Mitchell Robinson, Professor at Michigan State University, has a brilliant insight. Donald Trump runs the federal government (to the extent that he runs anything other than his Twitter feed) like a Charter School.
He write:
“One of Trump’s major goals as president* has been to eliminate or weaken regulations in eight major categories: agriculture, education, environment, finances, health care, housing, labor, telecommunications, and transportation. And on this one issue, even his detractors have to admit he’s exceeded their expectations. As of 2018, the Trump administration was eliminating 22 regulations for every 1 new regulation approved, surpassing their stated goal of “2 out for every 1 in.” These actions represent nothing less than a wholesale dismantling of the federal government’s oversight responsibility for every major sector of the country’s economic and environmental enterprises, many of which have been in place for decades. Taken along with the dramatic number of judicial appointments that the administration has jammed through, Trump’s influence on the nation’s direction is hugely outsized when compared to his legislative impact, which has been negligible.
“This focus on rolling back regulations was, of course, the entire rationale for the existence of charter schools. That the “purpose” of charters has now morphed perversely into a profit seeking endeavor only reinforces the importance of a lack of oversight to the proliferation of charters across the country. Charter management corporations depend on this lack of governmental accountability to hire uncertified teachers, pay them less than teachers in traditional public schools, pay charter leaders more, and keep teachers unions out of their schools. And when forced to play by the same rules as public schools, they just can’t compete.”
In addition, he hires completely unqualified people and has high staff turnover.
What’s more, he is in it for the money, just like so many charter leaders.
Robinson’s hope is that Trump’s administration closes as quickly as most charter schools.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Deregulation has been a bipartisan agenda for at least 30 years now. Clinton, after all, repealed Glass Steagall, which was a biggie. Sure, Trump is doing it faster than his predecessors. That just means people need to wake up and resist Trump’s actual policies (even where they align with Democratic policies), not just his personality. It also means that it’s more likely that people will wake up and resist. While the frog actually will hope out of slowly boiling water, it appears that we humans aren’t that intelligent. We need our water to scald before we get off our lazy behinds.
LikeLike
Dienne,
Is it okay to be felled by Trump’s lack of character, ethics, decency, or honesty? Or should we just ignore his daily lies and the way he belittles others?
LikeLike
and his sexism and his continual, rabid racism and his kow-towing to dictators and his making unilateral decisions about important military matters by tweet in the early morning and his running a misadministration that has more entrances and exits than the most farcical of stage farces and his not paying attention to briefings and not reading reports and his shocking his staff with sudden policy reversals and his stupid wall and his stupid trade wars and his calling for disbanding NATO . . . . one could go on and on
LikeLiked by 1 person
SURREAL to live in days when we’ve already forgotten so many outrageous actions or words from this man: watching news clips or SNL skits from a few months ago, a year ago, eighteen months ago, two years ago, we see things that deeply shock us all over again
LikeLike
Diane,
I truly do not understand why the very same people who specialized in character attacks on Democrats in 2016 and continue to make character attacks on Democrats insist that you must not mention Trump’s character and any criticism of Trump’s policies MUST include the disclaimer that Democrats are just as bad or no different.
Does anyone believe that is how you win elections? By NORMALIZING Trump? By denying that having a right wing Supreme Court and right wing federal judiciary matters at all?
Elections are won on character issues as these people know since they made it their mission in 2016 to undermine the character of Democrats instead of discussing their policies. But when it comes to Trump, only policies are allowed to be mentioned and when they are, we must include the disclaimer that Dems are no better and in fact even worse because you can’t trust the corrupt “corporate” Democrats. That’s what they tell us over and over again — don’t trust the Dems — while they insist that Trump’s corrupt character not be mentioned or even worse — they repeat the right wing lies that the Mueller report completely exonerated Trump.
What is wrong with these people? If they aren’t right wing trolls, they are doing a perfect imitation of right wing trolls.
It is possible to discuss policy AND discuss Trump’s character. I realize that the right wing trolls don’t want any mention of Trump’s corruption to be made, but the laughable lie that you can’t talk about character and still win elections is ridiculous and if they believed it themselves they would stop with their rabid character attacks on democrats which directly led to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court — something that apparently does not bother them one bit since they refuse to mention it as a reason that Trump is much worse than a Democrat.
LikeLike
Yes, Clinton was a corporate middle of the roader sell-out BUT……….Clinton ———–> SCOTUS———-> RBG and Stephen Breyer.
