I will vote for Ed Markey again, in part to honor my late mother and father.
Despite starting their American journey without much money, from the very beginning they believed strongly in the idea of being their brother’s keeper.
My father, a Golden Gloves boxing champion in his youth, was a gentle soul. He was a member in the Third Order of St. Francis and was known for literally giving those less well-off than himself the winter overcoat off his back To those that some scorned as outcasts, my father lived the teachings of St. Francis: “Preach the Gospel and if necessary use words.”
My mother was a proud union public school teacher. She too believed in the idea of progress. Both of my parents believed in the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and saw the kind of economic and social justice promoted in the Social Security Act as very much in keeping with their version of the American dream.
Ed Markey tells the story of his own mother and how she had to give up her own dreams to take care of her siblings after the death of his grandmother. At the end of her life his mother developed Alzheimer’s. Ed’s father and his siblings took care of her in the living room of their Malden home. In the same way I took care of my mother after she developed cancer.
In his campaign announcement Ed said: “With our democracy under assault every day by Donald Trump and his agenda of hate, division, and inequality, we are all called to stand up in the fight for the future of our country. I want to continue helping to lead that resistance in the United States Senate armed with an agenda of jobs and justice and a deep commitment to the freedoms born in the Commonwealth.”
It is all well and good to talk a good game about self-reliance as some on the right do. However, to help assure the survival of this New Deal belief in a more humane American capitalism that takes the needs of the most vulnerable members of our community into consideration and casts no one out in the cold I will vote for the candidate who understands my family. I’ll vote for Ed Markey on November 3, 2020.
This one puzzles me. I’ve met Markey once, at a senate campaign kickoff at some nice home in Needham. He seemed personable. He seems passionate. His commitment to the environment is a big plus. His speeches at the Democratic state conventions were horrible, but then most are. (thank goodness I am not going to this year’s convention) .
Other than being an older white guy, what’s the problem? (with him or me for that matter)
Her opponent better tell me what she will do differently in the US Senate. I’ll listen, but only out of courtesy.
I will never understand why any self-professed progressive would primary an incumbent progressive champion.
Because you’re not king, Fred. You don’t get to proclaim who is the “progressive champion”. In a democracy, people vote for their representatives.
Ayanna Pressley has adequately answered this question. Peace to Mike Capuano, but I know Mike Capuano and he’s no Ayanna Pressley.
Ha. Given the cynical opportunism in her recent rebranding, not even Ayanna Pressley is Ayanna Pressley.
If I were the creator of Obama’s “Yes, we can” chant though, I’d demand royalties on her “Change can’t wait” ripoff.
What are you talking about? I’ve known her for 20 years and she’s always been passionate about the issues she has focused on.
I didn’t say anything about issues, as much of her rebranding is about image and capitalizing on the anti-establishment winds over the past few years – winds that in lockstep with the machine here, she notably tried to sabotage until they appeared to have staying power and could sweep her into higher office as an “insurgent.”
I still don’t know what in the world you are talking about.
I think we all need more information. Markey has been a very progressive Senator but, yes, the age question is relevant: he’ll be close to 80 when he finishes the next 6 years. Markey has been good on foreign policy questions — something many Democrats don’t give a damn about — and I would hesitate to support the new kid on the block until I’ve heard her views on AUMF, American Exceptionalism, BDS, and civil liberties. Nice that she’s taken on Uber, but that’s just not enough for me.
We all know Mr. Markey’s age. Other than sheer age discrimination, what is your point?
It’s funny that older people always chastise younger people for not getting more involved in politics, yet they are the ones often pulling the ladder up from them. If we want a deeper bench down the road we should be excited about competitive primaries. It renews the party and helps progressives get energized. I am 90% sure I am voting for Ed Markey-but I am 100% sure this primary is a good thing. This is how we build our bench and renew our leadership. Waiting ones turn shouldn’t cut it anymore.
I don’t object to Mr. Markey having a primary challenger.
I object to commentary that says Mr. Markey should be replaced solely or primarily because of his age:
“yes, the age question is relevant: he’ll be close to 80 when he finishes the next 6 years.”
