“People Like Us,” here is acritique if you are interestedhttps://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/oct/09/people-like-us-julie-burchill-brexit-play-union-theatre-london) during the Brexit campaign. The Guardian is a quite liberal paperwith an anti brexit position. I like to think they tend to be moreobjective, in my opinion.
Her position is thatshe was forced to leave her book club because of her support for theleave campaign. I can be sympathetic to that, although I find bookclubs tend to be quite focused (not always on books!) and so I had acertain thought that there might have been much more to this story.
Ms Robins, early onin her presentation mentioned that she was from a “working class”background and stated that she had very recently seen (on twitter)that people were calling the leave side supporters “racists andbigots.”
Her basic premiseseems to be that the “urban elite” (she may have used anotherterm that comes down to the same thing) resented her because of herworking class roots. I might note that she works in Cambridge and herbook club was in North London. That is a substantial commute, soeither she lives in Cambridge and commuted for the book club or shelives in North London and commuted to Cambridge. Cambridge is farcheaper to live than London, and the community must reflect thathigher income status.
The second guest,Jennifer Nadal, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Nadel) was a representative of “Compassion in Politics” who openedwith the comment that we all have to look for common ground. Herposition was that we had to ignore the politics for a time andconcentrate on what we have in common rather than what drives usapart. I think that just about sums up her position. She seems to besaying that division is not a natural state and consensus can befound if we look for it. She was not happy to state her position onBrexit and did not state her vote.
The third speakerwas David Goodhart. He wrote a book critiqued here by the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/22/the-road-to-somewhere-david-goodhart-populist-revolt-future-politics
He sees the questionas being a conflict between “somewheres” as opposed to“anywheres.”
He defines“somewheres” as people rooted to the land they live in as opposedto “anywheres” who are more transient and usually well educated.He posits that “anywheres” have been dominant and they like“openness and autonomy” and are “comfortable with the modern,changing world” as opposed to “somewheres” who are “rootedand value familiarity and security.” He goes on to say thisdominance by the “anywheres” has created “disequilibrium” inour (British) politics.” He goes on to say that minoritycommunities “probably have more “somewhere” tendencies, oftenconnected to other countries.
He says the dominantview has been in favour of, among other things “sending half thepopulation to university” and has been in favour of “the laddersup and out and in favour of mobility” and “minority communitiesare not in favour of many of those things” and “in favour ofstability, of slower change and absorbing new populations into ourexisting populations.
He goes on tocriticize “Militant Remainers” who “Want the enterprise tofail” (as he says all oppositions do.) He says “The MilitantRemainers don’t have a leg to stand on because they have anextremely unpopular platform” He brings up the fact that manysmaller (he did not mention that they were all pro brexit) partieswere swept aside in the last elections, as evidence. He states thereis a great political force for people to “get on” and this willheal the divisions of the country.
The last speaker isDairmaid MacCullough(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmaid_MacCulloch) a retired professor and, by his name and especially his first nameand its spelling, is certainly Celtic. His academic speciality wasreligion
His position is thatthe UK is not united and is more a vision of England that ignores thecomponent countries. He offers as evidence the fact that there reallyis no common vision any more and that the disunity is far deeper thanjust the referendum vote.
He pointed out thatthe current government has virtually no representation from Scotland,Northern Ireland or Wales. He points out that the other countries arepowerless against England and this is not democratic. A panel memberMichael Portillo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Portillo) contended that the other countries were represented, just not inthe government and that is how democracy worked.
Mr MacCullough wenton to point out that the current government has virtually norepresentation from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. This isquite true, but the countries outside of England have, by far thelowest representation or the chance of a fair representation.
Mr MacCullough seesEnglishness as being an identity and, possibly, an arrogant identitythat ignores the other three identities. He says Britain (theoriginal unity) was four countries uniting to support Anglicanprotestantism. He says this was strengthened by empire but withoutempire, the hold of Britain has been (fatally?) weakened.
The show ends withthe panel giving their opinions on the guest speakers.
Expediencypoliticians are looking to gain votes and really do not much care forvoters. They have a tendency to salami slice the electorate intosegments that can be persuaded with short term inducements. Theconsensus politicians tend to be looking for more long term votes andare therefore more likely to indulge in negotiation and compromise.One sees a changing landscape each time and the other sees a nearstatic landscape. Possibly one side sees it all as a periodic race towin and the other as a voyage of some distance.
There are only threeways to win an election:
Prove yourself better than your competitors
Prove yourself less bad than your competitors
Discourage those who support your opponent from voting at all
Only the first wayis often acceptable to the consensus candidate, although theysometimes stray into the second.
Now let me look atthe presentations from the show. Truth in advertising, I thoughtBritain leaving the EU was a very foolish thing to do and I thinklosing the British veto will be a very good thing for the EU.
The first speaker,Jane Robins, constantly brought up the old accusations against theremain side. I never heard a single remain leader speak of prejudiceor bigotry on the part of the leave supporters, but I heard itbrought up as an accusation all the time from the leave campaign. Theleave side painted themselves as victims from the beginning to theend and stereotyped the remain supporters as elitists and vestedinterests.
It is also to benoted that during the campaign there were quite a lot of cases whereminorities in Britain were “invited to get out” by leavesupporters, but I heard no real comment about this from the remainsupporters. There was even a case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox) where a strong leave supporter saw fit to murder a remainpolitician. Although condemned by all sides, there was much lesscondemnation from the leave side and they stressed the fact that theperpetrator had been under psychiatric care at some point during hislife.
