DEMOCRATIC DEBATE ROUND II: NARROWING THE FIELD

 JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  DEFEATING TRUMP.

A LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

ROUND TWO PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

Narrowing the Field

By Jack Random

It is fascinating to watch the spectacle of talking heads, editorials and columnists opinionating on the relative success or failure of the candidates based more on their views and biases going in than on their performances on stage. 

It is admittedly difficult to avoid bias in assessing a debate – especially a debate among twenty contestants over two nights with as much organization and structure as a demolition derby.  The event tends to reward the loudest voice though anyone perceived as rude and obnoxious will suffer the harshest consequences. 

Both nights produced clear winners and losers despite the chaos.  Elizabeth Warren won the first night in a relatively calm event and Cory Booker won the second amidst outbreaks of anarchy.  Beyond that no candidates distinguished themselves in any positive way. 

NIGHT ONE:  TIM RYAN, BETO O’ROURKE, AMY KLOBUCAR, ELIZABETH WARREN, MARIANNE WILLIAMSON, JOHN HICKENLOOPER, PETE BUTTIGIEG, BERNIE SANDERS, JOHN DELANEY, STEVE BULLOCK.

NIGHT TWO:  MICHAEL BENNET, KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, JULIAN CASTRO, CORY BOOKER, JOE BIDEN, KAMALA HARRIS, ANDREW YANG, TULSI GABBARD, JAY INSLEE, BILL DE BLASIO. 

ABSENT: ERIC SWALWELL. 

It is tempting to say that Eric Swalwell won by dropping out.  Having made a name with his sharp attacks on the misdeeds of our president, Swalwell should have been the impeachment candidate.  Instead, he gave his “pass the torch” rant and bowed out like a timid protégé who spoke out of turn.  Sorry, Mr. Biden, someone had to say it. 

In his place we got Governor Steve Bullock of Montana and the question is: Why?  He joins the ranks of Tim Ryan, John Hickenlooper, John Delaney and Michael Bennet.  They’re all here to tell us they too are members of the Democratic Party and they’re younger than old Joe Biden.  They know how to do “folks” speech. 

Michael Bennet gets the award for quote of the night when he said to Julian Castro:  “We actually agree on this.  You just said it better than I did.”  Well, Gov, that’s the problem.  There are others who say it better.  Let me introduce you to Amy Klobuchar.  Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the year of the moderate.  This year we only have room for one:  Old Joe Biden. 

On that note it’s time to say goodbye to Congressman Tim Ryan and former Congressman John Delaney – both of whom managed to make pragmatic sound bombastic.  No one demands more attention for less than 1% support than Delaney.  Goodbye Delaney.  You will not be missed. 

Goodbye governors Bullock and Hickenlooper.  We hardly knew you.  Goodbye Marianne Williamson.  I for one enjoyed your spiritual perspective.  Goodbye Mayor De Blasio.  I understand how hard it is to see a mayor of South Bend, Indiana, advance while the mayor of the Big Apple does not but that’s how it played out.  Hopefully, NYC will take you back. 

Sadly, we must also say goodbye to Senator Klobuchar.  Sadly, because she should have been the challenger to Joe Biden for the moderate wing of the party.  Sadly, because she never got the chance to be on stage with old Joe.  She’s sharp.  She knows what she’s talking about and she doesn’t stumble over own thoughts.  She’s what a moderate should look like but it looks to me like she’s gone. 

According to the Times of New York only seven candidates have met criteria for the next round of debates:  Biden, Booker, Harris, Buttigieg, O’Rourke, Sanders and Warren.  Three more are close:  Yang, Castro and Klobuchar.  And three have an outside chance:  Newcomer Tom Steyer, Tulsi Gabbard and Hickenlooper. 

The survivors will face down in September.  If there are more than ten they will take place on two nights. 

Here’s hoping the hammer comes down on more candidates than less.  We’ve seen enough to know that the contest will come down to Old Joe, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders.  Five is a good number for a debate.  These five represent the whole of the party:  Biden is old school.  He appeals to those who pine for Obama and don’t mind that his age is visibly impacting his performance.  Warren and Bernie represent the progressive wing of the party.  They won’t try to moderate their positions.  They know what they believe and they hold strong.  Booker and Harris are moderate progressives.  They’re willing to bend but they are capable of wielding great personal power. 

Some on the left of the political spectrum may be pleased that Representative Tulsi Gabbard took on the role of hit-woman to Kamala Harris.  She accused Harris of deliberately withholding evidence to affect the execution of a death row inmate – a felony – and keeping prisoners behind bars to exploit slave labor.  Never mind the accusation that she enforced the marijuana laws.  We may disagree with it but that was her job. 

I suppose we should thank Gabbard for hurling the kind of accusations that the Trump machine will but it did not look good.  It looked like a hit job.  It looked rehearsed and deliberate.  It hurt Harris but it also hurt Gabbard. 

