Politics & Chill Newsletter #5 9/18/17

Patrons only
Sep 18 at 12:50pm
This weeks stories:

The Psychology of Politics

Radical Enough For Single Payer, But Not For Reparations?

Trumps Voter Fraud Commission Uses Personal Gmail

When You Include Minorities, The Elites/Non-Elites Dichotomy Falls

Apart

The Psychology of Politics

Psychology has always been of interest to me, particularly as a means of

understanding why people join certain groups and vote the way they do.
Are voters choosing candidates fully of their own volition or is there some
element of peer pressure there as well? In the last cycle, Ive come across a
phenomenon that is surely well ingrained into the human condition but
that I did not fully recognize until recently: voters were ignoring plain facts.
Let me be more specific. Not only were Trump voters ignoring facts, but
they were simply creating new facts in their place.

A philosopher might posit that logical human beings discern facts, then use
those facts as the basis of a sound argument which forms their worldview.
Trump (and Sanders voters to an extent) were doing the opposite: they
were starting with an entrenched worldview, and then forming facts to
support their worldview. For example, Trump voters believed that Trump
was trustworthy. When the media presented ample evidence that he in
fact, was not trustworthy, Trump voters simply turned their animus onto
the media instead of changing their outlook. The same could be said for
Sanders votersmany begin with the worldview that Sanders is a pure,
working class, non-elite who is on the left side of every issue. Present
evidence that Sanders owns significant holdings on Wall-Street or that his
wife is currently being investigated by the federal government for bank
fraud, and new facts will be created that uphold the worldview instead of a
supporter having to face reality.

So when emotions matter more than facts, and factual evidence doesnt
inform worldviews, what do you get? The answer is extremism. And you are
seeing that on both sides of the aisle, but especially on the right. I would
argue that the rise of American extremism coincides with a perceived
political and social decline of the power of white men. As multiculturalism
becomes a reality, the social status quo is upended and extremists back
demagogues who claim they can bring America back to a supposed better
era.

Im not yet sure how to combat these problems, as turning away from
multiculturalism is a nonstarter. But unfortunately, I believe that non-fact
based politics is only going to grow more influential.

Radical Enough For Single Payer, But Not For Reparations?

The dead-on-arrival Medicare for All bill Sanders introduced in the Senate
got a lot of hype last week. Sanders has made a point to be seen and heard
at all the major media stops as he pushes legislation that everyone knows is
going absolutely nowhere. One of my biggest beefs with Sanders is that he
sees politics through the lense of the white working class while claiming
that hes attempting to help everyone.

There was the time he said he was deeply humiliated that Democrats
lost the white working class. Or when he lashed out against identity
politics (which Kellyanne Conway immediately praised him for) and said It
is not good enough to say, Im a woman, vote for me. Or the time in 2014
when he dropped this gem:

Well, here's what you got. What you got is an African-American president,
and the African-American community is very, very proud that this country
has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that's kind of
natural. You've got a situation where the Republican Party has been
strongly anti-immigration, and you've got a Hispanic community which is
looking to the Democrats for help.

But that's not important. You should not be basing your politics based on
your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family
doing? ... In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally
low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people. And I
think the reason for that is that the Democrats have not made it clear that
they are prepared to stand with the working-class people of this country,
take on the big money interests. I think the key issue that we have to focus
on, and I know people are uncomfortable about talking about it, is the role
of the billionaire class in American society.

It is clear that Sanders believes that the Democrats focus too much on
identity politics, and that minorities shouldnt be basing politics on their
color. Socially conservative Republicans feel the same way. Sanders has a
hyper focus on the white working class, and he believes that single payer
healthcare or free college would ameliorate their economic grievances.
Neither program would do much to close the racial wealth gap, but thats a
story for another newsletter. My question isif Sanders can be radical for
the white working class and their economic issues, why cant he be radical
in regards to closing the racial wealth gap? It is a question that Coates has
raised in the past. And perhaps the quote above has the answer.

But it bears reminding that when you ask the supposed leftist radicals
about reparations for slavery, they suddenly turn into centrist pragmatists.
And hypocrites for that matter. Sanders told the Iowa Brown & Black
Democratic Forum that he wouldnt support reparations because the
likelihood of getting through Congress is nilit would be very divisive.
Both of those things are true of his Medicare for All legislation, but it didnt
stop Sanders from introducing a bill. Why is Sanders willing to be radical for
the economic interest of the white working class, but not for Black people?

It is time for creative solutions to the racial wealth gap problem, something
Ill explore in future newsletter posts.

Trumps Voter Fraud Commission Uses Personal Gmail

The latest edition of That Hillary Clinton scandal wasnt really a scandal
comes from the Trump Administrations Voter Fraud Commission.
Commission co-chair Kris Kobach has admitted to using a private Gmail
account for government business, and he has made it known he has no
plans to change his behavior.