The entire tactic ofnot confronting the victimising by your side and using the mere hintof it as evidence that you are being victimised, is dirty dealing inmy books. To repeat it after the campaign is evidence that that sideis trying to consolidate its position.
The fact that shewas a member of this book club for some time and never found theother members to be “elitists” before the Brexit campaign makesme very much wonder if this is a case of class war, but of aconvenient accusation to hang her leave position on. Were there noother book clubs about that suited her better? I would assume thereare plenty of “working class” book clubs around. In myexperience, your profession and education has nothing to do with yourliterary ambitions. If she felt she was out of sync with the othersbecause of her “working class” background, then why did she stayso long.
Once again. Theleave campaign loved to accuse the remainers of being “educatedelitists.” If the book club was designed for educated elitists,then that must have been evident when she joined and if so, she musthave wished to join such a club. Ms Robins co-author for her play isoften in print, radio and television and seems to find it difficultto refer to remain supporters without calling them “remoaners.”
Clearly she does notreally want the wounds to heal. What better way to hold power than tokeep the wounds open and hold onto your very slim majority if youthink there no chance of converting the other side. Forget them, theydo not count for you.
The second speaker,Jennifer Nadal, was possibly the only speaker that seemed interestedin healing the country. I, for one, do not care what side shesupported; supporting the nation and the national cohesion is plentyfor me. She does represent what I consider to be consensus politics.What we can agree on unites us and we can work the rest out.
The third speaker,David Goodhart, I have real difficulty with but there is nothingextra I choose to include here. Let him stand or fall on what isevident here.
He seems to imply ifyou are not rooted to your community, you are, somehow, not quiteinterested in the long term results. I know he did not put it exactlylike that, but that was what I thought he really meant.
He speaks of the“anywhere” community as being interested in sending “half thepopulation to university. I think he is ignoring the fact that morethan thirty per cent of the British economy is in financial servicesand that employment in the UK mostly depends on a very goodeducation. Is he honestly saying that half the population wants areasonably stable work career and a decent income and that ambitionis elitist? I doubt there are any ex coal miners that would be happyif their children did not go to university, let alone the universityeducated.
He also said thatthe immigrant population, I think he referred to them as “minoritycommunities” “often had ties to other countries” (He hasexpressed views on “minority communities” before.) He states“minority communities” were more like the “somewhere” peopleand did not agree with, the very things they moved to Britain for.Social mobility, multinational acceptance. They are now trying topull up the drawbridge? I have heard those arguments for many yearsfrom many countries. It always surprises me that the accusationalways comes from the “majority” community and never seems to getmuch traction in the “minority” community. What could thatsignify?
A good exampleexists here in Spain. A very right wing party is complaining thatlaws to stem violence against women are discriminatory and the lawsshould be generally against violence. That sounds reasonable save thefact that there is a significant problem with violence against women.Are they implying that this aberration in statistics should beignored? They are trying to use this as a wedge and they havepublicly favoured removing women’s rights. What better way of doingit than convincing people you are tempered and moderate, until youget the power where you do not have to be tempered or moderate.
He also states that“Militant Remainers” want the entire enterprise to fail. Thissupposes that the people in Britain that voted against Brexit arecomplete anarchists and are prepared to bring everything, includingtheir own situations, down in order to prove themselves correct.
I also wonder justwhere the “anywheres” live? Are they not living in a community?Have they no social interactions with their neighbours or theirfamilies? Are they all in for whatever change comes down the line? Itseems to me that the somewhere/anywhere divide is a canard to press aless than savoury point.
The vast majority ofthe expert observers both inside and outside the country, saidpublicly that Brexit was a recipe for long term difficulty and a fewsaid disaster. If you believed those experts, why would you stopbelieving them after the referendum? Is he saying that they shouldignore their concerns and get on the bandwagon? That is what itsounds like.
The last speaker,Dairmaid MacCoullough, brought up some interesting points.
First, for thosereaders not familiar with the UK government, the countries ofScotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not have rights anywhere nearthe rights of any American state and they did not even have their ownlegislatures before the 1999 Two of those countries votedoverwhelmingly against leaving the EU and one, Wales, was a close runthing.
In the lastelections for the UK government, the ruling party won a largemajority without real representation from any of the three countries.In other words, the present UK government does not include much, ifany, representation from outside England. The election was very muchbased on Brexit and how terrible the Labour party leader was made outto be. The three other countries went, not for the more moderateLabour, but for real fire breathing radicals instead ofConservatives. The ruling party was rejected out of hand everywherebut England.
Mr MacCullough isright when he says there is no representation in London for the othercountries. They do have representatives, but they can, will and havebeen ignored by the English parliament. The parliament is made up ofexpedient politics and consensus is not important to them. Hence thecontinued use of brexit tropes in order to shore up the support frompeople who they can convince are victims.
Mr Portillo’scomments are not really surprising, since he was a cabinet ministerunder Thatcher who really was never interested in sharing power withanybody and bulldozed her policies through, only pausing to placatewhen an election was due.
Democracy is aconsensus game. Being the majority does not make you democratic.There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority and we areseeing it frequently. Consensus politicians get things done much moreslowly and never speak in clearly partisan ways. They are alwayslooking for inclusive moments. Expedient politicians are looking forvotes and they really do not care much how they get them. Voters aredisposable and if they can identify a few issues that they canattract votes with, they will work those and ignore all else.
Let me recap. Theexpedient tricks used are