Blue Mass Group

Kindergartens and high risers destroyed. Civilians killed with impunity. Half a million evacuees, women and children. Charred wrecks of Russian tanks and trucks. And a determined will of Ukrainians to resist to the end.

How did it come to this?

Boris Nemtsov (1959-2015)

We can see Ukraine through the eyes of Boris Nemtsov. An opponent of Putin, vocal against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from 2014 – this is when Donetsk and Luhansk were taken over by pro-Russian forces, and Crimea was occupied by Russia.

Both Russia and Ukraine were weaker, then. The Russian build-up that followed was paid with hard currency from European countries in exchange for deliveries of natural gas and oil.

Nemtsov was killed in 2015 by paid assassins in front of the Kremlin. It was a political murder of a remarkable man.

From a 2014 Nemtsov interview:

– We’re the two big Slavic countries. If one of us — Ukraine — manages to become European, it will be a beacon, a guiding star, for those of us in Russia. We’ll be able to say: “We’ve had it with your miserable, corrupt Byzantium. Your iron curtains, your aggression, your hatred of all living things. Here you sit with your riot police and your batons — while over there is Kyiv! The capital of Kyivan Rus’.

Russians have revolted in Moscow and in St Petersburg many times. They are now demonstrating for peace. Putin police is arresting them by the thousands.

He controls the media channels. The Ukrainian war is not a war – for Russians, it is reported as a special operation.

Ukrainians have something unheard of: when things don’t work, they take the street, and throw leaders out. Putin can’t have this in a sister country. It gives ideas to the Russian people.

From another 2014 interview:

– Nemtsov does not want Russians to die. Or Ukrainians to die. He does not want refugees. Already, by 2015, he says, there were a million refugees from the war.

– He considered Putin’s 2014 war on Ukraine a crime. This was not, Nemtsov says, Russia’s war, but Putin’s war.

– Putin was already cynical, and criminal to start this absolutely bloody fratricidal war against the fraternal people of Ukraine.

– Putin’s goal, already in 2014, was to hold on, at any cost, to power for life.

– He sent federal troops to Ukraine in 2014 without approval from the Duma, which is a crime according to Russian law with no statute of limitations.

– Putin is taking revenge on Ukraine for its anti-criminality revolution from 2014. The result of this revolution was that the corrupt president of Ukraine was kicked out. He’s doing this to prove to Russians that such a way of overthrowing a thieving, disgusting corrupt official is absolutely unacceptable.

– Putin sees a big threat in a European Ukraine. This is a democracy, it exercises direct choice, it has change of power, it has triumph of the rule of law, and so on. It contradicts the vector of sole power, police state, lack of rights, arbitrariness, corruption.

– Therefore, success for Ukraine on the European path is, of course, a catastrophe for Putin. And is a chance for free Russia to repeat the democratic success of Ukraine.

– Of course this is a crime, of course the death of people is a catastrophe, of course to make an enemy of fraternal people is terrible.

– He sends 20 years old paratroopers (in 2014!) to die there from the 7th and 6th division of paratroopers. The 98th division was sent there. Two motorized brigades [he continues to list multiple Russian divisions and units sent to Ukraine]

– The commander in chief [Putin] said condolences at least once. Dead boys are buried in the cemetery in secret, and relatives are scared that they lose their benefits, so they won’t tell the truth.

– This is such a vile war in relation to your own military personnel. This is not even a crime, it is such meanness and infamy, and, in general, it is an unforgettable story.

– What he hopes for is complete misinformation. Few people watch the Internet. Most people watch ‘agitprop’, namely television. On TV, they are told there is a mythical war with some militias – that they are bands of fascists, they are on drugs.

– The lies and the suppression of truth are the principal reasons why Russian people support Putin and the so-called militias against the so-called bands of fascists. If it were not so, the obvious information about the death of the paratroopers would be too hard to hush up.

– He can scold as much as he wants the opposition as saying anti-Russian things, but how can you scold a mother or wife who mourns the death of her son.