I went into these debates a Gabbard supporter.  Now I have to wonder about her agenda.  She was the anti-war candidate and I cherished every moment of her deliberations on “regime change” wars.  Now she looks like an attack dog. 

Beto O’Rourke has an identity problem.  There are others who represent the same ideas but are more qualified for the presidency.  His whole case for being the Democratic nominee comes down to Texas.  But he lost his only attempt at winning a statewide race in Texas.  Moreover, there is a Texas senate seat open in 2020.  Drop this ill-advised run and use your substantial resources to take that seat.  I’ve said before and will again:  Taking the US Senate is equally important if not more so than taking the presidency. 

Pete Buttigieg represented himself admirably but it’s time to stop.  We know he represents an under-represented minority but he has never won a statewide election.  If there were no one else to carry the banner I would say carry on.  But there are others.  He has not distinguished his policies from the other contenders. 

Kirsten Gillibrand provided one of the most bizarre appeals to the black vote ever recorded.  It is true that she understands white privilege and can speak to those who exploit white privilege but that is unlikely to persuade a single African American voter.  Gillibrand is bright and ambitious but this is simply not her year. 

Andrew Yang is one of the most impressive neophyte politicians ever to run for president.  His ideas demand to be heard.  He is right.  Technology is already supplanting job exportation as the leading cause of job loss in this nation.  He alone has a plan to cope with that daunting future and the other candidates need to begin addressing the problem.  Yang belongs in the next cabinet and his ideas belong in the debate. 

Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee represented his cause well.  It’s a shame that he does not possess the charisma that would inspire the masses.  He’s right of course.  Climate change should be the overriding issue.  However, not enough of us think it’s a winning ticket.  Inslee should be the next head of the Environment Protection Agency. 

Julian Castro also distinguished himself.  He thrust the immigration debate into the spotlight and demanded that the other candidates take a stand.  As the only Hispanic candidate there is a place for him as the number two on the ticket.  He simply has not managed to garner the kind of support that would elevate him to the upper tier. 

That brings us to the real contenders. 

Can anyone really say that Joe Biden did a good job?  Come on.  Really.  Read a transcript of his statements.  It’s hard to say but Old Joe just doesn’t have what it takes to be the next president.  He was a good vice president to the first African American president in history.  That should be enough. 

I love Bernie as much as most people love Old Joe but it’s time for Bernie’s supporters to accept that he’s a little too old, too crotchety and maybe too angry to take the show all the way home.  Last time he was great.  He was a champion of the people and I was proud to march in his army.  This time there is an alternative and I believe even Bernie knows it. 

Kamala Harris was knocked down a rung in this debate.  It shook her.  She tends to let her frustration show when she’s stung.  It showed.  She got back up and threw some good punches but the air of invincibility shattered.  She’ll remember Tulsi Gabbard and Biden’s bizarre reference to 1000 prisoners being freed.  Both cases are far more nuanced. 

Cory Booker emerged in this round as the one to watch.  He was the one to look into Joe Biden’s eyes and take him down.  Where Kamala stumbled – dazed by a sucker punch from the sidelines – Booker stood strong.  He still has a lot to explain about his policies as mayor of Newark but Biden is not the man to challenge him. 

That leaves Elizabeth Warren.  She is the heir apparent to Bernie’s movement.  Where Bernie tends to become frazzled and appears angry, Warren lays it down in plain fact.  She has the passion, the knowledge and the energy.  She represents the true progressive wing of the party and she does not compromise.  Still, she was not fool enough to label herself a socialist. 

It’s going to be a barnburner – a knockdown drag out fight to the finish.  So far Warren has not found a way to gain significant support of the black community.  That poses a problem she must overcome.  But she has gotten the attention of African Americans with her openness to reparations, her proposals for rebuilding inner cities and her vibrant defense of voting rights and civil rights.  Already she has made inroads that Bernie failed to make in his unsuccessful bid to pull the nomination away from Hillary. 

Whatever happens, the field will narrow and one candidate will emerge to take on Donald Trump.  If you’re a true progressive your primary interest is that it should not be Joe Biden in some misguided notion of electability.  Your next goal is to nominate Warren or Sanders.  If you’re a moderate, you’re rooting for Old Joe but you’ll be fine with Booker or Harris. 

Jazz. 

Note:  This article appears on OpEd News.

“Only Seven Candidates Have Qualified for the Next Democratic Debate” by Maggie Astor.  New York Times, August 1, 2019. 

“Fact Check: Did Kamala Harris block evidence that would have freed inmates?” by Emily Cadei and Bryan Anderson.  Sacramento Bee, July 31, 2019.

MEDICARE FOR ALL IS JUST THE FIRST STEP

 JAZZMAN CHRONICLES

 

  

FALSE FRONT:  FRAMING THE MEDICARE DEBATE

MEDICARE FOR ALL IS THE FIRST STEP

A heated debate has broken out among the Democratic presidential contenders pitting Medicare for All advocates against the moderates who generally want to supplant the Affordable Care Act with a public option.  If we have learned anything from the Obamacare experience it is that compromise measures rarely fulfill their promise.  Obamacare did not achieve anywhere near full coverage and the cost of care continues to rise. 

