Supporters of President Trump in Richfield, Ohio, last week
In a marvelous op-ed piece this morning, Paul Krugman absolutely nails the reality that underlies much of the hyperbole and mythology that’s been tossed around here lately. It is refreshing to see what happens when a Nobel Prize winning realist addresses a topic that attracts so much verbiage from all sides of the political spectrum.
If we care about economic inequality and how to address it, this piece is absolutely required reading — even if we have to pay for it (it might be behind a paywall — I’m a paid subscriber of the NY Times).
Some excerpts (emphasis mine):
These days almost everyone has the (justified) sense that America is coming apart at the seams. But this isn’t a new story, or just about politics. Things have been falling apart on multiple fronts since the 1970s: Political polarization has marched side by side with economic polarization, as income inequality has soared.
…
Mississippi isn’t an isolated case. As a new paper by Austin, Glaeser and Summers documents, regional convergence in per-capita incomes has stopped dead. And the relative economic decline of lagging regions has been accompanied by growing social problems: a rising share of prime-aged men not working, rising mortality, high levels of opioid consumption.…
For the most part I’m in agreement with Berkeley’s Enrico Moretti, whose 2012 book, “The New Geography of Jobs,” is must reading for anyone trying to understand the state of America. Moretti argues that structural changes in the economy have favored industries that employ highly educated workers — and that these industries do best in locations where there are already a lot of these workers. As a result, these regions are experiencing a virtuous circle of growth: Their knowledge-intensive industries prosper, drawing in even more educated workers, which reinforces their advantage.And at the same time, regions that started with a poorly educated work force are in a downward spiral, both because they’re stuck with the wrong industries and because they’re experiencing what amounts to a brain drain.
While these structural factors are surely the main story, however, I think we have to acknowledge the role of self-destructive politics.
…
Or consider how some states, like Kansas and Oklahoma — both of which were relatively affluent in the 1970s, but have now fallen far behind — have gone in for radical tax cuts, and ended up savaging their education systems. External forces have put them in a hole, but they’re digging it deeper.And when it comes to national politics, let’s face it: Trumpland is in effect voting for its own impoverishment. New Deal programs and public investment played a significant role in the great postwar convergence; conservative efforts to downsize government will hurt people all across America, but it will disproportionately hurt the very regions that put the G.O.P. in power.
The truth is that doing something about America’s growing regional divide would be hard even with smart policies. The divide will only get worse under the policies we’re actually likely to get.
Wow. There it is, laid out in reasonably succinct prose.
The key observation here is new for me — that there is, in fact, a connection between education and economic inequality. Let’s see the instant replay on that:
– structural changes in the economy have favored industries that employ highly educated workers — and that these industries do best in locations where there are already a lot of these workers
– regions that started with a poorly educated work force are in a downward spiral, both because they’re stuck with the wrong industries and because they’re experiencing what amounts to a brain drain
If we care about economic inquality, then we absolutely MUST do at least some of the following:
1. Revolutionize our process for sharing created wealth
2. Address the “downward spiral” in regions with a poorly educated work force
3. Celebrate, rather than attack, the sectors that employ highly educated workers — however wealth is distributed, those are the sectors that create it.
We must also address the role played by “self-destructive politics”.
This piece lays bare the populist lie that there is no difference between the parties on these matters. In fact, the two major parties are starkly divided and have been for decades. The Democratic Party steadfastly (even to its detriment) fights for programs that address these issues. The GOP fights those programs tooth and nail.
The explosion in economic inequality is the direct result of the triumph of GOP policies that produce it.
The Democrats are and have been the force that fights economic inequality. The GOP is and has been the force that promotes it. That is the simple and objective truth.
That’s what it MEANS to be a Democrat, and that is why I am a Democrat.
It’s not just Trumpland – this phenomenon is occurring in our own state. Jobs are pooling in Boston proper. The smartest people are leaving the rest of the state and going to Boston, if they can, or are moving out if they can’t afford Boston. The other regions of the state are experiencing this brain drain drain.