Trump is loading up the courts with far right wing libertarian types who will be there for decades.
In 2020, vote Democratic (in the general election), even if it’s Biden or Booker. I’m hoping it’s Bernie but anything can happen.
LikeLike
I will vote for any Democrat vs. Trump in 2020.
LikeLike
Going to a Bernie meeting today, that is exactly what I will convey. Fight hard for our candidate, but stay in the game regardless of who the nominee is. If it turns out to be someone other than Bernie, I’d rather fight a Democrat on issues than a cult on a sometimes immoveable, too often opportunistically malleable ideology of hate and greed.
LikeLike
I am going to a Bernie Sanders Organizing Kickoff event today too. Mine is organized by public university students. It’s going to be yuge! Bernie can reignite grassroots enthusiasm for the Democratic Party by focusing on progressive ideals. Some of the other Democratic candidates are capable of doing that too. Neoliberals cannot. It’s given Trump is foul, but focusing on Trump will not motivate people to get out and vote. We shouldn’t ignore his lack of morals, honesty, or decency, but we also should not engage too much with him with his ball on his muddy playing field where he makes the rules. People need something to vote for, not something to vote against. It’s our school. It’s our ball. It’s our field. It’s our game. We will win. Sense it. Know it. Feel it. Feel the Bern.
LikeLike
No matter how hard you try to avoid talking about Trump, he will always keep the spotlight on himself. He was furious during the funerals of Bush 1 and McCain because he was not the center of attention.
He has no problem grabbing center stage every day.
No matter what you say about healthcare or education or Social Security, he will be at the center soaking up all the oxygen.
LikeLike
Hot air has a way of soaking up the oxygen!
LikeLike
LeftCoastTeacher,
I find it problematic when someone decides which candidate is “neoliberal” and which is not.
Was LBJ a “neoliberal”? He WAS a neoliberal who did a whole lot of good things in civil rights and progressive social legislation. And some bad things in foreign policy.
Was Jimmy Carter a “neoliberal”? Yes he was. I helped defeat him by saying the same thing you did about how evil his policies were and refusing to vote for him and convincing as many people as I knew not to vote for Carter because Reagan was absolutely no worse.
If Carter was the nominee against Trump, would you advise me to make the same smears of his “neoliberal policies” and refuse to vote for him?
I bet even “neoliberal” Carter would have done some good had he defeated Reagan, just like HRC would have done some good if she had defeated Trump. At least we wouldn’t have a right wing judiciary and a Citizens United decision that allows dark money to endanger our democracy.
Whoever wins the Democratic primary will make this country better than it is.
People were fooled once just like I was fooled about Jimmy Carter. But there is no excuse for being fooled again – either you want Trump defeated or enabled.
LikeLike
nycpsp, I’ll give you Carter, but by no stretch of the imagination was LBJ a neoliberal
LikeLike
bethree5,
You are right, but “neoliberal” is used to attack lots of Democrats — it is just a word that means “don’t trust them, sell outs”. Who those Dems supposedly are planning to “sell out” our country to varies according to what the right wing decides they can get dissatisfied and gullible non-right wingers to repeat. Then they laugh at us as the real right wing agenda becomes the law of the land.
Every person running for the democratic nominee has some policies I like and others I don’t. I will choose the one whose policies most align with mine on the issues most important to me. And I expect everyone else to do the same. But after the primary, anyone who is still trying to undermine whoever wins with attacks like “neoliberal” and insisting that candidate is no worse than Trump and Supreme Court appointments and racist policies should not matter should be called out as the Trump enabler they are. You don’t try to blow up democracy because not enough people voted for your flawed primary candidate and voted for another flawed primary candidate instead. There are no “neoliberals” or “neoconservatives” or “socialists” or “libs” running. There are candidates with different positions in the spectrum of Democratic politics and those policies should be discussed without slogans. Every single one of them is better than Trump.
LikeLike
Trumps agenda as framed by Steve Bannon and expedited by Steve Miller: Deconstruction of the administrative state so unregulated profit-taking and deception is enabled. Or Foxes are free to raid the hen house, or “squat and gobble” the name of a fast food diner not far from Chicago.