The hysteria over Clinton emails has died down now, and it has become
obvious that she was held to a standard that the Trump Administration gets
to avoid altogether. Several experts claim that Kobach is violating federal
law, but youve barely heard about it. It isnt being talked about by the
major news outlets, and nobody is even calling it a scandal. Barely anyone
is even talking about the purpose of the Voter Fraud Commissionan
attempt to silence the voices of minority groups who disproportionately
vote for Democrats.

Trumps Voter Fraud Commission isnt only a farce, it is breaking the same
federal records laws that he slammed Hillary Clinton for. I guess this is the
intersection of sexism and Trump normalization.

When You Include Minorities, The Elites/Non-Elites Dichotomy Falls Apart

You know the narrative of 2016: Trumps rise is due to the neoliberal elite
ignoring the economic needs of the working class. The working class then
turned to the ultimate outsider in order to take on Wall Street and the
donor class.

The narrative has been beaten to death. Id like to take a particular focus on
the elites vs. non-elites dichotomy. It is one that is color-blind, and often
painted as universal. But as well know all too well, in American politics, race
permeates everything. If Trumps election was a working class revolt, how
come Blacks and Latinos, two of the poorest demographics in the country,
voted for Clinton at such a high clip. 94% of Black women voted for Clinton,
a demographic which has perhaps the fewest elites in America. We can also
see other cracks in the narrativein the rust belt (and indeed across the
country) Clinton won voters who named the economy as their number
one issue. Clinton also won the poorest voters by income, and by
significant margins.

So why does the Trump won because of elites neglecting the working
class narrative persist? Well, two reasons. The first is that it absolves the
white working classand white voters overallof any guilt. Pundits can
claim that their Trump loving uncle isnt really a racist, he was just
concerned about the economy. The second is that it allows the punditry to
continue to ignore people of color and their political perspectives. The
colorblind narrative allows media personalities to pretend that the entire
working class shifted toward Trump, when working class voters of color
voted for Clinton by massive margins (in both the primary and the general).

The moral of the story is that narratives should be deconstructed and

debated regularly, as the shorthand often fails to tell the full story or
outright ignores critical perspectives.
Politics & Chill #4 9/13/17
Patrons only
Sep 13 at 11:42am
*Note: This weeks newsletter will be a bit shorter because I had to
evacuate Florida due to Hurricane Irma. Handling a lot of work while
checking on friends and family, but still had to make sure to give everyone
my thoughts on the news from the last week or so! Appreciate you guys.

This weeks stories:

Sanders Overplays Hand With Litmus Test

This week, Bernie Sanders is introducing a Medicare-For-All bill in the

Senate. The bill has absolutely zero chance of passing, and all of the players
involved know this. Sanders had intended to introduce the bill, believing
that no Democrats would sign on and hed be able to bash them on his way
to a 2020 bid for the Democratic nomination. Sanders has already used his
political influence and organizations to effectively threaten both Cory
Booker and Kamala Harris, as he views both as imperiling his bid for the
2020 nomination. Sanders had hoped that both would reject his bill,
allowing him to continue to cast himself as the candidate of leftist purity,
while denigrating other Democrats as neoliberal shills.

What Sanders didnt expect was that Democrats would get hip to his game.
Instead of rejecting a flawed bill that everyone knows will not pass in the
current environment, Democrats have signed on in order to cut Sanders out
at the knees. By joining him on the Medicare-For-All bill, 2020 hopefuls
eliminate Sanders most potent attack. He can no longer criticize them as
out of step with his ideals, which makes his Im a maverick who the
establishment will never accept shtick significantly less effective.
Of course, the Democrats involved know that the bill is a non-starter. First,
there is nothing in writing about the massive tax increases needed to pay
for the $3 trillion system. The financial concerns crushed single payer in
Vermont and caused Colorado voters to reject such a system in a 2016
state-wide initiative. There are fixes that can make healthcare more
affordable, but politicians must be honest about the costs. A single payer
system would have to be paid through a significantly higher payroll tax, or
perhaps a large increase in sales tax on all goods. Simply taxing the rich
would not come up with nearly enough funds to cover such a program. The
burden would have to fall on all Americans. With the majority of Americans
already receiving coverage through their employers, are they willing to pay
significantly higher taxes for a system that they wont use?

What Role Do Corporations Play In The Age Of Trump?

Jamele Hill, ESPN anchor, commentator, and sports journalist, became the
subject of a controversy when she said that President Trump upheld white
supremacy. ESPN instantly came out and released a statement claiming
that her words did not reflect the thoughts of the corporation, and that
they informed her that her stance was inappropriate.

In the social media age, where self expression in the corporate world is
becoming ubiquitous, and more athletes than ever are protesting police
brutality, what role do corporations play? Obviously, the number one goal
for any corporation is profit. If it wasnt, they wouldnt exist in the first
place. But corporations can have a major role in promoting positive social
change. After all, it has been statistically proven that advertising is effective
at changing behavior. Corporations have stood up to Trump in the recent
pastresigning from councils after Charlottesville, for example. And
releasing statements in the wake of his attempts to ban Muslims from the
country.