“42 years is long enough for anyone ”
If age is interfering with an official’s ability to do their job, cite the shortcomings. I have concerns about the age of presidential candidates (Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden) because of actuarial realities about aging and its impact. It is a simple fact that an 80 year old is more likely to have a debilitating stroke or other rapid-onset disability. There are good reasons why life insurance is so much more expensive for a 60 year old in good health than a 25 year old. So if that’s the concern, then say so.
That’s not what I see in this commentary. I see instead an ageist attack on Mr. Markey because of his age.
The reason why young players replace veterans as veterans age is that young players are BETTER. They hit harder, run faster, and have more endurance than their older teammates.
Yes, build our bench. Yes, run candidates in primaries. I want those candidates to promote themselves BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER, not because they are younger.
Agreed. For me as a 7th CD voter, AP made her case. It had less to do with MC being bad and more to do with her having greater future potential imho. I know we disagree on that and this is also ok, I won’t assail the inverse choice.
I welcome this challenger and hope she can engage Sen. Markey in a spirited debate on the issues. Like the Capuano-Pressley race, I start in the incumbents corner. I may not end there if she makes a great case.
When a 50 year-old IT worker is passed over for age, that’s age discrimination. When an 80 year old’s physical health, energy, and mental agility could be an issue — not to mention his very mortality — it’s a valid concern for voters. Speaking as someone creeping up on 70. Not to put too fine a point on it, who are the people most known for plowing through pedestrians? Octogenarians. And that’s why the DMV makes you re-test.
Then there is the issue of — how long do you want to keep a bunch of politicos in power? The Democratic leadership’s average age is 76 — compared to something 10-15 years younger in the Republican Party. Is it not important to make way for new leadership?
Both reasons are why I do not want to see either Biden or Bernie run.. But to return to Markey, if his challenger is seriously deficient and objectionable, then let’s keep him. But all things being equal, he should step aside.
I hope this is clear enough for you.
I appreciate the clarification, and I think your perspective is clear.
I simply disagree with you. There is no evidence of impairment. If he wins in 2020 and chooses to run again in 2026, then I suggest that 2026 is a more appropriate time to talk about the risks of Octogenarians in office.
It seems to me that the GOP is a case study in what not to do. It is certainly true that GOP leaders are younger than their Democratic Party counterparts. To the extent that age is a factor at all, it seems to me that the learning from your example is that youth hurts, rather than helps, governance.
My standard is simple — if a challenger is better than Mr. Markey, then I’ll support the challenger.
Ageist Trumpists aka Fascists will soon fake video of Markey slurring his speech like they did to Speaker Pelosi.
Ixnay on “the survival of this New Deal belief in a gentler American capitalism.” Capitalism is a system that’s run it’s course and will only become more brutal and exploitative.
“Capitalism is a system that’s run it’s course and will only become more brutal and exploitative.”
I’m not sure that “capitalism”, in this context, means anything at all.
So far in America, the alternatives to the New Deal economic system (whatever we call it) that have been proposed have been more brutal and exploitative than the “evil” they purport to cure. The GOP has been attacking New Deal economics as — pick your poison — “socialist”, “communist”, “atheist”, “fascist”, “marxist” — since New Deal economics was born.
It appears to me that most brutal and exploitative aspects of today’s US economy are the direct result of the increasing GOP dominance of US economic policy that began with the Reagan era. It is no accident that today’s GOP spent the last Independence Day in Moscow. It is also no accident that today’s GOP is doing all in its power to support Mr. Trump in advancing the agenda of Mr. Putin.
I’d like to some specifics about the alternative that you propose. I’d also like to see some specific examples of positions taken by Mr. Markey that you think are incorrect.
Do you also say “Ixnay” to our senior Senator, Elizabeth Warren? Ms. Warren explicitly describes herself as a Capitalist. Do you also argue that her ideas and proposals have run their course?
Is Senator Warren a capitalist? Capitalism has become like beauty, it’s all in the eye of the beholder; the same for socialism. It’s all part of that false dichotomy of socialism/capitalism.