Proposition 2.5 and education aid is a huge problem in our state. Look at the per-capita spending on schools. A community like Weston spends $21,652 per student. East Bridgewater, a similarly-sized district, spends $10,293 per student. It would be easy to just criticize East Bridgewater for not spending as much as Weston, but the truth of the matter is that they can’t afford to spend as much as Weston, and even if their leaders were wise enough to want to spend this money, Proposition 2.5 not only restricts them to asking for overrides, but the Levy Ceiling makes it actually impossible for a poorer community to tax at a higher rate than $25/1000. Weston has a theoretical limit of $148m in property tax revenue, East Bridgewater has a limit of $38m.
We need geographic balance both in this country and in this state. This is a problem that our state democratic party needs to address.
I would portray this problem differently from Tom in a chicken-and-egg type way – it isn’t an education problem per-se, it is an economic problem. The depressed regions of this state can, do, and have churned out good students who are being educated well. Those students can’t find jobs in those regions, so many leave. That’s the “brain drain”.
I think that instead of only focusing on education – which is a supply-side problem – we need to also focus on the demand side of the equation. We need to figure out how to spread the economic growth in Massachusetts around and away from Boston. Sorry, Boston, but you’re doing really, really well. Too well, in fact – your housing prices are ridiculous and we all know you don’t want to build more to drive those prices down. Something has to give, and the equitable and sensible thing to do would be to shift economic growth into the parts of this state that have been starved of it for decades.
The regions in our state that are depressed didn’t become that way because they stopped educating their students. They became that way because the jobs disappeared, and because they were not the size and scale of Boston. While education is a very worthwhile goal, it will not solve the geographic economic inequality problem by itself.
And pointing out the imbalanced growth that has taken place is not “attacking the sectors of educated people” any more than pointing out that we have economic imbalance is “attacking the rich”. We need our economic gains to be broadly shared because not everyone is capable of being a microbiologist or a artificial intelligence engineer, and no one wants the entire state to live in Boston – especially people already in Boston.
Same goes for the rest of the country. We need to figure out how to help the people in Kansas and Oklahoma in a way other than telling them to get a better education and move to California.
I agree with all of the above.
In particular, I agree that education alone cannot solve the problem. I think the interaction between education and economic forces makes the issue “interesting”. Focusing on just one won’t solve it.
This line, in particular, jumps out at me:
Absolutely, Yes. I know it’s making lemonade from lemons, but climate change is already going to have a devastating impact on Boston.
RIGHT NOW is the time to begin the decades-long process of distributing the metro-Boston economic and political engine away from the coast. Springfield, Pittsfield, Lawrence, Lowell, Haverhill — each is a city and a region that currently struggles and that will not be devastated by floods every other year.
The much-vaunted “Seaport district” is going to be underwater twenty years from now. I know that for those of us who are looking forward to our 30th birthday, 20 years seems like an eternity.
For others of us, 1998 was not that long ago.
I was pleased to see this article on how the Cannabis Commission is going to be relocated from Boston to Worcester. It’s definitely a start, and an example of what the state could and should be doing.
If people want to tie global warming to diversification of our state’s economy, I can definitely get on board with that approach. We have a lot of unused capacity in our former great cities in this state, it makes sense to not lump all our jobs into the Seaport (which, unfortunately, seems to be where Springfield-based MassMutual seems to be eying for a future move – probably to capitalize on a strategy of “move your headquarters to where young, not old people want to work, and you can eliminate your older workforce without any explicit age-based discrimination”)
The move from Springfield to the Seaport district also exemplifies the “brain-drain” mechanism described in Mr. Krugman’s piece.
We definitely should be going in the other direction — intentionally attracting people, jobs, and investment to Springfield (and our other interior cities).
I’m all for private entities casting a wider net to find a location, but it seems to me state agencies should be located in the capital with field offices elsewhere if appropriate.
More reasons it seems to repeal that abomination of a law known as Prop. 2 1/2.
Agree with #1 and #2. Not so sure about #3. Creation of wealth is not that clear to me.
Sharing and redistributing wealth depends on wealth being created to be shared.
If the leader in world-wide wealth creation ends up being China or Europe, all of us will suffer.
Nobody here is attacking education or disagreeing that income inequality is the most pressing social and economic issue of our time. Nobody here is defending Republicans. They go out of their way to make inequality worse and they do so deliberately, as the last cruel tax cut so willfully showed.