Why would anyone choose to pay for medical insurance when medical services are free?  It turns out there are people who opt for private insurance even when public insurance is provided free of cost.  We see throughout Europe where governments provide universal healthcare but a certain percentage of the population nevertheless purchases private insurance.  There is nothing inherently wrong with skipping to the front of the line with Cadillac coverage.  But if someone is willing to pay thousands of dollars a year so that they don’t have to sit in a waiting room with ordinary people, let them pay a price.  If millionaires and billionaires want to pay for privileged care let them help improve the system for everyone else.  Let them pay a privileged care fee equal to ten, fifteen or twenty percent of the cost of coverage to supplement the medical system. 

There is a shortage of doctors in this country.  We need competent and well-trained doctors not only in the cities where doctors command top salaries but especially in the rural communities across the nation.  The privileged care fee should be substantial enough to provide educational opportunities for medical students who are willing to relocate to high need areas.  The fees could also be used to assist hospitals that are struggling to survive under the dictates of a profit-motivated system. 

Eventually we need to take the profit completely out of health and medical care.  Until then we will continue to see the spectacle of medical personnel demanding credit cards in the emergency centers of private hospitals.  This would not happen to anyone anywhere else in the civilized world where health and medical are considered fundamental rights. 

To those who say we can’t pay for it, I reply:  We are already paying for it and much, much more.  According to Questex – a media company serving the corporate elite – the top eight insurance companies generated profits in excess of seven billion dollars on income in excess of $132 billion during the third quarter of 2018.  Extrapolating that amount to one year that’s an annual profit topping twenty-eight billion on revenues of more than $500 billion for only eight companies. 

How many lives did they save for that extraordinary amount of money?  Absolutely none.  In fact, it is more appropriate to inquire:  How many lives were lost because the insurance companies did their job well?  Their job is to bolster profits by cutting costs and increasing revenues.  They accomplish that by cutting medical services to people and jacking up the premiums and co-pays of their policies.  We don’t know how many lives were lost due to insurance companies denying coverage but we do know that many of our fellow citizens have been forced to give up or cut back on their medicines because they could not afford them.  We all know someone who was forced to delay or forego a needed operation or medical procedure because the cost was prohibitive. 

Insurance companies are rewarded for denying services and those who are responsible for carrying out the decree are given bonuses and promotions. 

It is easy to see that if we eliminated the insurance industry we would gain billions and billions of dollars to fortify and rebuild the healthcare system.  The employees in the insurance industry are extremely competent and highly educated people.  We could put many of them to work exposing waste and finding savings in the healthcare system.  We could hire them to uncover money-laundering operations in the real estate business.  We could find any number of useful endeavors for those who are unable to find employment in the private sector. 

To continue arguing that we cannot afford healthcare is an affront to common sense.  We cannot afford to continue a system that serves money interests to the detriment of health and medical care. 

Medicare for All is only a first step but it is a vital step.  We should then take aim at the private for-profit hospitals.  The American Hospital Association estimates that 18% of hospitals in the United States are for-profit institutions.  They concentrate on the most profitable areas of specialty – like rehabilitation – and cater to the privileged.  They often take the best medical personnel and deprive communities of needed resources. 

Anyone who has visited a hospital in recent years knows they are counting costs when you walk in the door.  The patient in an emergency room is facing a personal crisis but that does not prevent hospital personnel from hounding the patient for proof of insurance or a credit card. 

There has to be a better way. 

Reforming the medical service delivery system will be every bit as complicated as health insurance reform but it must be addressed.  Government must play a role in establishing and supporting services in underserved communities and no one should be hounded for payment in a hospital emergency room. 

“Big Eight health insurers rake in more than $7 billion in Q3, setting up strong finish to 2018,” by Rose Meltzer.  Fierce Healthcare.  November 19, 2018. 

RECLAIMING AMERICA: IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT!

THE LONG WAY HOME:  RECLAIMING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

THE FIRST STEP:  IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT

By Jack Random

There can be no way around it.  In the year 2019 the only way forward and the only chance we have of reclaiming democracy in the land of the free is the impeachment of the president.  The election of Donald J. Trump is a symptom of systemic failure and one of such catastrophic dimensions that it must be corrected before anything of substance can be accomplished. 

If we allow this president to continue without confronting the restraint and distraction that impeachment proceedings provide we will invite disaster on multiple fronts.  We have already glimpsed a sampling of what the Trump administration intends:  Closing the border to all asylum seekers in violation of international law, punitive measures like family separation and child abuse, evisceration of civil rights and voting rights, systemic disenfranchisement of minority voters, alienation and extortion of democratic allies, annihilation of labor rights, elevation of dictatorships, nuclear proliferation, normalization of racism and prejudice, reversal of policies protecting the air and water, a rollback in health and medical services, corruption on a scale unrivaled since the Teapot Dome scandal and elimination of assistance to the poor. 