Inform yourself about “neoliberal” policies and you will see that you can’t lay all the blame at the GOP’s feet. By Capitalism I mean precisely what Marx, in his huge book on the subject, was referring to when considering where it was heading in the 19th Century. He was remarkably prescient about its increasing rapaciousness. If you’re not sure what Capitalism is, read something.
My view is that the “neoliberal” policies that some here are so fond of bashing were many times better than the policies being aggressively promoted by the GOP. Do you seriously argue that America would be less capitalist after a second term of Mr. Bush (George H.) or after one or two terms of ROBERT DOLE? Do you have any idea of what Mr. Dole was about? Or perhaps you are arguing that Mr. Romney or Mr. McCain would have been less capitalist? Do you think the 2008 collapse would have happened if we had had two terms of President Gore?
A broken clock tells the right time twice a day — Mr. Marx got some things right in his tome, and it includes many provocative ideas that are well worth understanding. As economic theory, it was and is a disaster. He may have been prescient about some aspects of capitalism, but his major predictions were colossally wrong. Mr. Marx predicted that communism would come first to the world’s most industrialized economies. In fact, it came first to the world’s most rural economies. He argued that workers would be the first to benefit. In practice (to the extent that his theories were tried at all) workers were the last to benefit.
I’m well aware of what “Capitalism” is. The point of my comment is that there are NO “capitalist” economies in any rigorous sense of the word as a technical economic term. There are also no pure communist or Marxist economies. Most of western Europe has evolved into socialist democracies.
It’s MUCH easier to attack what has been then to propose what should be. When any candidate proposes an economic approach that is less brutal and exploitative, I’m all ears. I haven’t heard any yet.
Yawn. I am getting real tired of the Jacobin types claiming that any liberal Democrat is a capitalist stooge. The reality is-Bernie Sanders is also a liberal New Deal Democrat. New Deal Democrats are America’s Social Democrats. There is really little distinction between a Social Democrat in the UK, France, or Germany and a liberal Democrat in the US.
No major candidate is calling for the nationalization of all capital and the redistribution of wealth from the state. That would be true socialism. Even Jeremy Corbyn-who flirted with those stances in the past-is not calling for that today. Even as Mayor Bernie had to balance budgets and work with the business community. We want to end government captured by big business, but we are not ending private business itself.
I think it is important we make this distinction since Trump is trying to link social democracy to the kind of crony socialism practices in Cuba or Venezuela and the communism of yesteryear. I like Pete Buttigieg’s phrasing of ‘democratic capitalism’ which is awfully similar to SDP leader Willy Brandt’s assertion that the goal of social democracy was ‘capitalism with a human face’.
No socialist is calling for the nationalization of your flower shop or your plumbing business either. However, the financial crash of 2008 offers us an example of a difference between a socialist and a Democrat. Democrats bailed out the corporations. Socialists would have done the same but would have ALSO assumed a major stake in the banks and auto companies that received such largesse. One can still love Bernie and Warren without agreeing with their New Deal mindset.
I would argue that is exactly what happened with the auto bailouts under Reagan and Obama alike. Both times the federal government forced the recipient company to make more fuel efficient vehicles and adhere to stronger environmental and labor standards. The US also bought stock in these companies which it later sold-hence the controversy about the companies then using the profits of those sales to charge bonuses. Harry Truman nationalized steel and coal and still got a left wing challenger in 48′.
This is still a mixed economy. Even if your solution goes further-it is a mixed economy. Not a command economy. I honestly think a lot of DSAers I’ve encountered are in it for the Che swag and the ability to call any Democrat a neoliberal stooge. The reality is they basically endorse the same policy playbook. Even Jacobin liked Warren’s call to put labor reps on the board of companies and have government designate some degree of worker ownership and shareholder equity.
Harris, a frequent target of the DSA left, is proposing capping CEO pay and mandating a 50/50 gender split on corporate boards. Those are all huge government interventions in corporate governance. Even Biden has backed a public option and a living wage-there are no Democrats espousing Rubinomics today. The DLC is literally a dead entity.