Where we disagree is what to do about it. I think the election of Conor Lamb shows us that lazering in on income inequality and fighting Ryan on social security and Medicare is the way to make inroads into the very working class communities that used to be the bedrock of the New Deal coalition. Reich, Kuttner, Greenfield, Krugman, Sanders, and Warren agree with me. We can do this without sacrificing our noble principles on racial or gender equality. Or immigrants rights. We can fight for both. I reject the false choice that we can no longer win in working class communities on our signature economic issues. This is realism, and the realism is that the working class has been screwed for two generations and is ready to fight back. Nominate fighters and we will win.
I see no difference at all between relentlessly repeated posts and comments attacking each and every proposal to fund education and “attacking education”.
Sorry, but some of us here DO attack education each time it’s raised.
I appreciate the uprate. I think John oversimplifies his arguments-which is a strength for a campaign staffer or a canvasser-albeit a liability on these wonkier shoals. I really think you do not disagree on much. You just disagree on what to emphasize. I agree with you his arguments can be over the top, lazy, and simplistic. I also agree with him that those arguments are how you win elections. Keep the message simple and focused on easy bullet points on who the heroes and villains are, and which side the party of the people purports to be on.
On the nuances, sure, education investment is critical. I had my students go over the earnings disparities. I also was honest that my brother with raw computing skills and an associates degree from a defunct tech support certification program is outearning the guy with a BA from a top 5 school. It is an important credential, it is the best credential for the middle class, but it is not the only credential.
We should work to provide as many viable paths to the middle class as possible. That might be what John does not get-that we have to provide a mobility and opportunity driven economy-the days of showing up and punching a clock for a living wage at a manual job are over. I also understand why families in his situation might balk at the six figure debt their kids would have to accrue to get an increasingly depressed credential. HVACs, plumbers, IT, solar technicians, a host of jobs that are automation and outsource proof that do not require advanced degrees. Pink collar jobs. I respect the hell out of the ex-Marine in my wifes nursing cohort who picked a job most men wouldn’t want to do since he knew it would provide for his daughters. So we have to adjust our education model to the reality of modern work-something I am not quite as sure either one of you appreciates. The white collar v blue collar divide is increasingly irrelevant in an automating world. Lawyers and auto assemblars are going to be equally obsolete.
I also think you both, along with our President, sorely underestimate the valuable role community colleges can play in bridging these gaps. Between practical and theoretical and between vocational and traditional higher education. Every dollar we spend on community colleges will come back to us ten fold, and their present funding is almost entirely contingent on local property taxes. A real public works program to build or rebuild them across America while making them a free ride for everyone is exactly the kind of idea we should be backing.
Building them in rural communities can especially help suppress brain drain, as my wife’s second alma mater in Sugar Grove, IL can attest to. She will always say she learned more about herself in that year and a half at Waubonsee Community College than she did in four years at U Chicago. It also brought professors and their families into farm towns that lost intellectual capital in the last few decades. That brings Starbucks, and orchestras, and cultural capital these rural communities desperately need. Ditto RCC which is a great path to the middle class for many of my students in an urban setting as well. or the Chicago City Colleges.
I prefer erasing that six-figure debt — as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Setti Warren propose — to angrily attacking each and every one of those proposals. A child of a working-class family who is otherwise capable of attending and graduating from a four-year undergraduate program is far better served by getting that education for free than from being denied it — no matter how many verbal gymnastics accompany the denial.
“HVACs, plumbers, IT, solar technicians, a host of jobs that are automation and outsource proof” may not require advanced degrees, but they do require exactly the kind of government funding that John rails against at every opportunity.
I enthusiastically agree. Perhaps you mean backing the way these Iowa Democratic candidates support the proposal. Or perhaps you meant the way that both 2016 candidates (along with Martin O’Malley) supported college funding.
I’m not sure why you think I in any way underestimate the role community colleges play. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that I’m a voice that passionately advocates for these programs here at BMG.
I’ll withdraw my objection and agree wholeheartedly with debt free college. Chicago treated me well with grants, but becoming a teacher is a costly endeavor that is not assured of a payout at the end. There is an incredible shortage of qualified teachers of color, first generation college graduates, and teachers from immigrant, rural, or working class backgrounds. It would be great if that was free.
We need to pay teachers more – it’s just that simple. However, if you are ever feeling down about what you make, check out this video.