We have witnessed all this from a restrained Trump administration.  He has until now operated under a pervasive cloud of investigation for high crimes and misdemeanors.  The president hopes and perhaps believes that the cloud lifted in the wake of the gutless and ineffectual Mueller Report.  Because the special prosecutor was less than animated and compelling in his testimony before congress and the American people, we are expected drop all doubt and suspicions regarding his relentless attempts to coordinate his campaign with the Russian propaganda apparatus in defrauding an American presidential election.  We are expected to ignore his repeated and often successful attempts to cover up his actions and those of his family and staff in conspiring with the Russians.  We are expected to turn away from compelling evidence that our president and his family aint nothing more than money launderers for corrupt foreign governments. 

If we fail to hold this president accountable we are not only legitimizing and sanctioning the most corrupt and illegitimate president in history, we are also opening the door to a second term.  If we allow that to happen we will be compelled to bear witness to the high crimes and misdemeanors that an unrestrained President Trump will commit.  If we allow this incompetent crook another term he will undoubtedly appoint at least one more Supreme Court justice and the impact of his presidency will outlive us all. 

If we fail to impeach the president before the coming election he may well be tempted to start a war in Venezuela or Iran in a desperate attempt to win reelection.  Frankly, he may be tempted to do so anyway.  But if we know anything about this president it is that he is obsessed with the news of the day.  Among the advantages of a constant barrage of impeachment hearings – highlighting new information regarding Trump Tower Moscow, 666 Fifth Avenue NYC, Deutsche Bank and money laundering operations connecting the oligarchs of Putin’s Russia, the ruthless despots of Saudi Arabia and Trump real estate operations – is that they will serve as a distraction and Trump will be unable to wrap his mind around anything else. 

If Trump does move us to war you can be sure it will not go against the interests of the Saudis or the Russians.  If he does give the order for political reasons there is a very real possibility that his commanders will refuse to comply.  That is how low this presidency has sunk.  The generals that Trump once held in such high esteem have seen behind the curtain.  They have seen him kowtow to the Russian dictator.  They have witnessed his cowardice when confronted with the violent crimes of a Saudi prince.  They know who he is. 

If we do not impeach the president we have taken his criminal conduct off the table.  We have removed his corruption and character from the topics of debate.  We have given him the kind of aid and comfort only the gutless Democrats can provide.  We will have matched the Republican Party in complicity. 

We must impeach the president.  Without regard for the trial in the hallowed chambers of the United States Senate, we must impeach the president.  We must impeach the president because he is guilty beyond all doubt and by any honest reckoning.  We must impeach the president to restore the fundamental value of American democracy. 

We must impeach the president to assert now and forever that no one is above the law and no one is beyond the reach of justice. 

The idea that some internal Justice Department memo can overrule the basic tenet of judicial decree is ludicrous and offensive. [1] All presidents should be held to account for criminal conduct without delay and without exception.  This president has scorned justice and turned the office of the Attorney General into a sycophant for the chief executive.  It must not stand. 

The president of the United States is guilty of high crimes and conduct not only worthy of but demanding impeachment. 

1.  The president through his agents conspired with agents of the Russian government to defraud the 2016 presidential election. 

The Mueller Report chronicles over one hundred interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.  The Trump campaign provided polling data to target key voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – the very states that turned the election.  The Russian propaganda machine in turn provided fake news to targeted voters through fake social media accounts.  Before the eyes of the American public, candidate Trump incorporated the daily WikiLeaks reports into his campaign.  Russia provided the attack data, WikiLeaks laundered it and Trump employed it on the campaign trail.  This is what collusion, coordination and conspiracy look like. 

2.  The president and his agents repeatedly lied to the public, the FBI and Congress to cover up their interactions with Russian agents. 

Trump stated point blank he had no business dealings whatsoever with Russia.  That was a lie.  He stated he had no interactions with the Russians.  That was a lie.  The truth is he was trying to negotiate a deal for a Trump Tower in Moscow even while he was campaigning.  Reports have it he wanted to gift Vladimir Putin one entire floor of the tower.  The truth is he had many dealings with Russian agents concerning laundering money for real estate deals in Florida.  The truth is we have only uncovered the tail of the elephant when it comes to laundering dirty money from Russian oligarchs for their supreme leader.  The truth is Trump authored a misleading statement for his son to explain the meeting in Trump Tower.  The truth is Trump is willing to throw his own son to the wolves if it serves his interests. 

3.  The president willingly engaged in behavior that would subject him to extortion by foreign agents in Russia and Saudi Arabia because of his and his family’s hidden interests and criminal activity. 

Son-in-law Jerrod Kushner received untold millions to save the family business from certain bankruptcy due to one of the worst investments in the history of New York City.  The record will show that the Saudi’s loaned Kushner a great deal of money when no legitimate banking interest would and that Donald J. Trump helped broker the deal.  While we do not yet know what the Saudis expected in return we do know that Trump vetoed legislation blocking a sell of arms to Saudi Arabia.  We also know that Trump excused compelling evidence that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia ordered the killing and dismemberment of a prominent journalist. 