Corporations in recent years have taken major stands on diversity and

LGBTQ rightsstands that I believe have helped move the country to the
left on social issues. They have even criticized Trump and his stances in
ways that other Presidents have not been criticized by the business
community. But the attempted silencing of Jamele Hill by ESPN shows us
that corporations arent always going to get it right on social justice. ESPN
recognizes that much of its base is white and fairly conservative, even as
theyve made great strides with more diverse anchors and journalists in its
employ. They fear that alienating this base could put a major dent in their
bottom line.

The stance that ESPN has taken is unfortunate. But the good news is that
corporations have proven that they can be pushed on social justice issues,
and Jemele Hill will have a very vocal group of supporters. I believe that
corporations can play a major role in shifting the countrys consciousness
leftward on social issues like diversity and inclusion, and I dont believe that
Democrats need to turn businesses into villains to win. Instead, businesses
can be looked at as partners in moving the country in a positive direction
socially. It just might require a nice push.

Mitt Romney For Senate?

Mitt Romney has made news again. The former Republican Presidential
nominee and Governor of Massachusetts has let it be known that he would
run for Senate if Orrin Hatch decides not to run for re-election in Utah.
My first impulse was to look at the hypocrisypolitical pundits looked at a
Mitt Romney redux with intrigue, while they scorn Hillary Clinton for
sticking around and letting her voice be heard. Certainly, the same voices
telling Clinton to shut up arent saying the same to Mitt.

My second impulse was that, perhaps, Romney could bring some sense of
moderation to the present Trump-led GOP. That one was short livedthe
Republican Party cant stand up to Trump because Trump represents their
values. The values that theyve embraced since Nixons southern strategy.
Trump is simply more open about it. Ben Sasse, Lindsey Graham, John
McCain, Paul Ryannone of the so called moderates in the GOP has
effectively pushed the party back towards the center (though McCains no
vote did squash ACA repeal). Romney would be no different. Hed be a big
name, but he did grovel to Trump for the Secretary of State job. He might
say he was troubled by Trumps actions in a future Senate bid. But will he
moderate the voter suppressing obsessed, dog whistling GOP? No.

My third thought was that ultimately, Romney in the Senate wouldnt be a

huge deal. Sure, hell make headlines for his quotes. But the future of the
Republican Party looks and sounds like Trump. The base wants Republicans
who are even more extreme, which is a big reason why the GOP
establishment has lacked the backbone to stand up to Trump. They fear his
voters in their districts. Romney and Paul Ryan were the GOP standard
bearers a short five years ago, but it seems like theyve quickly become
relics. Sure, there will always be pro-business GOPers in suburban districts
who dont openly espouse white nationalist rhetoric as Trump does. But
the next nominee will have to play to a base that is getting more extreme
as their fears of immigration and diversity continue to rise.
Politics & Chill Newsletter #3 9/5/17
Patrons only
Sep 5 at 4:34pm
This week's stories:

*North Korea: Another Example Of Falling US Influence Abroad

*Sheriff Clark Shows Us The Dangers of Open Primaries

*Tim Ryan and the Fallacy of Chasing The White Working Class

*What Would a Sanders Presidency Actually Look Like?

North Korea: Another Example Of Falling US Influence Abroad

North Koreas nuclear program has been highly successful, and it is now
generally believed that their intercontinental ballistic missiles can be
outfitted with nuclear warheads. Their range could easily reach not only US
military bases in Japan or Guam, but also US states such as Hawaii, Alaska,
and California. The North Koreans have also shown that they have the
capability to detonate a hydrogen bomb, which is many times more
powerful than the bombs the US dropped in Japan during WW2.

North Korea has a flair for the dramatic and constantly puts out
inflammatory statements about the west. But are they prepared to actually
fire off nuclear weapons pre-emptively? The odds of that are at about 0%.
The concept of mutually assured destruction has actually held up quite well
in the 60+ years since the 1950s. It has held up through generational
conflicts between India and Pakistan, and between the US and Russian Cold
War. Brazen politicians and authoritarian governments might not respect
rhetoric, but they always understand force. And for the better part of a
century, leaders from nuclear countries around the globe have all
understood the concept of total obliteration. Democracy, theocracy,
dictatorshipall forms of governments understand this.

This makes two things obvious to methe first is that the US and North
Korea are not going to nuclear war. There will be a lot of bluster, but both
authoritarian leaders in the US and North Korea understand the concept of
complete annihilation. There is no scenario for Kim Jung Un under which
the annihilation of Pyongyang (not to mention Seoul, which would be
caught in any blast, and North Koreas long standing policy of wanting to
reunify with South Korea under Northern leadership) is acceptable. The
same for the destruction of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Anchorage, or
Honolulu for the United States, which would instantly be the worst war
losses in the history of the country. Neither side can afford nuclear war, the
outcomes are completely unacceptable for everyone involved.