LikeLike
Deregulation is certainly part of Trump’s agenda. Unfettered capitalism is exploitative and sometimes just unsafe. We can look at Texas where a fertilizer factory blew up an entire town. Trump’s agenda is elitist, even though his cult sees him as “just like them.” Trump serves himself and the other members of the 1%. Charter schools are generally niche schools that pick and choose students that will promote their brand. They rarely serve all students as the public schools do.
LikeLike
Laissez-faire capitalism, anything goes, do anything you can get away with, loot the environment, loot the public sector, loot the vast wealth produced by the labor of the 99%. This is the capitalism Joseph Stiglitz has been criticizing and against which he poses “progressive capitalism.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good news for labor from the Governors of New Mexico and Illinois, on 3-27-2019 and 4-12-2019, respectively.
LikeLike
the kind of looting which bumper stickers so adamantly confuse with “freedom…”
LikeLike
The Koch’s liberty and freedom, bait and switch for oligarchy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This entire period reminds me of the 60s, when Southern Democrats became Republicans.
Neo-liberals—who claim (D), who have started KIPP and lots of other charters, are backed by the conservative (R) privatizing Deformers. The South has never recovered from that transition, and I’m not sure that public education can… If the goal was disruption, the Deformers have been successful.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, charters like KIPP are also supported by progressives who refuse to publicly criticize them.
You can’t blame the neo-liberals for charters when progressives have not been willing to criticize the same types of charters (non-profit “public” charters) that neo-liberal Dems support.
LikeLike
Some years back, KIPP presented a lesson at the Republican convention to showcase their success in disciplining and training black and Hispanic youth. Was it 2008? Shameful. The same party that now glories in taking away civil rights for these students and for withdrawing protection for those who were defrauded by fraudulent colleges like Trump U.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting for a leading progressive politician to criticize “public” charters like KIPP or Success Academy.
I am pretty sure they consider those charters the “good public charters” and support having more good oversight agencies that are just like the SUNY Charter Institute.
I would really love to be wrong about that, but have seen no sign that any of the candidates are not going to continue to make “good public charters” but with “good oversight” a progressive goal.
LikeLike
Trump sold himself as the champion of the working person. That was his story: “I’m smart, OK? Really, really smart. I started with a small loan from my father and turned that into billions. That’s because I know the art of the deal. Working people in the US have gotten a raw deal from the folks in Washington because they don’t know how to make deals. We get screwed on everything–on trade, for example. I can fix this. I am the only one who can fix this. I will drain the swamp. I will create two trillion dollars worth of new infrastructure jobs to put forgotten Americans back to work. Our roads and rails and schools are crumbling because the politicians don’t care about you the way I do.”
Well, the small loan from his father turned out to be almost three quarters of a billion dollars, according to a study done by the New York Times. The programs that Trump talked about didn’t happen–no WPA-style programs, of the kind he promised–to rebuild the country’s infrastructure and put the unemployed and the underemployed back to work. So what did Trump do for working people? Well, he did away with regulations that protect them. For example, he rescinded an Obama-era regulation that required employers to post accounts of on-site accidents. Did someone cut his or her hand off in that machine? Could this happen to you? Not Don’s problem, working man or woman. You are on your own. And, Trump worked with Ryan and McConnell to pass enormous tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. Then, as soon as they passed, he went down to Mar-a-lago, had dinner with a bunch of his wealthy friends, and told them that he had just given them all a big Christmas present. True story.
He’s a cynical con man, Don the Con. He’s the guy who used to stiff his contractors and who gave you Trump University. And now, what he did to those people, he has done to all working men and women.
He’s fortunate because we happen to be in an uptick in the business cycle, for which he takes credit. Since 1975, productivity has almost doubled while wages have remained almost flat. In other words, the value produced by workers has increased enormously, but almost all that value has gone to the ownership class. Rents and college costs and food prices have soared. A new car costs twice as much, in real dollars, as it did a couple decades ago. Many people are underemployed in part-time jobs because employers don’t want to pay benefits. Millions are uninsured. Over a quarter of US children live in poverty. And in such a time, Don takes care of himself and his rich friends.
Don the Con. He sold working people a line of bs. Then he took care of himself, which is what he has always done. His story was a lie.
LikeLike
Trump has a gift of “the narrative,” even if it is often a lie or propaganda. It is unfortunate that many people cannot see through the deception.
LikeLike
And Mitch McConnell just announced his reelection bid. Time for the people of the great state of Kentucky to go out and vote against themselves again.