I think the big difference between the Warren and Sanders approach is that the former is highly detailed and specific while the latter is deliberately vague. The former is better policy while the latter is better politics.
Go to the Red Book Store in Harvard Sq. and you’ll meet up with real Troskyists who think Bernie is a fraud. In some ways, I respect them more than the hashtag Marxists taking over Michael Harringtons DSA.
How is your mindset different? I ask that genuinely since I think it will help clarify what stances you would rather our next Senator take that Ed Markey is currently not.
AOC has explicitly called her brand of social democracy a return to New Deal economics. It is why she is calling her and Markey’s climate proposal a Green New Deal. I think we all agree on the need to move leftward economically in light of shifting electorate and the failures of the neoliberal consensus.
There is a lot of fluidity between the New Deal and social democracy. Norman Thomas was in many ways running on a proto-New Deal campaign in 1928 and 1932 while FDR was running as an ardent deficit hawk.
I teach history for a living, and it seems you are asking for a clearer distinction between social democracy and the New Deal without telling us what those differences are. I am unsure what those are and would like that clarification, especially since history seems to show a lot more fluidity between these camps than you would like to admit.
I’m totally mystified as to why Sen. Markey won’t call for the start of impeachment proceedings, and I say that as a longtime fan of his, most recently his great work with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on the Green New Deal. I hope folks call his office at 617-565-8519 and urge him to get off the sidelines on impeachment.
After watching Mueller’s public statement today, I am mystified why any Democrat is not calling for impeachment and deeply troubled and actually fearful of the Republicans at this point.
The rationale I’ve heard in general (not from Mr. Markey in particular) is that since the Senate will be acting as jury for any impeachment, it is unseemly for a sitting Senator to express a strong opinion on the question.
It’s a bit like a judge expressing an opinion a controversial topic before being put on the bench — the expression can be used as a basis to claim that the judge should then recuse himself or herself if the matter comes up.
I’m not saying I agree with it, I’m just saying this is the argument I’ve encountered.
Congressional Democrats being passive in hopes of impressing non-existent civility judges? Seems right to me!
Well, I guess the argument is that impeachment is inherently political. The “civility judges” will be the red-state voters of America (go figure!), and their complaint will be that the expressions of support for impeachment mean that the Senators in question cast their vote based on partisanship rather than the facts as presented during an impeachment trial.
I don’t support this argument, but I do hear it. In a more perfect world, Ms. Pelosi and the congressional leadership in the House would begin an impeachment investigation so that the various Democratic senators could hold their silence.
I understand the political expediency of Ms. Pelosi’s strategy. I will be very relieved when and if a formal impeachment inquiry is begun. Until then, we Democrats are failing to do our constitutional duty.
Mr. Mueller’s statement yesterday explicitly makes this crystal clear. The task of formally investigating, prosecuting, and convicting a sitting President clearly likes with the Congress. The flagrantly political behavior of the Attorney General demonstrates why the DoJ is the wrong place for this.
This obligation falls on the Democratic majority in the House — whether or not we or they find it politically expedient.
And I’m sure the GOP Senators who voted to convict Bill Clinton on his impeachment articles only made up their minds after hearing the evidence as presented by the House managers – RIIIGHT!
My recollection and understanding is that the Senate votes on the impeachment of Bill Clinton were known before the articles of impeachment were passed. It was common knowledge inside Congress at the time that the impeachment would fail, because the case was weak and hyperpartisan.
It was viewed as politically advantageous to impeach Mr. Clinton knowing full well that the move would fail in the Senate.
This combination of obvious bias, a weak case, and an impeachment case that was hurried, unprepared, and clearly partisan (even the GOP proponents characterized it that way) is, I think, the reason why Ms. Pelosi is so reluctant to move ahead today. It also strengthens the argument of those who suggest that no sitting Senator should express an opinion today.
In my view, it demonstrates yet again how much damage the GOP did to America in its petty and vicious impeachment of Mr. Clinton.
In case it wasn’t clear I was being sarcastic.