Which brings us to the logical conclusion and my second point: The US is

going to have to come to grips with its falling influence abroad. Nuclear
weapons are the great equalizer which allows small countries like North
Korea to defy gravity and deflect pressure from major powers. Of course,
the Chinese are subsidizing North Korea with food and economic aid. But in
the absence of nuclear weapons, the current North Korean regime likely
would have been under far stronger pressure from the US to be deposed.
The US is already stretched thin abroad, with the blunders of Iraq looming
large over any potential offensives. The US has seen its policy objectives
scuttled in Syria and Ukraine in the past 2-3 years, and now North Korea
openly and jubilantly defies the west without any fear of military reprisal.
The North Korean story isnt about nuclear war, which isnt going to
happen. It is about the falling influence of the US abroad, which is going to
continue through globalization and the development of nuclear weapons.
Sheriff Clark Shows Us The Dangers of Open Primaries

Last week I talked about the Democratic primary system and some of the
rhetoric surrounding primaries and caucuses. The Sanders left is in favor of
open primaries because they believe independents and Republicans will
cross over to vote for Sanders in such a scenario, canceling out the votes of
Democrats who would otherwise select a Democratic candidate.

But open primaries can have dire consequences for Democrats. Just look at
the state of Wisconsin, where Sheriff Clarke (recently resigned, potentially
to work in Trumps White House) won reelection in 2014 after he won an
open primary. Now, most people dont realize that Sheriff Clarke runs as a
Democrat. Even as he speaks at the Republican National Convention and
backs Trump at every turn. His actions and his rhetoric place him with the
far right, but he was able to win open primaries in the state of Wisconsin as
a Democrat. Open primaries were instituted in Wisconsin by progressive
Governor Bob La Follette nearly a century ago. Now, Sheriff Clarke exploits
them by having a large number of Republican backers cross over and vote
for him.

Todays far left claims that open primaries will leave us with more
progressive candidates. Sheriff Clarke is a good example of open primaries
producing the exact opposite result.

Tim Ryan and the Fallacy of Chasing The White Working Class
Tim Ryan, Democratic Congressman from Ohio, made waves after the
election when he tried and failed to unseat Nancy Pelosi as the House
Democratic leader. He quickly became a darling of the Sanders left, as he
slammed identity politics and claimed that Democrats needed to do more
for the white working class. Ryans rhetoric about making the economy
work for poor whites in the rust belt aligned with much of what Bernie
Sanders says. Sanders even once agreed with Ryan in a CNN interview,
saying The Democratic brand is worse than Trump.

Well, Ryan showed us what happens when you chase the white working
class vote. He came out in favor of corporate tax cuts in a break with the
rest of the Democratic Party, claiming that we cant just be the party of
redistribution of wealth. Perhaps Ryan figured out that appealing to
whites in the rust belt means opposing massive wealth redistribution
programs that would send more government money and resources to
minority groups.

Thats why chasing the white working class vote makes no sense for
Democrats. Courting them would mean dropping identity politics (Civil
Rights and Voting Rights, advocating for diversity and representation of
marginalized groups) and abandoning wealth redistribution programs
(because the money would go to the aforementioned groups). In other
words, courting the white working class would mean becoming GOP-lite.
And why would the white working class take that option when they could
just vote for the real GOP? Democrats should stick to the values of
multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion to best serve their base.

What Would a Sanders Presidency Actually Look Like?

In the first newsletter I wrote about how Donald Trump was boxed in, with
no legislative options at home and few foreign policy options abroad. He is
limited to playing up racial resentment through executive orders and
throwing stones at Republicans who dont toe the line. Now Id like to
explore what a Bernie Sanders Presidency would actually look like, because
I actually think that there would be some similar outcomes.

Like Trump, Sanders has few legislative achievements. In his political career,
he hasnt successfully built coalitions and that showed during the
Democratic primary, the ultimate coalition building exercise (due to the
multiple competing factions in the Democratic Party). Sanders didnt have
many concrete plans for his goals , at one point, his campaign claimed that
single payer and free college would be paid for by 5% GDP growth annually
(a number economists laughed at) and that Republicans would be brought
on board with his policies because of youth protests outside their offices.

A Sanders Presidency would likely start with legislation on single payer, the
reverse of Trumps attempts to repeal the ACA. But like Trump, Sanders
wouldnt have the votes to pass his legislation. In the same way that Trump
blamed Republicans for the bills failure, Sanders would blame Democrats
for the failure of single payer, lashing out on television and through social
media.

The next major move would be legislation for free college, which would
meet the same amount of massive Republican resistance. With the failed
single payer vote already sapping his political capital, Sanders might look to
shelve free college for another legislative win that he could display before
the 2018 mid-terms, hoping that he could pick the issue up afterwards. But
his lack of experience at building a coalition and passing legislation he
sponsored makes that unlikely.