LikeLike
“During the 2015-2016 election season, Ukrainian-born billionaire Leonard “Len” Blavatnik contributed $6.35 million to leading Republican candidates and incumbent senators. Mitch McConnell was the top recipient of Blavatnik’s donations, collecting $2.5 million for his GOP Senate Leadership Fund under the names of two of Blavatnik’s holding companies, Access Industries and AI Altep Holdings, according to Federal Election Commission documents and OpenSecrets.org.” –from the Dallas News, https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/03/tangled-web-connects-russian-oligarch-money-gop-campaigns
LikeLike
Expected-
Public education takeover is American oligarchs modeling the Russians – assets owned by the people confiscated by the oligarch’s politicians and given to the oligarchs.
LikeLike
Politicians identified in addition to McConnell- Lindsey Graham, Scott Walker, John Kasich and Marco Rubio.
LikeLike
Yup. Lovely, huh?
LikeLike
Vote for fighter pilot Amy McGrath for Senate in Kentucky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mitchell’s analogy is spot on. Another similarity I see, as a resident of Ohio, is a parallel in the brazen acquiescence of the Republican Party as drivers and enablers of this behavior and the timidity and inability of Democrats and the public school lobby—whatever that may be in this state—to hold anyone accountable or pay a price. There is a good story in the NY Times today about how Democratic leaders are twiddling their thumbs while nothing substantive about following up on the Mueller Report and the Republicans are just fine with it.
This behavior has its parallels in the history of the Third Reich. When Hitler marched troops into the Rheinland, both France and England did nothing. It was admitted later by Germans in command that if either had acted with a military response, the German army would have retreated because it was not in a position to back up its bluster. The bluff worked. This was repeated when Hitler violated the terms of the deal he made with Neville Chamberlain by taking Czechoslovakia. Again, bluster translated into a consolidation of power that led to the slaughters of WWII. What will future historians write about Democrats whose lack of confidence and assertiveness to act on the Mueller Report’s findings? About the bluster of Individual-1 and the Republicans? Mitchell’s comparison between the reign of error of Individual-1 and charters leads to uncomfortable conclusions, what horrors await us in the next few years because of misguided political calculations?
LikeLike
Another harbinger- Economist Germa Bal’s research showed intensified privatization in Germany in the lead up to the Third Reich.
LikeLike
From Bernt Engelmann’s In Hitler’s Germany: “…Of course if you look at the total picture, the working class gained nothing at all from Nazi rule: the unions were smashed right away, wage-scale autonomy was abolished. Instead, wages were set by the so-called Labor Trustees, who worked things out with management without consulting the workers. And the real income of workers and white-collar employees steadily declined, while income from capital investment and factory ownership increased sharply. ‘Increases not by hourly wage but through higher productivity’ was the ‘iron law’ Hitler proclaimed. In those days, when wages were based largely on units produced, that meant the workers could earn higher wages only by working faster and for longer hours.”
“Did they realize that? The propaganda claimed everything was getting better and better…”
The same arguments can be made today when Individual-1 and his cult cite “economic growth” statistics. What lost in the stats are real people’s lives.
LikeLike
Bill Gates and the Koch’s – America could not have suffered a greater loss..
LikeLike
Greg B.
You sure are correct.. 45 actions are right from Hitler’s playbook.
LikeLike
As are the current governments in Brazil, Hungary, and—can you believe it?—Israel.
LikeLike
Ew, and the picture is of Senator MIke Lee of Utah, who hands out pocket Constitutions (really) and yet appears to have never read the Constitution about reining in the executive branch.
LikeLike
I once worked for the organization that used to print those, which were originally produced for the Bicentennial of the Constitution Commission (they are now produced by the printing office of Congress). They also include the text of the Declaration of Independence and have three quotes on the inside cover:
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
Alexander Hamilton, 1775
“…a constitution, intends to endure for all ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”
John Marshall
“At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, ‘What have you wrought?’ He answered, ‘…a Republic, if you can keep it.'”
I wonder if Lee has actually ever read those or the amendments to the Constitution. His actions and words make me assume he has not.
I carry one in the backpack I use for traveling. I have often pulled it out of my pack to settle friendly (and sometimes not-so-friendly) arguments on planes and in airports.
LikeLike
AWrenchintheGears.com’s April article is worth reading. The blog reports that students sell themselves as investments to wealthy people and organizations like Vemo Education. After the select students go to work they provide the ROI (Bloomberg, “…sell stakes in themselves to Wall St.”.)