It’s tough to accept this as “simple and objective truth” when 1/3 of Democratic senators just voted a couple weeks ago to roll back banking security regulations. No one here says the two parties are the same (although some here like to claim that others here say they are the same), but the Democrats are nowhere near as aligned on economic concerns as your post claims.
And that’s the problem. Democrats are allowed to be a “Republican for a Day” on key economic issues. We give them a pass and call it a day, hoping that tomorrow will be different, We (the working class) takes the economic hit knowing that some day, that Democrat will trickle over to our side.
Can anyone imagine how tolerant Democrats (and Democratic leadership and big donors) would be if Democratic legislators were “Republican for a Day” on social issues like gay rights, reproductive rights, minority rights?
And that’s the problem.
Always with the ‘yabbut.’
Why don’t you just flat out say Democrats suck and go the full Jill Stein already??
lol. Jill Stein really sucks. As do the Greens, despite their better and more consistent policy platform.
I want a better Democratic party. More Warrens, and Khannas, and Baldwins. Fewer Lipinskis, and DeLeos, and Rahm Emanuels. Thinking the party is a united front for good is fantasy, and acting like “we’re all great and we ain’t here for self-reflection” is the worst recruitment tool.
The Democratic senators who voted to roll back banking security regulations each constructed an elaborate rationale for how their vote helps the working class. I disagree with that rationale, and I disagree with those votes.
We can have a shared vision about what kind of world we want to create and still have very different, competing, and sometimes conflicting proposals for how to get there.
I do not claim that Democrats are unanimous or perfect. When each comment or post that highlights how we Democrats lead is accompanied by commentary that attempts to enumerate all the ways we fail, it is hard to avoid the perception that the bottom line is that the two parties are the same.
I’ll look around a bit — I think it won’t be hard to find some comments and posts that explicitly say that.
Here are four comments from BMG that argue, in effect, that the the two parties are the same:
example 1 (emphasis mine):
example 2 (emphasis mine):
example 3:
example 4 (emphasis mine):
Let me use this diary as an example.
Is there anything about Paul Krugman’s article that is offensive to any progressive Democrat? Is there any reason we shouldn’t occasionally note and celebrate when an articulate spokesperson makes our case for us?
Now look at the commentary on this new thread. Is the commentary supportive of the thread-starter, or critical?
If our response to a piece like the above from Paul Krugman is to launch into yet another round of endless attacks on each other and on Democrats, then how is this different from the circular firing squad that has already doomed so many prior Democratic efforts?
Can we occasionally talk about the super-majority of Democrats that voted to PRESERVE the banking regulations?
Let me ask you a simple question Tom. If ONE Democrat in the House or Senate voted YES tomorrow to restrict abortion rights, deny gay couples from adopting children, or voted to fund an education program that excluded schools that were primarily populated by minority students….would you say “Let us celebrate that the other 238 that voted NO!”
Followup, would you support that legislator on anything after that vote?
Of course I would and have. Have you forgotten that opposition from anti-abortion Democrats was a key hurdle that the Barack Obama administration overcame in passing the ACA?
I do not attack every accolade offered up for the policies of the party because I don’t support Joe Manchin. I can think of few self-identified Democrats that I disdain more than the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 (Joe Lieberman). I feel no need to trumpet my disagreement with these figures at every positive mention of the party.
There are anti-abortion Democrats in today’s House and Senate. There were anti-abortion Democrats in Massachusetts government then and now.
I am no fan of Colleen Garry. Ms. Garry is anti-choice, pro-gun, supports voterID, and disagrees with me on a long list of important issues, I am still a Massachusetts Democrat. Ms. Garry does not define the party.
But you accuse others of such matters when they do not support all Democrats. Just sayin….
You’ve taken swipes at large swaths of the Dem party including nominees for major offices who are in fact right in the mainstream of the party. The examples named above tend to be outside of the mainstream of the party.
The mainstream has lost control of the house, the senate, the White House and a majority of state governments. Yeah, I am taking swipes.
There are also some Democrats who still believe that money is more important than message to win an election. I’m taking swipes at them.
I’ll keep taking swipes until the party returns to its earlier FDR roots as the party of the working class.
This diary is about Paul Krugman’s piece.
Did you read it? Do you agree with it?
But the people I’m referring to are not Republican-lite as you seem to be implying.