All of this would be done under the dark cloud of an FBI investigation. Jane
Sanders is part of an FBI investigation into potential bank fraud at
Burlington College, where the school ultimately lost everything in land
deals gone bad. The allegations are that Jane Sanders claimed donors
would put down enough money for the college to take out a loan to buy
more land to expand the school. The donors claim that Sanders listed their
donation amounts for more than they actually agreed to donate. The
thinking is that the inflated numbers were then used to get the college a
loan for the land.

The FBI investigation would influence media coverage and every Democrat
would be asked their stance, just as Republicans have to deal with Trumps
Russia investigation. The FBI scandal would threaten to wreak havoc on
Sanders legitimacy and his poll numbers, dragging the entire Democratic
Party down with him during the 2018 mid-term elections.

The failure of single payer and shelving of free college would likely have
turned some of the Sanders true believers at this point. Some would be
calling him a neoliberal shill, some would be saying he fell victim to the
establishment or Wall-Street. But perhaps his disdain for identity politics
and his play for the white working class would help him keep a measure of
support, similar to how Trump has about one third of the population who
will likely continue to approve of the job he is doing no matter what
happens. Sanders would probably take a similar stance to Trump on North
Koreabelligerent rhetoricwhich would probably erase some of dove
narrative as well.

I dont think Sanders would play up racial resentment like Trump has, but
his opposition to identity politics makes me think he wouldnt exactly be
fighting for diversity either. At the end of the day, it is a moot point:
Trumps fiery brand of racial resentment has made him the leader of the
homogeneous Republican Party, while Sanders revolution has failed to take
over the Democrats (or even get his candidates elected to Congressional
seats).
I dont think Sanders will ever run the Democratic Partyit is simply too
diverse, and his brand isnt winning primary states like Florida, Georgia,
Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, or
Virginia. But I do think that a Sanders Presidency would be similar to
Trumps in certain ways: a lack of legislative accomplishments, an FBI
scandal involving family members, attempts to look tough abroad, and an
opposition to identity politics.
Politics & Chill Newsletter 8/28/17
Patrons only
Aug 28 at 4:49pm
This week's stories:

*Black Voters Still Hold The Keys To The 2020 Democratic Nomination

*Why Leftist vs Centrist Has It All Wrong

*Arpaio Pardon Exposes GOPs Law & Order Fraud

*GOP Denunciations Of White Supremacy Are Empty

--------

Black Voters Still Hold The Keys To The 2020 Democratic Nomination

There has been a lot of talk about the next Presidential nominee on the
Democratic side must appeal to the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. There
hasnt been a lot of talk about Black voters, especially in the southern
states. Black voters in the Democratic primary gave 75% of their votes to
Hillary Clinton, but almost nobody in the media is talking about why they
are an important bloc for Democrats in 2020. Instead, it is more of the
samewhite working class and Sanders voter pundit talk.

The truth is that Black voters still hold the key to the Democratic
nomination in 2020. Just look at the southern states. Clinton won Georgia,
South Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama by 50% or more. Florida, Virginia,
and North Carolina were also blowouts in Clintons favor. In Tennessee and
Texas, Clinton won by 30%. Those are all states where the Democratic
share of Black voters is particularly high.

But the Black voter phenomena isnt confined to the south. In fact, the
more diverse a state was, the lower the odds Sanders would win. A
Washington Post piece by Philip Bump during the primary season actually
plotted the trendthe higher the percentage of Black Democrats in the
state, the bigger the margin of the Sanders loss:
This trend is a significant one, and one that has been largely ignored. It is
also one that has continued into 2017. In the 2017 Virginia Gubernatorial
primary, Sanders endorsed Tom Perriello, while the Democratic
Establishment endorsed Ralph Northam (who won the nomination).
Analysis from the Washington Monthly found that Northam outperformed
his statewide average significantly in 8 out of 10 of the Blackest county
groups in the state:

If Sanders and the candidates he endorses lose Black voters at these

numbers, it is difficult to see how he has a path in 2020. Lets take a
hypothetical Sanders vs. Kamala Harris matchup. Say Harris wins Black
voters at near Clinton numbers, and picks up the traditional establishment
Democratic support. If Harris wins Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia,
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas on the
strength of people of color, the race gets really tough for Sanders. Then add
in Harriss home court advantage in California, along with a neighboring
state like Arizona (sort of how Sanders won Vermont and New Hampshire
in 2016 based on geography). At that point, all Harris would need to do is
win a New York or Pennsylvania for the nomination. The numbers would
probably be insurmountable, similar to 2016.

The only way for team Sanders to counter this is to change the Democratic
nomination rules. There have been whispers that the Democratic Unity
Commission, established at the 2016 summer convention, is talking about
making changes to the 2020 nomination process. To be more specific, there
are rumors Bernie-backed members are trying to pressure the commission
to put more emphasis on caucus states (lower turnout, less people of color,
fewer elderly, less accessible to working people and the disabled) then on
primaries. The majority of Sanders wins came in caucus states, where the
turnout was lower and the electorate was whiter.