The colonialists like Bill Gates, either plot for the payoffs from machine learning or, his brethren, exploit the fact that quality education bankrupts students.
Concentrated wealth extinguished the marketplace so, the donor class turned to taking money intended for pre schoolers (SIB’s) and, to other unconscionable schemes.
LikeLike
My comment above is in moderation, but I also want to add that we shouldn’t forget about Reality Winner, who is in jail because she leaked information about Russian interference in 2016. Son Volt has a great tribute to her on their latest album:
Six years in the Air Force
Made it to E-4 Rank
With the 94th Intelligence Squadron
Awarded a medal of commendation
On this election interference
The intel report was plain and laid bare
For this job with the NSA
The intel was there, just couldn’t look away
What have you done, Reality Winner?
Reality Winner, what have you done?
What have you done, Reality Winner?
Reality Winner, what have you done?
This jail is a stone-cold answer
The biggest mistake of a Texas lifetime
In this ballad of the commander-in-chief
Is there any mercy for this standing belief?
Felt like gaslighting, not something to just accept
Proud to serve, just not this president
Those that seek the truth will find the answers
Those that seek the truth will find the answers
What have you done, Reality Winner?
Reality Winner, what have you done?
What have you done, Reality Winner?
Reality Winner, what have you done?
What have you done, Reality Winner?
Reality Winner, what have you done?
What have you done? What have you done?
What have you done? What have you done?
LikeLike
Commandre-in-cheif
LikeLike
If only the Russians had interfered in the Democratic PRIMARY to smear Bernie and it has been HRC’s campaign to have meetings with them and hand over voter information, then all the people on the left who insist Trump did nothing wrong would be screaming for arrests and safeguards.
They are very short sighted. “First they came for HRC and I insisted it was perfectly fine because I was mad at HRC. Then they came for Bernie and my enabling of Trump and the Russian interference meant that there was no longer any judiciary that cared enough to protect our democracy.”
LikeLike
“People on the left who insist Trump did nothing wrong”? What’s the size of the contingent and who’s leading them?
LikeLike
I have no idea what their size is but they – or right wing trolls pretending to be them — post on here and other places and insist the Mueller report must be ignored as some political document. They attack Democratic critics of Trump with a vehemence that they never use when they talk about Trump himself.
LikeLike
🌊
LikeLike
Trump is very good at keeping the spotlight on himself, indeed. He has, what, sixty million people following his nonsensical tweets? (“Covfefe”, really?) Which candidate(s) will grab the spotlight from him? I don’t think it will be done with nostalgia for a neoliberal past.
The definition of ‘neoliberal’ is broad and malleable, but I would boil it down to laissez-faire free market capitalism. Neolibs support privatization, austerity, and deregulation; they attack unions and social safety nets. When I think of leading neoliberals, I think especially of Reagan/Thatcher and Clinton/Blair. I would include the Bush family, Obama, and President Trump (as opposed to candidate Trump who campaigned as fake Bernie Sanders, remember).
There are other good Democratic candidates beside Bernie, but some of the candidates are too tied to Wall Street and the billionaires, and therefore have to hide their true intentions behind platitudes to specific racial and gender demographics and “hope and change” rhetoric. People need health care. People need public education. People need unions to protect them. Complaining about the alt-right and about the Russians won’t cut the mustard. We need a government of, by, and for the people.
LikeLike
Who is nostalgic for a “neoliberal past”?
In 2016 I voted for a Democrat offering the most progressive platform since I remember voting. I voted for a Democrat who used to be called a left wing socialist and did not offer a “neoconservative” platform and happens to have exactly the same view about “good public charters” as Bernie Sanders.
I did hear lots of lies about how we shouldn’t trust this Democrat who was hiding her “true intentions” and supposedly stole the election — I guess the people promoting those lies believe HRC personally prevented African-American voters in southern states from voting for Bernie. It could not be because those African-American voters saw her long history of actually working and getting things done that made them support them. I think that is far more likely that the truly ridiculous claim that all those African-American voters wanted a “neoliberal past”. Why even make such a gratuitous smear about the voters who preferred HRC as if all they cared about was a return to neoliberalism? Do you think untruths like that directed toward the African-American voters who voted for HRC in the primary help matters? We live in a democracy and not everyone preferred your candidate and it doesn’t mean that you have to attack them as neoliberals. They actually recognized the “true intentions” of Trump that apparently don’t bother the people who insisted that Trump was no worse than the Dems.