Your definitions are a good ten years out of date. So are Charley’s to be quite frank. Deval is an economic conservative compared to the direction most of us in the grassroots want to go.
Speaking for myself definitely yes to the first question. Dems would still be the pro-choice and pro-gay rights party overall, unlike the GOP. As to the follow-up that legislator would be deserving of a primary, but if he survives the primary it would still be a matter of comparing him to the GOP nominee.
That’s my point. Those litmus tests are terribly out of date. Pro choice and pro gay is a ten year old litmus test at best. Joe Lieberman also passed that test. So do Rahm Emmanuel and Mark Warner. All three are pro corporation and anti-Union, pro cop and anti black lives, pro war and anti realist on foreign policy. The party can do better. Certainly in blue states like CT, IL, VA and certainly in our own backyard.
Krugman’s piece is fine, but it is your post and you made claims about the greatness of Democrats, which I think are untrue. Of course the GOP is awful. There’s really no need to argue that.
We need better Democrats in office, not just Democrats. And I think stating that Democrats are aligned on policy helps prevent efforts to improve the party.
Yes, good for the 30 Dems who voted the right way, but we still have 1/3 who are helping the GOP and stand in the way of progressive goals.
Serious question on this. Do you think it’s criticism from the left that has doomed progressive policies?
From what I’ve seen, especially in MA, it’s centrist Democrats in leadership positions as the ones most likely to stifle progressive efforts. How many times has a Charlie Baker veto been overturned by the super duper Dem majority? Just once, right? And it was to give salary increases to legislators.
Paid leave, minimum wage increases, a better revenue balance, all the things that could address inequality and poverty . . . is it the GOP in MA stopping those?
I think the attacks from the left have seriously seriously degraded the community here at BMG.
I’m weary of being labeled a “Wall street sellout” time and again here because I once observed — correctly, I think — that our campaign funds have to come from somewhere. We cannot disarm in a Citizens-United world.
It’s not just Bill and Hillary Clinton (though they are, of course, lightning rods). We saw the same thing about Joe Biden, for crying out loud.
When the GOP owns all three branches of government and virtually the entire heartland, I think it is very important — in fact, VITAL — to argue every suggestion that we Democrats are no different from the GOP.
About MA, who’s preventing progress here?
Heh. Bob DeLeo is at the very top of my list.
At the moment, I’m not sure that anybody else matters.
Nobody here is arguing that. It is frankly dishonest to continue to insist on that. I see no reason for BMG to be a Pravda or Brietbart for the milquetoast moderate Democrat. The GOP is a fascist party, and the Democrats need to react to that by embracing a more boldly socially democratic vision or the risk becoming the Mensheviks or Weimar liberals of our era.
Radical politics on the right can only be defeated with a strong counterpunch from a revitalized left. I see no candidate willing to go there in MA, other than Massie and Warren at the statewide level and folks like DSA member Mike Connolly on the local level. Tito made the right move, challenging a hack like Walsh instead of waiting his turn. Capuano is no hack like Walsh, but I am glad he has to visit Mattapan for a change to get re-elected.
We all pretend we care about black voter engagement and then take a big dump on the first credible candidate of color for Congress in the Commonwealth since Ed Brooke, and the first Democrat I might add, all because she has the temerity to take on a long time incumbent.
The DSA/BTU mixer I went to had a lot of talk about the Zakim and Pressley challenges, fond memories over Tito, concern over who replaces Linda Dorcena Forry, rare excitement over Spilka becoming Senate Prez, and costernation that DeLeo still pulls so many strings and none of the candidates for Governor are gaining any traction. A lot of energy about going up to Lowell for the CD-3, no excitement about going to the DSC for convention. Most of my friends in the activist community are prioritizing the CD-3 and CD-7 races or ballot questions over the gubernatorial race. The future of the party is the Sanders wing, and the sooner the Clinton apologists get on board the faster we can all work together to beat Trump. Pretending moderation is the path to victory in our radicalized climate is the path to defeat.
Where did I say or imply that “moderation is the path to victory”?
Is Ms. Pressley stepping forward to demand that companies that are too big to fail have a significant piece of their equity seized by eminent domain and shared with all us?
This is a total crock. You keep running the same flag up the same flagpole.
My objection to your candidate has nothing to do with her race. Nor does it have anything to do with how long Mr. Capuano has served. I think you know that, and I think you repeat the canard anyway. I wish you’d stop.