A good example is Washington state, where Sanders won the low turnout
caucus but Clinton won the higher turnout primary. The Washington state
Democratic Party only honored the results of the caucus. The Sanders
faction could be pushing the DNC to have more Democratic state parties
hold caucuses, and honor their results over the state run primaries. This
would be a move to stack the deck in Bernies favor, by making it harder for
people of color, the elderly, and working class people to vote in the
Democratic primary.

Caucuses take hours, and voters can be shouted down, intimidated, and
pressured to change their vote by large crowds. It simply isnt an inclusive,
democratic voting process. I dont believe that the DNC is going to end up
changing the nomination rules for 2020 in a significant manner. There are
enough Democrats on the commission, in the DNC, and loyalists who are
vocal on social media that will fight against rule changes meant to favor
Bernie Sanders. But it is important to know that these rumors are out
there. I believe that the only way Sanders could win the 2020 Democratic
primary would be to change the rules to a caucus based system that made
it harder for people of color to vote. Otherwise, Black voters are likely going
to decide the Democratic nomination. Again.

Why Leftist vs Centrist Has It All Wrong

For the past two years, the narrative has been that the Democratic Party
has been in an internal battle between leftists and centrists. The
narrative has been parroted by the media endlessly, but the gist of it is that
leftists want to pull the Democratic Party towards Bernie Sanders and
centrists want the party to represent Clinton and Obama.

Words and their connotations are powerful, theres a reason why we use
them to frame an argument in a certain way. Leftists frame their
argument as if they are pulling the party towards progress and its the
centrists who are obsessed with special interests and corporate money
holding them back from helping everyone.

There are a couple major problems with this. The obvious one is
demographics. Centrists include the overwhelmingly majority of Black
and Latino voters. 75% of Black voters chose Clinton, over Sanders, after all.
Many of these Black voters are poorthe median Black household net
worth is about $11,000, per Pew Research. The leftist vs centrist
argument frames these poor Black voters as elitists obsessed with
protecting big money interests, which is absurd.

The second major problem is that so called leftists are actually attempting
to pull the Democratic Party to the right on social issues. The calls to drop
identity politics come from both Bernie Sanders and his followers as well as
Kellyanne Conway, for example. It was the Sanders campaign that claimed
the southern primaries (with their much higher percentage of Black voters)
distorted the race. Sanders has long championed the white working class,
and claimed that Trump voters are not racist or sexist. His campaign called
Planned Parenthood the establishment and in 2017 he has worked to
support anti-choice Democrats such as Heath Mello in Nebraska.

The third major problem is connected to the last pointcentrists tend to

be to the left of leftists on social issues! The centrist Democrats are the
ones saying that Civil Rights, representation of marginalized groups, and
resisting Trumps racism are critical issues for the future of the country.
While leftists hold beyond resistance summits and town halls geared
towards focusing on economics and trashing identity politics. Their claim is
the Democrats focus on issues of identity alienate white people who could
join the party if it only focused on class. The willingness to throw
marginalized people under the bus to appeal to racist white voters is a
move to the right, not to the left.

I would argue that instead of leftist vs centrist the dichotomy should be

framed as Bernie left, or Economic left vs Mainstream Democrats.
Perhaps there are better terms we could use. But leftist obscures the fact
that this is a group that holds many social views that would be in line with
what conservatives think. If Democrats followed the leftist prescription for
saving the party, theyd find themselves moving to the right on social
issues, and alienating their core basepeople of color.

Trumps Arpaio Pardon Exposes GOPs Law & Order Fraud

Trumps pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio doesnt come as a surpriseit had
been hinted at for weeks, if not monthsbut it is still another act that
reveals who the President is and what he represents. Coming off
consecutive weeks defending Neo Nazis and their violent rally at
Charlottesville, Trump made the decision to pardon Sheriff Joe, who had
been convicted of criminal contempt for violating the order of a federal
judge.

Sheriff Joe has become infamous for targeting minoritiesspecifically

Latinos. He ran a jail that he once called a concentration camp, and
prisoners at his jail died at high rates without explanation. Sheriff Joe had
become a rallying symbol for the far right, the same types of people who
marched in Charlottesville for white superiority and racial hatred. Sheriff
Joe was also an early endorser of Trump, similar to Jeff Sessions.

The pardon shows us a few things. The first is that the Republican Party is
not about law & order, rule of law, or any of that crap. When the law
gets in the way of defending white supremacy, theyll throw the law out of
the window. Weve already seen that when it comes to Republicans
defending police shooting innocent Black people in the streetand the
Republican President openly defying the law to let a racist criminal back on
the streets is just the latest example.
The second thing it shows us is that Trump is not afraid to defy the law for
his own ends. The Arpaio pardon gives his racially resentfully base
something to cheer (while he cant pass legislation), and it also sets up
future pardons of his cronies who get caught up in the Russia investigation.
That means you can expect pardons for Manafort, Flynn, and whoever else
who may get criminally convicted as a result of the Congressional and FBI
investigations into Trump-Russia.