Most voters who recognized the dangers of Trump and thought HRC was a reasonably good candidate were NOT “neoliberals”. Why insult voters that way?
I admit I do not understand those people who kept telling us that having a Republican right wing President with the power to appoint right wing Supreme Court justices and federal judges and make sure Citizens United would remain the law of the land didn’t matter. I think it did matter. I think it will be hard to recover from the lasting damage that liars who said Trump would be no worse than Democrats told us. We may have to live with that Supreme Court for decades. You think caring about the Supreme Court is “neoliberal”? Is not caring about the Supreme Court being right wing now “progressive”? Why do you have to mischaracterize like that?
I will happily vote for Bernie if he wins and I might even support him in the primary — especially if he stops embracing Corey Booker and starts talking about K-12 public education like someone who isn’t a DFER.
But when you spout outright lies like some candidates “have to hide their true intentions behind platitudes to specific racial and gender demographics and “hope and change” rhetoric” then I do get offended.
I know Bernie likes to talk about how much sympathy he has for those white voters who refuse to vote for any African-American candidates that Bernie insists are not racist but it is appalling to see you dismiss the concerns of African-American voters as not worthy for any primary candidate to care about.
I really want to vote for Bernie, but there is this ugly undertone of racism among some of his supporters that is becoming a real turn off. Could you possibly be more condescending toward anyone who supports a different democratic candidate?
You have every right to vote for Bernie in the primary — I did. But other people have every right to vote for other primary candidates without being smeared by you that they must yearn for a “neoliberal past”.
And I wonder how you think unions will be protected by the right wing Supreme Court and judiciary that we have thanks to voters who bought into the lie that some Dems are hiding their “true intentions” when there is not any evidence that such an ugly smear designed to destroy the democratic candidate’s character and make voters trust him or her less than Trump.
We can have an honest discussion or we can anoint some progressives to decide which candidates are neoliberal and which should be praised as “progressive” because they won’t offer “platitudes to specific racial and gender demographics” and they are willing to stand up for white southern voters who refuse to vote for African-American candidates and defend those white voters from any attacks that their refusal to vote for an African-American is racist.
Let’s have an honest discussion instead of mischaracterizing candidates who have different positions as “neoliberals”. And let’s stop mischaracterizing voters who vote for a candidate who you don’t like as “neoliberals” and dismissing their very real concerns as simply unworthy of being talked about in this campaign for fear that those white “non-racist” voters just won’t like it.
There is some honesty in pointing out that voters were also attracted to Trump’s racism and xenophobia and pandering to those voters should never be considered “progressive”.
LikeLike
The 6th paragraph from the bottom undercuts your argument.
LikeLike
“therefore have to hide their true intentions behind platitudes to specific racial and gender demographics…. Complaining about the alt-right and about the Russians won’t cut the mustard.”
Two really ugly mischaracterizations in this statement.
The first insulting mischaracterization is that there are candidates in the democratic primary who are “hiding true intentions” whose concern for issues that affect African-American or LGBTQ voters is simply “platitudes to specific racist and gender demographics”. (And apparently the way you don’t offer “platitudes” to African-American voters is to insist that white voters who won’t vote for African-Americans are not racist).
The second insulting mischaracterization is that the ONLY thing that some candidates (but their annointed one) is doing is “complaining about the alt-right and about the Russians”.
FYI – Elizabeth Warren has offered far more comprehensive plans than every other candidate including Bernie. She did her homework. I don’t like everything in her plans, but by golly she actually IS trying to figure out the best way to address these complicated issues.
Warren ALSO called for impeachment. So did AOC. There is NO ONE who is “complaining about the alt right and about the Russians” and not ALSO standing up for other things. Both of them actually do their homework.
It is insulting and demeaning to reduce other candidates to nasty stereotypes or misleading terms like “neoliberal”. It is possible to have a more conservative view on some issues (“I like public charters!”) and progressive views on others. It is possible to recognize the corruption that is Trump AND fight for progressive ideas. And those who give succor to Trump and the alt right by demeaning anyone concerned with racism or the findings in the Mueller report are – I assume – reflecting that they will only vote for a candidate who won’t talk about Mueller at all.