We have not yet begun to uncover the Trump money laundering operation.  We need to begin the impeachment process to gain access to his financial records, his tax returns and his accounts in the notorious Deutsche Bank as well as the Bank of Cypress where his Treasury Secretary Wilbur Ross was once chief executive. 

4.  The president failed to act to defend the nation’s electoral integrity from an overt attack by a foreign adversary. 

Never mind that his failure to defend American democracy serves his own political and financial interests.  The president has alternatively refused to acknowledge Russian interference, implied that there is nothing wrong with foreign interference and pretended that it had no impact.  He has done absolutely nothing to ensure that it will not happen again.  He is a president that places no value on the integrity of the ballot.  He has done everything in his power to block minority voters and tip the balance in his favor.  He steadfastly refuses to support legislation that would require a paper trail in the event of electronic ballot tampering.  He pushed hard for a citizenship question on the census that is designed to suppress the Hispanic vote, resulting in reduced funds for minority districts and under representation of minority voters.  His admiration for foreign dictators and disdain for our own democracy is alone grounds for impeachment. 

5.  The president has intentionally imposed policies resulting directly in crimes against humanity on the southern border. 

We have all seen the photos, the videos and heard the testimonials of children being separated from their parents for the “crime” of seeking asylum in the United States.  This nation has long offered refuge to individuals seeking to escape discrimination, inhuman treatment and unconscionable violence in their own lands.  We value immigration because the founders of our independent democracy were themselves refugees seeking to escape intolerance in their native land.  Though we cannot neglect the intolerance, violence and discrimination that our founders dealt to Native and African Americans, we cannot allow any president to close the border by practicing inhuman and inhumane treatment of innocent children and families to dissuade them from seeking and claiming asylum. 

It has been a long time since anyone in our government demanded that individuals who dissent from the majority view should leave the country.  That is the very definition of un-American yet this president made that request of four members of congress.  In so doing he has demonstrated an intolerance that crosses the boundaries of inhumanity and demonstrates unfitness for office. 

6.  The president has profited from the presidency in violation of constitutional prohibitions against accepting gifts or equivalent items of value. 

The president and his family have collected large sums of money from the family hotels and business ventures.  They have accepted loans from foreign interests and encouraged corporate interests to invest in Trump business concerns, including stays at Mar-a-Lago and Trump International Hotel – the old Post Office – in Washington D.C.  The president has somehow persuaded the military and government officials to spend millions for stays and unnecessary refueling at Trump properties in Scotland and Ireland. 

Trump business ventures have made record profits at Trump Tower in NYC as well as memberships at Trump country clubs and his Florida resort.  Every time Trump holds an event at one of his properties, profits soar.  Corporations and foreign governments courting the Trump administration’s favor book rooms at his Washington hotel and spend lavishly.  Trump has zealously guarded his financial records, including his tax returns, so that we do not know the full extent of his profiteering but we certainly know enough.  Open Secrets has estimated that Trump business interests have received in excess of $35 million from Republican Party organizations since becoming president.  Open the books and we will learn how boldly the president has sold his office. [2]

7.  The president attempted to extort the president of Ukraine by withholding military aid in exchange for compromising information on a political rival. 

Shortly after special investigator Robert Mueller’s listless testimony before congress, the president withheld congressionally mandated military assistance to Ukraine and requested on a phone call to President Volodymyr Zelensky that the Ukrainian government re-investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden, son to former vice president Joe Biden.  At the time of the call Joe Biden was clearly the leading candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.  [3, 4]

While the underlying story should offer cause for doubting Biden’s squeaky-clean reputation and his claim of electability, that President Trump would consider it acceptable to withhold allocated aid for political advantage even after an investigation of his dealings with Russia in their attempt to interfere in a presidential election, suggests that this president is far beyond redemption.  He truly believes the Mueller Report vindicated him.  It absolutely did not.  He truly believes he can conspire with any foreign government to interfere in our elections.  The law says otherwise.  He truly believes he is above the law.  He is not. 

Let us stipulate that you cannot and should not be impeached for being a being a man of substandard character.  Let us stipulate that you cannot and should not be impeached for despicable behavior toward women – even if that behavior may have included criminal liability.  Let us stipulate that you cannot and should not be impeached for being a common con man and a crook. 

Let us focus on what he has done and why he is a danger to the nation.  Let us place no value on what the United States Senate may or may not do.  It is sufficient that we compel each and every senator to stand with us or stand with the crook in the Oval Office.  If we value our democracy, if we value our system of justice, if we value human rights and common decency, we must impeach the president. 

1. “Indicting a President Is Not Foreclosed: The Complex History.”  By Walter Dellinger.  Lawfare, June 18, 2018.

2. Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics.  “All the President’s Profiting.”  Federal Election Commission Data released June 10, 2019. 