I’m also sick to death of being labeled a “Clinton apologist”.
I sure hope that the future of the party is more like the “Warren wing”. Even more strongly, I hope we identify CURRENT leaders.
If the “future of the party is the Sanders wing”, then the party is DEAD as a DOORNAIL. Mr. Sanders lost big.
If this party has a future, it is long past time to move past Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton. It is long past time to find, embrace, and celebrate candidates who can actually win in 2020 (or whenever we can next mount a credible challenge).
The Warren wing and the Sanders wing are the same wing. It pains me that you consistently fail to see this. That you identify one person as mainstream and the other are as an unelectable radical, when both have identical voting records and identical criticisms of where the Democrats gone wrong.
Here she is criticizing how the Clinton wing hurt the party
Here she is criticizing Democrats for being too moderate and too friendly with business
Criticizing the Democratic Party is exactly what this blog and other blogs was started to do. Back when the DLC was still dictating we had to vote for Iraq War apologists like Jo Lieberman and the local party was rallying around Tom Reilly. BMG, Kos, and MoveOn filled that void.
So did the Dean campaign, another Vermont radical who was laughed out of ‘the mainstream’ who had a far better record at competing nationwide than the Clinton protege who led the DCCC (before he bankrupted Chicago, closed black schools, and covered up cop killings of unarmed black men). That is not the party I want to return to, and a choice between that party and the Republicans is indeed a bad choice. You may not realize it, but you are now defending the same things you once attacked.
“The Warren wing and the Sanders wing are the same wing.”
Of course they’re the same, that’s why I chose the wording I used.
“the Clinton protege who led the DCCC”?
Do you mean Rahm Emmanuel? The person Barack Obama chose as Chief of Staff?
In this comment you chose the language of division and polarization — “Sander’s wing”, “Clinton protege”, “Clinton apologist”
You are mired in the utter dysfunction of the failed 2016 campaign, even while you claim to want to move past it.
Elizabeth Warren is not “mainstream”. There is a reason she is drawing fire from the entire right-wing GOP lie machine — that fire does not target her because she is “mainstream”. Your references to Mr. Dean are even more mired in the past. Mr. Dean was not “laughed out of the mainstream”. He was rejected because his primary campaign was an total and abject failure.
Howard Dean was much more effective as organizer and fund-raiser than as candidate. His primary campaign was an abject failure. Do you blame Mr. Dean for the “Clinton apologist”? After all, it was Mr. Dean’s 50-state strategy that elected Barack Obama — under Mr. Dean’s tutelage.
I don’t know any more what party you think you want to be part of. Is it Howard Dean’s short-lived moment in the limelight? Is it Evan Falchuck’s 2014 “United Independent Party” or his 2017 Massachusetts Democratic Party? Is it Bernie Sander’s brand of socialist party or Elizabeth Warren’s Massachusetts Democratic Party?
You may not realize it, but you are employing the very same tactics of polarization and alienation that you occasionally deplore.
If you want Ms. Pressley to be anything more than a mosquito buzzing around Mike Capuano, you must confront the reality that she needs to expand her appeal beyond the neighborhoods of Mattapan.
Your constant condescension about Ayanna Pressley and her campaign is straight up disgusting, Tom, and absolutely reeks of things you claim it doesn’t.
Please look at the polls of the race so you get your facts right. She has a double digit lead throughout all of Boston, large double digit leads across all voters of color, is tied among women voters, and has a 20+ point lead among all voters under 40. And all this despite 1/3 of voters not knowing who she is yet. So it ain’t just Mattapan. She gets trounced among 50+ white men outside of Boston, though . . . so there’s that.
My reference to Mattapan is in explicit response to this from jconway:
This was a snarky reference to Mr. Capuano and to Somerville.
That was preceded by this (emphasis mine):
This second comment is even more snarky than the first. If supporters of Ms. Pressley want me to take them and their candidate seriously, then they’re going to have to do more than hammer on her race and on Mr. Capauno’s age.
The polls you cite strengthen my perception that what appeals to you about Ms. Pressley is:
– her standing among women voters
– her standing among voters of color
– her standing among voters under 40
It isn’t “condescension” to make the observation. Nor is it condescension to say that it takes more than the above to sway my vote.