If you are running for President and insist that we ignore the corruption in the Trump administration because some voters (presumably white ones of course) won’t like it, then you should not be President. If that is what your followers are demanding, then I suggest that candidate do some talking to his followers.
If I was undermining my own argument I would insist that if anyone but Elizabeth Warren doesn’t win, I will start using ugly slogans to mischaracterize the winning candidate as (insert ugly slogan here) to undermine his campaign and I’d insist no one vote for him because he is no better than Trump.
LikeLike
NYC
I’ll accept your characterization, “Clinton had the most progressive platform…”
Going forward- if a candidate wants to avoid misperceptions the candidate should make available the text from speeches given to bankers and should proclaim, no cuts to S.S. and Medicare… because it is the right thing to do.
Sadly, Trump voters tolerate anything he says and the Fox drumbeat spins his failings to his benefit. We can want the gaffes of Dem candidates to be spun in their favor. The group to do that is not CAP.
CAP has shown its true colors.
LikeLike
During the tenure of the prior VP of Education Policy at CAP, how many of the ed staff were Black people? A recent hire appears to bring a new demographic to CAP’s education sector?
The Stanford Social Innovation Review posted an article advising greater racial inclusion in foundations and philanthropies. A sceptic might say….
Bernie asked for time for Nina Turner to speak at the convention, which was granted. Did the same team that thought Bloomberg would bring in Republican voters, decide to take away Nina’s opportunity to have a platform?
LikeLike
I really don’t understand your innuendos. Innuendos are easy to make. What about POLICIES? What policies did “anyone but HRC, even Trump” do to help working class people? How much harm did having a right wing Supreme Court and judiciary do to the progressive movement for decades? You think having Citizens United in place and African-Americans struck from voting rolls is a good thing?
If i wanted to undermine Bernie as much as certain (not all) progressives helped to undermine HRC because I feel perfectly fine with Trump appointing justices, I would ask you what Bernie meant when he defended white people who refuse to vote for African-American candidates and lectured to us all about how those white voters aren’t racist.
Going forward- if a candidate wants to avoid misperceptions the candidate should make available the text from interviews he does when he decides what actions are “not racist”.
A sceptic might say….Bernie did that interview on purpose to signal to the white working class racist Trump voters that he isn’t one of those “identity politics’ guys and is on their side.
See how easy it is to help destroy a candidate? What if I smugly tell you that the reason I am going to make sure that if Bernie wins the nomination, I and everyone else who preferred another candidate is going to make sure every single day that all African-American voters are reminded of these questionable actions by Bernie that leads so many people to question exactly how racist he is? What if we all start posting non-stop on social media and then the mainstream “liberal” media picks it up and starts writing newspaper article after newspaper article about how so many questions are raised about whether or not Bernie is a died in the wool racist or just mildly racist?
What if Bernie loses and I say “it’s all his fault for being a racist” after I spent all my time mischaracterizing him as an unrepentant racist?
Do you see how easy it is to undermine a candidate if your goal is not to unite behind whichever candidate the voters decide to make the democratic party candidate but to punish those who didn’t vote for the candidate you kept insisting was superior?
I have no plans to try to destroy Bernie the way some (not all) of his supporters decided to destroy HRC — by repeating ugly right wing mischaracterizations of him and blaming the candidate for not being perfect on every issue. I want WHOEVER wins the democratic primary to soundly defeat Trump, whether it is a progressive, moderate, or even Joe Biden. But I guarantee you that Russian trolls will be doing that to whichever candidate wins the primary, including Bernie.
The question is who helps the far right win the general election. And this should not be about CAP. This is about the candidates’ positions on each issue. The lie that HRC somehow had a progressive platform but secretly planned to govern like a far right person is not proven by anything except ugly allegations. She has always been quite truthful as she was as a Senator. The only reason people didn’t give her the benefit of the doubt was propaganda. “Speeches”! She made a speech! She is a liar/untrustworthy/corrupt (just like Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Russ Feingold — all of whom got smeared and lost). Judging her on a speech is like judging Bernie on that racist statement he made.
We should be having a debate on candidates’ positions and we should make a case for why their positions are wrong. Is Sanders, Warren or Biden offering better ideas about health insurance or taxes or foreign policy? But the debate should not be “that candidate I don’t like has those ideas because he/she is the tool of xxxx billionaire/corporation/anarchist. “
LikeLike
Dying by a thousand cuts after the election of our candidate who promotes bipartisanship (CAP’s board chair founded a bipartisan lobby shop . The lobby shop achieved privatization of natural gas decisions for its client a few years ago) helps to explain where the party is today. When you have a Democratic President betraying the people of Flint (Michael Moore asked John Podesta who’s advice Pres. Obama was following in that action), it’s time to take stock.