– Most people treat their children as children. When they are treated like cannon fodder, I am convinced that the situation of the military guys who serve in Ukraine, who fight there, who die there, this truthful information would turn the public opinion upside down in just a few days.

My commentary

The US did not recognize the 2014 invasion of Ukraine as a war by Russia. Nemtsov will list you the names of the Russian Army units who went incognito to fight that war. Maybe we should be less skittish to help Ukrainians. Putin already broke all the rules in regards to treaties and international law.

Ukraine security was guaranteed by both Russia and the US in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. Russia broke that treaty in 2014.

Even if it wins, Ukraine alone can’t rid the world of Putin. Nemtsov says only the Russian people can bring Putin down. And they will do so when they see the human cost of the invasion, the criminal assault on cities and civilians.

Ukraine will always be free. Its spirit is strong. Instead of regime change in Kiev, what we should get is – the Russian people to change regime in Moscow.

 

So far Russia is hewing closely to this playbook laid out by Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). It is likely Ukraine will fall within a week or two barring substantial rearmament from the West, which seems logistically difficult in this operational environment. The long game is much harder to plan out. Ordinary Ukrainians have a high degree of technical proficiency and access to small arms and their military has been planning a partisan insurgency for this dark moment.

Continuing to supply their forces with personnel based anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles could turn Ukraine into another Afghanistan for the Russians. Echoes of Iraq as well with shock and awe in the opening round followed by a much costlier insurgency. There seems to be a high degree of bipartisan support for this move in the United States Senate. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Ukrainians already have a strong sense of national identity and affinity for liberal democracy. They will stand united against unjustified Russian aggression and will not surrender their freedom without a fight.

Welcome back, James

The 15% rule continues to keep valid candidates off the ballot. Danielle Allen is the latest casualty this cycle. We know Ben Downing cited the caucuses along with fundraising challenges in why he dropped off. We have yet to see how it might affect the crowded open races for LG, Auditor, AG, or the possibility of a contested primary for SoC. Doubtless more candidates will drop out, even though contested primaries are healthy for our democracy and vital to maintaining voter interest in the Democratic party.

Caucuses, like holding town meetings for midsize cities like Brookline or Wakefield, another bete noire of mine, are more democratic in theory then in practice. Every voter who has the leisure time and local civic knowledge to show up has more influence over the process than a solitary voter in a ballot box. Yet the kind of voter who tends to show up is overwhelmingly white and elderly. This was true for a caucus a colleague with two small children attended in Belmont which she dragged her husband to mainly to watch over the kids.

She was disappointed there was no available childcare and could easily see how single mothers, women of color, working families, English language learners, and young people could feel locked out of the process. The building was not particularly ADA friendly and the time of the caucus was arguably unfriendly to people who keep strict Sabbaths on Saturday’s, something my Jewish colleague is especially sensitive about. This year the candidates zoomed in and gave boilerplate pitches, so it’s not like participants even got the grassroots “FaceTime” that make these events important for longtime activists.

Like Pablo’s reporting on Arlington, Healey clearly dominated in Belmont and was the most known and organized campaign there. Now I like Healey and will probably vote for her in the primary, but the divisive 2016 primary experience should make us leery of a field being cleared by gatekeepers or a perceived coronation. My friend came in unpledged, but ended up working the room to get Sonia Chang Diaz her 15%, which some of the more zealous Healey supporters did not even want to extend to her. If a well known and respected legislator like Sonia drops out, this process is truly a travesty.

There is also the issue that the majority of voters in this state are moderate independents rather than progressive activists. The caucus system benefits Beacon Hill insiders at the expense of the Beacon Hill outsiders who historically get elected. I’m 33 and the only two Democrats elected in my lifetime to the corner office are Deval and the Duke. That’s it. The only outsider to politics in this cycle has already left the field.

We have already seen the thought of facing a competitive primary from the right scare off Charlie Baker and the largely unknown businessman Chris Doughty will have an even harder time getting elected on that side of the aisle against Geoff Diehl who is the clear choice of GOP party activists . We do not want outsiders and moderates shut out of our own process and kept off our ballots like they arguably will be on the GOP side for years to come.