GOP Denunciations Of White Supremacy Are Empty

After Charlottesville, countless Republicans have released statements or

gone on television to denounce white supremacy and violent hate rallies.
Theyve said that they are troubled by Trumps words, and that they
would never support these hate groups.

Actions are more powerful than words, and the Republican Party has long
acted in support of the far right fringe.

Since the southern strategy, Republicans have become the party of white
racial resentment. Theyve worked to stop Black people from voting in
states across the country through voter ID laws. Theyve gerrymanders
districts in states they control to limit the influence of Black people who do
vote. Theyve supported violent, unaccountable police officers who shoot
innocent Black people in the street with no repercussions. Theyve worked
to end programs like Affirmative Action, which were designed to right pass
racial injustices and improve levels of minority representation in education
and business. Theyve winked and nodded at white nationalists with terms
like thugs and welfare queens for decades.

If the Republican Party truly wanted to denounce white supremacy, then it

would denounce the far right fringe by changing its policies. It wouldnt
work to stop minorities from voting. It wouldnt support police who target
minorities at higher rates, or court systems that sentence minorities
harsher than their white counterparts for the same crime. And they would
be work to support multiculturalism and diversity in politics, business, and
education. Unfortunately, we arent seeing that. We are seeing more of the
sameempty words and no action.
Politics & Chill Newsletter 8/22/17
Patrons only
Aug 22 at 5:27pm
This week's stories:

*What Does Bannon's Ouster Mean For The Trump Administration?

*Events Force Far Left To Oppose Racism

*Democratic Unity Is Overrated

*Trump Is Boxed In

-------

What Does Bannon's Ouster Mean For The Trump Administration?

Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart and Goldman Sachs (but nobody talks
about that one) is out at the White House. Bannon was considered to be
Trumps populist voice and served as White House Chief Strategist.
Pundits attributed Trumps campaign rhetoric on infrastructure, trade, and
anti-elitism to Bannon, and the mainstream had long believed that his alt-
right movement was harmless, something secondary to his ideas about
trade policy.

Well, the mainstream commentators were wrong about Bannon. He turned

out to be a white nationalist, and the ugly politics of white racism have
been undeniable throughout his time with the Trump Administration. The
deadly violence from Neo Nazis and Klan members in Charlottesville was
the final straw for the public. The media finally had its aha moment and
loudly denounced Trumps response to the racist violence. World leaders
loudly denounced Trump. The President needed a fall guy, and Bannon was
the perfect fit, given his image as an alt-right provocateur.

Republicans will try to spin Bannons exit as the White House turning over a
new leaf. Some pundits will say John Kelly is bringing discipline into the
White House. Dont believe them. Trump was spouting racist birther BS
long before Bannon ever came to work for Trump. The dysfunction and
support for white nationalism is coming from the topTrump himselfand
the people who work for him just reflect what his ideology is. Dont expect
this firing to change the White House. After all, firing the Chief of Staff,
Communications Director, Press Secretary, and National Security Advisor
didnt change anything. Trump is still a racist buffoon who openly supports
white nationalists. Thats going to continue.

Events Force Far Left To Oppose Racism

For a long time, the far left (who I am defining as class over race, identity
politics is bad, Trump voters arent racist, its just economics, left) has
openly courted Trump voters. Specifically, they have targeted the white
working class demographic, which is largely Republican. Nearly 7 out of 10
non college whites voted for Trump, and the far left has said that these
voters should be voting for Democrats.

Their thinking is as follows: Democrats starting in the 1970s abandoned the

New Deal and embraced corporations. Poor white people saw this and
decided since the Democrats are siding with the rich, they would vote for
Republicans instead.

Objectively the claim is ludicrous and absolutely laughable. If, as the far left
claims, poor white people are voting primarily on economics, then theyll
vote for their economic interests. Over the past half century Democrats
have remained steadfastly committed to increasing the minimum wage,
improving healthcare accessibility, regulating business, while Republicans
have fought to deregulate industries, cut worker protections, and eliminate
unions. If you are a poor person voting strictly on economics, the decision is
an easy one.
But as numerous studies have shown, the strongest indicator of Trump
support is racial resentment, not economic insecurity. In fact, Clinton
actually won voters in the rust belt and around the country who had
economics as their number one issue. The white working class began
shifting away from Democrats and towards Republicans during the Civil
Rights movement, and the southern strategy quickened the pace of the
transition. By the era of Reagan, the white working class was happily voting
for Republicans to crush unions.