We’ll have to agree to disagree that believing the pronouncements of candidates is what it takes to make a good decision. And, agree to disagree that allowing the continuation of party governance by a team that aided in the loss of 1000 legislative seats, many governorships and the 2016 presidency is the way forward.
LikeLike
The way forward is to vote and elect the best candidates.
What if a candidate like Randi Weingarten was running against a right wing funded candidate who promised to make the teachers’ union obsolete?
What if I said the union is so corrupt since Randi is associated with HRC and thus CAP so I’m voting for the guy who promises to end the union because we don’t need the union anyway? What if I said that Randi did nothing good and only harmed teachers so any new candidate who has ever agreed with Randi on any issue should be defeated and if they are not, we will vote to destroy the union?
The right wing propaganda has done a lot to convince the public that the entire union is corrupt and teachers are all lazy who know they can’t be fired and only care about their money.
And the right wing propaganda has done a lot to convince the public that the DNC is synonymous with CAP which is synonymous with rich billionaires who only support programs that destroy workers and help the rich get richer.
I don’t like CAP but we know what they stand for. And I don’t like everything the teachers union stands for either. If I refuse to vote for any candidate that CAP or the union happens to like, and say I’d rather have a far right wing candidate instead, I’m just helping the far right’s propaganda efforts. Obama was no worse than Jimmy Carter was. Obama was good on some issues and terrible on others — sometimes because he had a Republican Senate who prevented any legislation from happening and sometimes because he didn’t fight hard enough and sometimes because he believed in those “good public charters” that progressives have yet to come out against. Why does it have to be about “CAP”? This is about what Obama’s priorities were as President and what his priorities were not. Period. No one controlled his mind. Just like “the union” does not control Randi Weingarten’s mind.
But it is very naive to think that we could be talking about Medicare for all if Obamacare had not happened first. I have thought we’d have universal health care back in the late 1970s when Kennedy started talking about it. Then when Harris Wofford won on a campaign in Pennsylvania talking about health insurance I thought it would happen. But it got destroyed, not because Dems weren’t “good enough” or were “tools of right wingers” but because the right wing started a propaganda effort to convince the public that having the government involved would destroy medical care and have “death panels”. Maybe you aren’t old enough to remember how ugly it was.
Blaming the DNC for losing seats in a Citizens United world is like blaming Bernie’s staff for him not getting enough votes to win the primary and blaming him for not being able to convince African-American voters to vote for him. Bernie lost the south in a fair primary in which the voters in the south preferred a different candidate. Does that mean it’s his fault? I don’t think so. But it does mean he has to take a different approach next time. Just like the DNC does.
“We’ll have to agree to disagree that believing the pronouncements of candidates is what it takes to make a good decision.” I don’t believe in “pronouncements” either. I believe in looking at the full record to make sure the candidate did more than offer a lot of platitudes and actually worked like (flawed, imperfect) LBJ did to make things happen. I was excited to see what someone like HRC could have done and I’m excited to see what whoever wins the democratic primary in 2020 can do. This country has a long way to go but destroying the Democratic party to make it more progressive is about as useful as destroying unions to make things better for workers is. They are both exactly what the far right want.
Debate on the issues. Period. If a candidate can’t convince African-American voters in the south that there is no need to talk about racism anymore, then maybe that candidate should change how he or she discusses these things. It doesn’t mean that candidate is a tool of some racist organization. It just means that candidate might be wrong on that issue. If the candidate embraces a different view, there is no reason to keep harping about how nothing that candidate says can be trusted because he or she once said or did something that seemed racist. All candidates make mistakes. Let’s stop having a double standard about which ones to take at their word and which ones should be smeared as untrustworthy who are simply doing billionaires’ bidding.
LikeLike
Jimmy Carter said Ted Kennedy killed healthcare for all because he wanted the opportunity to take credit for it.
LikeLike
CAP is a huge problem for the left when its management advances the policies wanted by the rich. A CAP board chair connected to a bipartisan lobby shop funded by wealthy clients should be a red flag to everyone.
LikeLike