3. “Trump pressed Ukraine leader to investigate Biden, memo reveals.”  By David Smith.  The Guardian, September 25, 2019. 

4. “As vice president, Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production.  Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company.”  By Michael Kranish and David L. Stern.  Washington Post, July 22, 2019. 

Jack Random is the author of the Jazzman Chronicles. 

GO BOLD! DEFEATING TRUMP IN 2020

--> JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  DEFEATING TRUMP

THE PRAGMATIC PATH TO DEFEAT IN 2020

By Jack Random

“I think the base of the party wants bold leadership right now, and they might start wondering why the Speaker of the House and the party leader is spending time attacking progressive members. And down the road, they might start wondering what other House leadership might look like.” 

Waleed Shahid, Justice Democrats

There is a war going on within the Democratic Party, pitting the young and dynamic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez against the elder Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  It might surprise diehard Republicans that the woman they have vilified for the last three decades represents the moderate voice of the party. 

If we have learned anything from history it is this:  Today’s moderate is tomorrow’s conservative.  The future belongs to the young, the bold and the progressive. 

Say hello to a brave new world, Nancy Pelosi:  Your time has passed.  Yes, you made a point that I made four years ago by paraphrasing Trump’s motto:  Make America White Again.  But when the best you could do in response to Trump’s racist attack on four new members of the House is an invitation for the White House to join you in immigration reform, your time has passed.  You come up short.  You stand in the way of badly need change. 

The resolution of the internal Democratic Party conflict in favor of Ocasio-Cortez is as inevitable as the finality of the third act.  That same conflict is playing out in the selection of a candidate to oppose Donald Trump in the coming presidential election.  On that the future of the republic, the free world and the planet depends on a wise and astute resolution. 

The conflict is between the moderates who have governed the party virtually unrivaled since the election of Bill Clinton and the true progressives who have always been the neglected heart and soul of the party.  The moderates have always argued that the time’s not right to stand up for principles.  We have to be rational.  We have to be willing to bend, to compromise and to work with the other side.  The true progressives always counter:  If not now, when?  We’ve played your game too long.  We’ve waited for meaningful, fundamental change too long.  The time is now!  The people are yearning for change!  Then we give way.

The American electorate is as rational as a caged beast.  The political class repeatedly struggles to make sense of that which does not make sense.  Why did working people vote for Ronald Reagan?  Reagan did more than any other single president to destroy the middle class by eviscerating trade unions in America.  Did workers understand this?  Did they act rationally in assuring the demise of their children’s future? 

Did the American electorate act rationally in electing George W. Bush to not one but two terms in office?  After he had revealed himself a front for the neocon war machine led by his vice president, the people rewarded him with a mandate to continue the destruction?  After he came as close as any leader could to triggering a worldwide depression, who’s to say we would not have given him yet another chance?  After all, he seemed a good old boy. 

Democrat Bill Clinton did more than any other president to close the gap between conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, by selling out the fundamental principles of his own party.  Clinton transformed the Democrats into a party of Wall Street with a conscience on social issues ensuring that the people would have even less of a choice than they had before.  Still, the people rewarded him with two terms in the White House. 

It can be argued that the two-party system has offered little choice in selecting a president.  It is undeniable that the Electoral College and systemic corruption often allow for rule by the minority but it does not follow that Americans are rational in casting their votes. 

Reagan represented government of the rich, for the elite and by the privileged yet he is worshipped to this day by ordinary Americans who still remember the iconic leader as their man.  George W. Bush should never have won a first term no less a second and Bill Clinton is still held in high regard among old-line Democrats. 

Americans are not rational.  We are as a group unpredictable and instinctive.  We choose presidents like we select salad dressing:  We stick to what we know and trust unless something catches our eye.  If we’re born Republican we vote Republican unless someone gives us a compelling reason to change.  If our parents voted Democrat we vote Democrat without regard for the issues.  It’s a team sport and we inherit our allegiances. 

Choosing a president according to the law of electability is doomed to failure and always has been.  Donald Trump stole the last presidential election from a field of Republican has-beens and Hillary Clinton because he offered something completely different.  Like Bernie Sanders on the other side, he stood out.  Like a rock star on a stage with folk musicians, he commanded the spotlight.  Rationally, he didn’t stand a chance.  But Americans were and remain sick of the standard politician.  No one believed a word Clinton spoke because she didn’t believe it.  She played out the script without passion or conviction.  Trump called bullshit and with a little help from his friends in Moscow and the Electoral College he took down the political establishment and stood it on its head. 

Four years later we are walking down the same tired path that gave us the least inspired choice from a field of uninspired choices: the path of pragmatism.  The argument goes:  We don’t really care what the candidate stands for as long as he or she can knock Trump around and send him back to Manhattan to face the wrath of justice.  When you start with a false premise, a series of false conclusions follow:  Hillary Clinton lost and Hillary Clinton is a woman; therefore a woman cannot beat Donald Trump.  Trump is a backlash to a black president; therefore only a white candidate can beat Trump. 