But the far left is determined to win these voters back, regardless of the
true nature of their departure from the Democratic Party. Calling these
voters out for supporting racism will elicit This is why Trump won! from
far left pundits. Talk about giving a political voice to minority groups or why
diversity in business and politics is important and youll hear why identity
politics is stopping the white working class from voting for Democrats. In
essence, the far left has been giving cover to racist Republicans in a
misguided effort to try to advance their economic agenda. Many denied
that Trump voters were racistas Bernie Sanders himself did a few months
back.

But the events of Charlottesville have changed the calculus. The open white
nationalism and deadly violence from Neo Nazis has forced pretty much
everyone on the political spectrum to denounce white supremacy. This is a
particularly important moment for the far left, because while they are to
the left of Democrats on some economic issues, they are to the right of
Democrats on many social issues, especially race in politics.

No longer can far left pundits say that Democrats must drop identity
politics and stop talking about race. Not after white nationalists are
threatening violent marches and harm to marginalized communities. Events
have force the far left to openly condemn racism, and call Trump himself a
racistsomething they previously said would anger their targeted white
working class demographic. The far left has been pushed to left on social
issues, and ironically, this puts them more in line with mainstream
Democrats. That is a good thing.
Democratic Unity Is Overrated

Weve all read the articles about Democrats in disarray. About how
Democrats have lost seats in Congress under Obama (though they gained
seats in the House and Senate in 2016).

Mainstream pundits and far left actors have claimed that the Democratic
brand is toxic (despite Democrats winning the popular vote in the past 6 of
7 Presidential elections) and insinuated that Bernie Sanders, who lost the
Democratic primary by double digits and refuses to call himself a
Democratic, should lead the party.

Weve heard about the loud clashes between the Bernie wing and the
mainstream wing of the Democratic Party. Weve heard Democratic
strategists talk about the fear they have of a lack of unity negatively
impacting the party in the mid-term elections next year.

Well, Im here to say that Democratic unity is overrated. The far left and the
mainstream Democrats dont need to come together to sing a song. They
dont have to hold hands and proclaim all the fighting is over. Democrats
can win without coming together and there is a recent example they can
look toRepublicans under Obama.

Under Obama, Republicans dealt with a similar splinter in their own party.
The far right (Tea Party activists, Breitbart readers, white nationalist
sympathizers) were at odds with the establishment Republicans. The
establishment Republicans, who traditionally focused on lower taxes, free
trade, and deregulation, were in a battle with the far right, who desperately
wanted to push the party even further to the right on social issues. The far
right even called some mainstream GOPers Democrats for refusing to
fully submit to the will of the fringe. To be sure, mainstream Republicans
had long winked and nodded at racism during campaigns. But the far right
wanted birtherism and anti-immigration rants to headline each campaign
rally.

So what happened with the rift between the far right and the mainstream
GOP? It never closed. The rift still exists. Brietbart readers still believe
mainstream Republicans are sellouts and big business Republicans still
think the lunatic fringe is costing them influence and political power.
Despite this, the Republican Party still won back the House, Senate, and
Presidency in 8 years after Obama was first elected.

The lesson here is that Democrats dont need to come together to win.
Republicans didnt. What unified the GOP was an opposition to a leader
both sides of the party despisedBarack Obama. But that opposition to
Obama didnt create a unified Republican message or ideology. Democrats
dont need to unify either. As long as both sides oppose Trump, and run
candidates who are opposed to Trump, then the partys future is on the
right track. Theres no unity! precondition to winning in the mid-terms.
Just look at 2010.

Trump Is Boxed In
Trump has Russia to his left, and Charlottesville on his right. His first year in
office is just a few months from completion, and he has no major legislation
to speak of. Republicans have openly defied him in Congress, and
Democrats are unified against him. Foreign leaders have routinely criticized
him from afar. By publically supporting white supremacists after
Charlottesville, Trump did even more damage to his party, with prominent
pundits and politicians distancing themselves from the President. Business
leaders jumped ship. It was bad before-historically bad-but things are
unravelling now.

Where does the President have to turn? He has no political allies left who
arent ok with white nationalists. The Republican Party had defied him
before on repealing Obamacare. With even more distance between himself
and the party, the prospect of tax reform or an infrastructure bill seems
impossible. Democrats arent going to throw him a lifeline, not with a base
that despises Trump, a base that is energized to vote in 2018.

In a few months 2018 will be here, and the political ads for the mid-term
elections will start. The prospect of Democrats winning back the House
means constant threat of impeachment proceedings. The President can no
longer govern, and is simply reacting to eventssomething we associate
more with a lame duck than a President 7 months into his first term. The
only things left Trump can really do is bark at the press and make empty
threats to his political enemies aboard. With some of the lowest approval
ratings on record in the modern era, Trump cant muster the broad support
hed need to actually start a war. Hes left firing his subordinates and
making asinine statements supporting white supremacistsat this point,
what else can he actually accomplish?

Trump has still done severe damage to institutional norms, appointed a

Supreme Court justice, and helped mainstream the alt-right. But his
Presidency is effectively over, and even still inside his first year, he has no
moves left.