Caucuses should still exist to send delegates to the state convention, which should still have the power to formally endorse candidates, but statewide candidates should be nominated by getting signatures to get on the ballot like any other candidate for office. The caucuses and delegates should have no further gatekeeper role for determining who gets on the ballot.

This would be a better way for candidates to show they have widespread support from registered Democrats, including the many working class members of our party who cannot give up their weekends. It’s doubtless any of the 18 year old kids I teach or their parents who work weekends and nights could participate.

My solution seems like a good hybrid. Keep the caucuses and conventions for those who love them, but open up the primary nominating process to all registered voters via signature gathering to get on the ballot and a ranked choice or jungle primary to determine the nominee. Holding it over April break or the Memorial Day weekend would be another reform to make sure we have a unified party much earlier in the process and a primary everyone knows about and has the time to participate in. What could be more democratic than that?

I offer this simple recipe for disappointed Democrats who are dismayed at the current state of our nation and government and who despair about how to change things.

Here’s the recipe for one candidate and one issue:

1. Identify a specific elected official whose vote on a specific issue you want to change. Resist the temptation to paint with a broad brush — be specific. One elected official. One vote.
2. Examine the constituency of that official as it pertains to that vote. Use reliable current polling with multiple sources if possible. If it’s a Senator, look statewide. If it’s a Representative, look at their district. Be specific. The opinion of Somerville voters is irrelevant to a Congressional race in North Adams.
3. Ask if the official is in line with the opinion of their voters:
   • If yes: Change the opinion of their voters. Use media, door-knockers, whatever. Your task is to change the voters that your chosen official represents.
   • If no: Change the official. Aggressively identify and promote an alternative candidate who shares your position. Use media spots that challenge the official: “Why do you vote against the people you represent?”.

If you choose to target a candidate, then pick the top five or six issues that you care about, and gather the data you’ll need at step three for those five or six issues.

Resist the temptation to pick insulting names or let yourself be lured into lazy shortcuts like “because they’re a jerk”.

Most elected Democrats at the national level tend to be pragmatic, and this recipe is an effective way to use that pragmatism.

If you aren’t able to perform this recipe yourself, then find people and groups that will do it on your behalf. It is not difficult to form questions that help address each of the stages. If a particular group doesn’t have specific and believable answers to those questions — and particularly if they are unable or unwilling to back them up with data — then find another group.

Most of all, be PATIENT. This takes time. We aren’t going to solve this in one, two, or five election cycles.

The changes we’re talking about take generations and even lifetimes. Just ask an old-timer who remembers when America’s right-wing was a fringe group — 1964 is a good starting point.

The Right consistently rails against any sort of Universal Single Payer system as socialized medicine  and of course putting the government between you and your doctor.

Here’s an idea:  Let’s refer to our current health care / health insurance system as “Retail Medical Care”. 

Further, no one enjoys the retail practice of buying a car and having the sales rep tell you they have to Talk with their Manager  before they can tell you how much the car is going to cost.

No one likes to pay retail.  No one likes the hassle of shady sales tactics.

If I am running for office and if USP is a key part of my campaign, I’m running a “Slice of Life” style ad, you know, like all the ads for pharmaceutical drugs.

A doctor’s office with a middle aged couple sitting on the other side of the doctor’s desk.
The Announcer says “Are you tired of dealing with Retail Medical Care?”, as the couple and doctor speak:

Husband, holding his wife’s hand, both with a worried look: “So Doctor, how much is this operation going to cost, with deductibles, co-pays, and prescription drugs?”

Doctor, in a plaid sport jacket, loud tie, and slicked back hair:  “Well, we won’t know until I talk to your insurance company, the hospital, a few specialists who might not be in network, but I’ll do the best I can for you, just tell me how much you are willing to spend, sign here, and I go talk to all those managers”.

Wife looks at husband, tear in her eye, and says, “I just hate this part of being sick, it’s like buying car but we’re talking about my life.”