This kind of toxic burn-the-village onslaught seriously hurt the Howard Dean campaign and the Bernie Sanders campaign. It is hurting this community.
If you don’t treat me and my feelings with respect, it makes it immeasurably harder for me to respect your commentary.
Tom, you’ve repeatedly said that the main things she brings to the challenge are her race and her gender. You just described her as nothing “more than a mosquito buzzing around Mike Capuano.”
It’s incredibly condescending and stinks of racial and gender prejudice. You say that is not your intent and I believe you, but this is what comes across.
What appeals to me about Pressley is meeting her and knowing her work. I think she would be a stronger leader on many things than Mr. Capuano (who I like, but do not prefer over Pressley). Things like sexual assault and trauma, LGBTQ issues, Choice, and the myriad issues that impact people of color in urban areas (from education to economic development to police brutality).
The fact that you continue to dismiss these as not real or nothing more than her race and gender is more of your condescension. And saying that someone couldn’t possibly be a stronger leader on these issues than Capuano is absolutely laughable. Your belief that Capuano is a leader of national repute on nearly every progressive issue is some next level parochial thinking.
I cited the polls because her support is broad despite being less well-known. And if women, people of color, and young people really like someone, isn’t that a good thing???? I like Pressley for the reasons I stated and I imagine these groups do for similar reasons.
If she wins all those groups handily and then loses this race because of a 40-point deficit among white men over 50, that is truly a sad outcome for Boston in 2018.
I hope whoever wins will have widespread support among all parts of the district and all demographic groups. For that to be the case, Mr. Capuano will definitely have to step outside of Somerville, and Ms. Pressley will have to visit Teele Square.
And Tom, it is also continually laughable about how you attack people on this site and then act horrified if you get similar treatment in return.
@doubleman:
My “mosquito” comment was out of line and I apologize.
Please reread my comment about what she brings to the campaign. I refer to the qualities her supporters emphasize, not the candidate herself.
You read racial and gender prejudice. I’m saying that her campaign hasn’t made its case, at least to me.
I don’t dismiss any of the issues you mention as not real. I’m saying that in my own view of the reality we collectively face, they aren’t at or near the top of the list (with the exception of police brutality and sexual assault and brutality).
I think the issues that are most urgent today are something along the lines of:
1. Rampant and out-of-control economic inequality
2. Rampant and out-of-control lies, fraud, and outright tyranny in the current administration
3. Explicitly moving backward, rather than forward, on climate change issues
4. Outrageous tyranny and prejudice against immigrants
5. Police brutality
6. Sexual assault and brutality
7. Gun violence
I look at this list, and I ask myself which candidate is most likely to make the most actual here-and-now progress on the above list.
I choose Mike Capuano over Ayanna Pressley based on these issues. These are my priorities.
I think it’s very likely that the electorate will make the same choice. I’ve been very wrong about estimating the electorate before, and I may be wrong this time.
I would argue that Pressley has been far
more vocal and active on questions 4-7 on the ground in Boston than Mike Capuano. Neither has really talked about climate this race which is a strike against them both. They are probably tied on questions 1 and 2. I like them both and think this primary is healthy, but the only condescending attitude I have seen on this site have come almost exclusively from his supporters which only draws this undecided voter closer and closer to her camp.
@jconway:
I don’t doubt that she’s been more vocal and active on 4-7.
I think Mr. Capuano is far more able to have an impact on 1-3 than any first-year representative.
You’ve said earlier that you support Ms. Pressley, I’m fine with that.
I’m not trying change your mind about Ms. Pressley. I’m instead trying to remind us of the Paul Krugman piece and the issues it raises.
I would help you to get out of Somerville every now and again as well or actually look at who Somerville voted for. It was Sanders, and the entire slate of candidates he backed for City Council.
Nobody is talking about third parties. I am talking about making the Democratic Party actually progressive. and actually democratic I am talking about dumping DeLeo, dumping crypto conservatives like Rahm Emmanuel, and dumping superdelegates and Wall Street cash in exchange for grassroots energy and a 50 state grassroots party. We share the exact same values on all the issues, which is why it pains me that you are so automatically hostile to anything that is not what has come before in progressive politics.
