This morning, I reluctantly flipped on MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), bracing myself for what was coming. Sure enough, it was the usual parade of Democratic Party talking points. But today, one word kept popping up over and over again: affordability. Apparently, that’s the new magic word. Commentator after commentator praised it, arguing that a renewed focus on affordability is the key to winning back political power.
On the surface, it sounds great. Who doesn’t want things to be more affordable? But once you sit with it for more than a minute, the whole idea starts to ring hollow. “Affordability” quickly reveals itself as a feel-good slogan, pleasant to hear, but light on substance. It’s nothing more than a platitude standing in for real solutions.
Yes, this message seems to be working for now. Democrats have notched some impressive wins in recent off-year elections, and they deserve credit for that. Still, I worry the momentum won’t last if the party keeps leaning on the same recycled rhetoric. If Democrats genuinely want to energize working-class voters, they need to offer something bolder with policies that people can actually feel in their everyday lives. Minor adjustments to the status quo, such as expanded tax credits, modest drug price negotiations, or incremental housing initiatives, often come across as window dressing to people who are struggling to get by.
What many voters are really craving, IMHO, is something far more straightforward, which is, for lack of a better term, populism. People want substantive change. And I believe the path forward is clear. Run on big, unmistakable ideas, such as Medicare for All, a massive expansion of public service jobs to stop endless layoffs, and bold investments in infrastructure. That’s how the Democrats can become a true opposition party to the elites who currently run this country.
Remember those old defensive driving public service announcements imploring drivers to ‘watch out for the
other guy!’?
That’s the logic I used
for casting my vote in this year’s presidential election.
I seriously considered voting for Jill Stein. Unfortunately, her campaign never caught fire, which is sad because her party's platform is outstanding. But reality is what it is. America in 2016 has only two viable political parties: Democrats and Republicans.
Despite a manipulated primary process earlier this year, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton survived a surprising challenge from Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (whom I supported) and won the Democratic nomination. Meanwhile, businessman and reality show TV star Donald Trump whittled down a field of 17 weak candidates and shockingly won the Republican nomination. Such at is, we are left with that choice: a status-quo, corporatist neo-liberal hawk or a reckless, racist, narcissistic, sexist, unstable demagogue. Because of the appalling foulness of the latter option, in my opinion, the former becomes tolerable. I, therefore, voted for Hillary Clinton.
I believe Donald Trump’s election to would prove to be an imminent, catastrophic danger, not only to our country, but to the entire planet. New York Times columnist Charles Blow captured my sentiment last week and expressed it much better than I can.
“On Election Day, America faces a choice, and it’s not a tough one, but a stark one. It is the difference between tolerance and
intolerance. It is the difference between respect and disrespect. It is the difference between a politician with some flaws and a flaw threatening our politics.
Donald Trump is an existential threat. On Tuesday (tomorrow), America has an opportunity to defend itself.”
Don’t get me wrong. I have some serious misgivings about Clinton. She encourages a foreign policy that relies too heavily on interventionism. Her record on trade issues that adversely impact America’s working class is murky at best. And she is way too friendly with lobbyists pitching the interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. Plus, I still haven’t quite forgiven her for her 2002 vote in the U.S. Senate to authorize the use of force in the ill-begotten Iraq War.
Given this track record, I believe Hillary possesses some semblance of sanity. And unlike the recent past, the party’s left wing does have some clout. Should she become president, they'll be able to hold her accountable. At the very least, they'll have a seat at the table. And thanks largely to the influence of Sanders and his delegates, the Democrats at their summer convention adopted a remarkably progressive party platform that includes, among other policies, a plank that calls for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and indexing it to inflation. Yes, party platforms aren't carved in granite. But they do provide a framework in which Hillary can be held to keep her promises. I cannot say the same about a Trump presidency. Any progressive ideas will be completely shut down. In fact, even the status quo will be in peril. The thought of him holding office terrifies the ever-loving shit out of me.
So, I’ve decided to fasten my belt and watch out for the other guy.
Republicans still seem to have most Americans convinced that their way is the path to austerity and fiscal responsibility. Despite a contrary record of governance during nearly the last four decades, the GOP continues to campaign by boxing progressives into a corner using the old name calling, sucker punch tactic: calling Democrats “big spenders”.
But now this image has grown to be so entrenched, the 44th President of United States, who was elected just two years ago on a left-of-center mandate of change, has allowed himself to be portrayed as one. While yielding to yet another Republican talking point, President Obama has offered to freeze the pay of civilian federal workers for two years.
A federal pay freeze isn’t the worst idea on the table. At least it’s better than federal job cuts, which is what many in the GOP want.
But what’s so troubling about this latest effort at bipartisanship isn’t so much the nuts and bolts behind the idea, but the consequences it will have on public perception. Obama’s federal pay freeze idea reinforces this false notion that Democrats are ‘big spenders’. Why has Obama ceded this argument when the record clearly shows that the GOP has been the party that’s run up biggest deficits?
And what makes this idea so depraved is that it’s an ineffective and unnecessary gimmick that puts undue hardship on many hardworking Americans who aren’t exactly rolling in the lap of luxury. It’s a penny-ante, symbolic debt reduction measure that totally ignores areas where huge cuts could be made, such as two needless and seemingly never-ending wars.
President Obama is in a lose-lose situation. He’s allowing his foes to frame the debate by inaccurately manipulating the public’s perception of him and his party. Plus, he’s appearing weak and spineless to his political base.