These are profoundly wrong conclusions founded on a desperately wrong premise. 

Allow me to play the pundit for one slim moment:  Donald Trump will beat back a pragmatic candidate like a dirty old rug.  Pragmatism is the great compromise.  It is neither left nor right.  It lacks passion because it has no principles or values to guide it.  Pragmatism is afraid of words like socialism, radical and leftist.  A pragmatist trembles at the slightest hint of criticism.  Pragmatism is afraid to call a racist a racist.  A pragmatist follows every statement of substance with a qualifier:  We have to address climate change as the crisis it is but we have to do it in a way that doesn’t damage our economic interests.  We have to get out of Afghanistan but we must protect our strategic interests. 

If it sounds familiar it should.  Kamala Harris wants to withdraw from Afghanistan but “in a responsible way.”  [1]

Former VP Joe Biden supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but now wants us to believe he will end those conflicts.  Biden favored the Trans Pacific Partnership though he insists he supports Fair Trade.  His current positions are as clear as mud, suggesting a strategy of triangulation if not obfuscation.  He doesn’t want you to know what his positions are; he just wants you to trust him. 

Biden opposes Medicare for All because it will spell the end of Obamacare.  He doesn’t seem to realize how badly Obamacare has failed to control the costs of healthcare.  He wants us to know that our taxes will go up but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you eliminate a trillion dollar industry – the health insurance industry – ordinary people will save a great deal despite a raise in taxes. 

Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar deliver the progressive positions on trade policy and universal healthcare but when push comes to shove they tend to fall back:  Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.  [2]

We know.  We understand.  We didn’t let “perfect” stand in the way of Obama’s retrograde compromises on trade (Trans-Pacific Partnership), healthcare (he didn’t even propose the public option) or the longest war in American history (Afghanistan).  We didn’t let “perfect” get in the way of nominating Hillary Clinton.  The progressive left is famous for compromise.  It’s what we’ve always done.  Maybe it’s time we tried something new. 

If you really want to lose to Donald Trump again go down that middle road.  Say goodbye to an army of activists eager to walk precincts and work the phones for a candidate they can believe in.  Nominate a moderate and he’ll be back-stepping from the first debate to Election Day. 

That’s the day we lose.  Again.  To Donald J. Trump. 

If you want to win, nominate someone who possesses the courage of her convictions.  Nominate someone who will call a spade a spade and a Trump a Trump.  Nominate someone who is not afraid of words.  Nominate someone who will fire back when fired on. 

There’s still plenty of time for a candidate to emerge from the pack.  There’s still time for those who have flirted with moderation to find stronger ground.  I’m waiting.  America is waiting.  We don’t want another four minutes of Donald Trump – no less four years. 

Stand up for the people!  Stand up for impeachment!  Stand up for Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats!  Stand up for Fair Trade, an end to stupid wars and universal healthcare. 

Stand up and you will be amazed at how many of us stand ready to follow. 

Jazz.

1.  Rachel Maddow Show, January 23, 2019.

2.  The People’s View.  “Enemies Among Us:  An Open Letter to Those Attacking Senator Cory Booker,” January 15, 2019.

1ST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: KAMALA RISING!

JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  DEFEATING TRUMP.

A LONG AND WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

FIRST ROUND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

Kamala Rising!

By Jack Random

It is often said that presidential debates are not as important as the hype would have them; that a debate at the end of June has no bearing on the end result.  To some extent that may be true but it is also true that candidates are made or broken by the early debates.  It is also true that no other single event has greater significance than a candidate’s first appearance on the presidential debate stage. 

Readers may remember when Rick Perry, then governor of Texas, took himself out of presidential contention by calling for the abolition of three federal agencies but could only recall two of them.  Oops.  In one of the most ironic and revealing moves of the Trump presidency, Perry now serves at the helm of that forgotten agency:  the Department of Energy. 

The pitfalls are many, the rewards are great and the one who prevails will rise to become leader of the free world. 

NIGHT ONE:  WARREN HOLDS FIRM

THE CANDIDATES:  BILL DE BLASIO, TIM RYAN, JULIAN CASTRO, CORY BOOKER, ELIZABETH WARREN, BETO O’ROURKE, AMY KLOBUCHAR, TULSI GABBARD, JAY INSLEE, JOHN DELANEY. 

The first debate in the current season did not produce a Rick Perry moment but they absolutely revealed a great deal about the candidates on stage.  Senator Elizabeth Warren secured her place as a policy guru.  Senator Cory Booker, former Representative Beto O’Rourke and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro competed in the category of Best Foreign Language.  Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii held her ground as the conscience of a party that seems to have forgotten the critical lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Bill de Blasio inserted himself into issues without seeming to play the bully.  Despite a few one-liners Senator Amy Klobuchar failed to capture the kind of attention she needed to gain ground in the polls.  The same holds true for the Green Governor Jay Inslee who seemed determined to emphasize his knowledge outside of protecting the planet. 