I am not the one who is not moving beyond 2016. I voted for Hillary and even donated to her (which I did not do for Sanders). I repeatedly defended then and defend her still from unfair attacks. The three people who constantly attack anything that is pro-Sanders or pro-populist are the ones unwilling to move on. Your candidate also lost, and she lost to the worst President we ever had.
So let us figure out how we can move forward as a party. The energy is with the left, it is not with the center who’s strategy has consistently failed to hold Congress, hold statehouses, or even hold the White House. You even agree with this, which is why it baffles me you constantly backtrack and attack the left as counter productive when it is the most exciting front in American politics today. This is how we win back voters. 70% of American voters are economic progressives. There is literally no reason to run toward Wall Street anymore.
@jconway:
I ask that when you address me, you find different language than “Sanders wing”, “Clinton apologist”, “Clinton protege”, etc.
I agree with your observation that we are 90% agreed on virtually every issue and 99% agreed on the issues of substance.
I don’t think I attack “the left”. I think I instead harshly criticize particularly strident commentary from a very narrow handful of participants that to me is unnecessarily insulting, rude, and inaccurate.
I prefer to move on to Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders. I prefer to identify as “progressive” rather than “populist”.
I am a Massachusetts Democrat.
You literally attached the left up there and blamed us for ruining BMG. How about we agree to both cut it out with the bromides and stick to policy instead of personalities? I’m game for that. I’m game for another sazerac at Saloon too. The internet keep us ensconed in our bubbles unfortunately. We could also do a lot more to help our mutual friend in Brookline take on Beacon Hill.
And for the record populist and progressive need not be mutually exclusive terms. I would argue their fusion has won more elections for our party than any other strategy.
I’m happy with “progressive populist”.
Still, the plain fact is that in today’s parlance, world-wide, the term “populist” is being used to describe movements in Europe that are horrific. It is the “populist” movements of Austria that are putting Nazis back in government.
Here in the US, Donald Trump’s base is what most people mean when they refer to “populist”.
Historically, our American populists were not much better (as I’m sure you’re aware).
I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive, but if we’re going to use one or the other (as you do upthread) then I’m much more comfortable with “progressive” than “populist”.
I fear my wording was unclear. When I wrote “from the left” above, I mean in the sense of from the left-ward side of the debate. I used the word “left” in its directional meaning.
I did not intend to attack “the left” as a noun for leftists. I’m about as far left as anybody here on pretty much every issue we’re talking about.
I’m reminding all of us that “the left wing” is much larger than “the Sanders wing”.
@ Saloon: Sadly, the establishment is under new ownership/management and is declining.
When I’m back from the train ride I’m about to take (Vancouver to Boston by VIA rail to Toronto, then Amtrak from there home), let’s get together for libations.
Give it up, Tom.
Very many ‘debates’ on this site rapidly turns into ‘Punish the Dems.’ Whether the Dems do too much, not enough, or something else entire… It doesn’t matter. The point it is to bad mouth Democrats and every iteration of ‘debate’ with some here is just going to circle down to the simple, simplistic, drain those people get out of, first, doing so and, second, gleefully rip away at anyone who would defend either a Dem in particular or Dems in general. It’s a pitiable exercise in reality aversion.
Bravo. We don’t need Jacobins. There is plenty of room in the Democratic Party for a spectrum of views on social issues, on economic issues, and on foreign affairs issues. Calls for ideological purity are self-defeating in the long run and also probably incoherent (since the constellation of views that today we call “Progressive” don’t necessarily go together).
I think that once we have a Dem nominee critics from the left could cool it a bit. It’s not at all helpful, especially when they parrot critiques from the right (see Clinton, Hillary).
Eh you say that every four years, and every four years it results in a nominee that is too reluctant to win. I am sorry Christopher, but I am too old to wait for the progress I was promised. I am shocked older people here insist on waiting.
I said once we have a nominee. While there is an active nomination contest support whomever you want. I for one support the person I want for the job itself rather than play 3D chess regarding whom we supposedly need to win.
I actually liked the Krugman piece. My entire point is that he seems to be endorsing a focus on economic disparities that disproportionately hurt the middle class and the heartland workers of America. That is exactly the strategy we should do as a matter of morality, policy, and yes electoral politics. The way we beat Trump is by pointing out how little he has done for working people, defend our legacy of programs that help the middle class, and create next generation programs to protect future generations too.