To the extent that anyone won the first night of the first round of debates it was Julian Castro.  He pushed hard on immigration and made Beto O’Rourke appear uninformed.  He also won the Spanish speaking debate by virtue of the fact that he is Hispanic. 

Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio reminded us why Senator Sherrod Brown should be on stage when he talked about the Democrats needing to be the party of the working people.  He lost us when he argued for a continued presence in Afghanistan.  His gaff led to a shining moment by Representative Gabbard who had to remind him that the longest standing war in American history is an absolute disaster.  She had to remind him that the Taliban was not responsible for the 9-11 attack.  Al Qaeda was.  Had she more time she might have reminded the uninformed congressman that the Taliban offered to hand over the Al Qaeda suspects to an impartial tribunal but the Bush administration refused. 

Tulsi Gabbard stood alone through this exchange and that should worry all of us who spent more than a decade fighting the disastrous and ill-conceived wars in the Middle East.  At a time when President Trump is threatening war with Iran every candidate on stage should have rallied to Gabbard’s side instead of remaining politely silently.  Hopefully the candidates who emerge from this process will find their antiwar voices.  If not they will find a great many potential supporters peeling away from the Democratic Party. 

It was patently unfair of the moderators to ask Gabbard to defend her already retracted position on LGBTQ rights.  She has a stronger record on these civil rights issues than Cory Booker who strangely attacked her for not including transsexuals in her response.  She was not asked about transsexuals and Booker should know better.  Too often he seems a voice in search of a cause. 

Nearly every candidate on the stage Wednesday night demonstrated why he or she needed to be there.  Elizabeth Warren is clearly the most knowledgeable candidate not only on economic issues but on all issues.  She is the leading female contender representing the progressive wing of the party.  Castro is the only Hispanic candidate and the strongest voice on immigration.  De Blasio is an uncompromised liberal with nothing to lose.  Inslee is the Green candidate.  Beto has staked ground as the viable alternative to Inslee as the Green candidate and the man who might stand a chance in Texas.  Booker is a powerful voice on criminal justice.  Klobuchar is the reasoned moderate who knows how to talk to Republicans.  Gabbard is a veteran of the Iraq War and the strongest voice against going to war again. 

That leaves only two:  Congressman Tim Ryan and former Congressman John Delaney.  The former distinguished himself as not ready for prime time on foreign policy and the latter wins the Dead Man award (1) as a man who speaks a lot, says nothing.  Delaney interrupted at every opportunity and consistently failed to deliver poignant remarks. 

At this juncture, Ryan and Delaney are out.  Because Beto stumbled, Inslee remains alive but should stick to climate change as much as humanly possible.  De Blasio stays where he was: hanging on by a thread.  Klobuchar and Booker get a pass but they still need to distinguish themselves from the field.  Warren holds strong.  Castro and Gabbard rise in the hearts and minds of their respective constituencies. 

NIGHT TWO: KAMALA RISING

THE CANDIDATES:  MARIANNE WILLIAMSON, JOHN HICKENLOOPER, ANDREW YANG, PETE BUTTIGIEG, JOE BIDEN, BERNIE SANDERS, KAMALA HARRIS, KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, MICHAEL BENNET AND ERIC SWALWELL

We all want to be charitable.  It is kind to say that former Vice President and frontrunner Joe Biden could not keep up with the competition.  He began his performance with checklist answers delivered at a rapid clip and eventually broke down into a semi-incoherent ramble. 

As the only African American on the stage, Senator Kamala Harris took aim at old Joe’s rationale for working with the Old South’s segregationists and his stern opposition to bussing as a remedy to segregation.  He could not have known that one of the dark skinned children who benefited from bussing was Kamala Harris.  Harris took him down softly but he is unlikely to regain his unbeatable status.          

The rest of the field offered interesting insights and solid rationales for their candidacies but none made a move that will register in next week’s polls.  Bernie was Bernie and I love him for it but he has not evolved and others have caught up to him. 

Marianne Williamson is unlikely to sustain her place among legitimate candidates but we should be grateful for her insight into how the Democrats will beat Donald Trump.  Essentially, Trump operates out of fear and his opposition must counter with love.  It is an oversimplification but there is fundamental truth in it.  The Republicans have long been perceived as the Daddy party and the Democrats are the Mommy party.  Poor old dad has been doing a bum job lately.  It’s time to give mom a try. 

Mayor Pete distinguished himself once again for his sharp mind and speaking ability.  His response to criticism regarding the racial makeup of his police department was however inadequate.  He said simply:  “I didn’t get the job done.”  The mayor needs to take care of business in his own back yard before he moves on to the highest office in the land. 

Andrew Yang demonstrated he is a man of substance.  He deserves a place in the next government and his ideas warrant serious consideration. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand staked ground as the candidate representing women’s issues.  She was forceful, knowledgeable and well spoken.  Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has assumed the role of attacking Bernie for not cowering when confronted with the dreaded “S” word.  It may do a little damage to Bernie but it will not carry Hickenlooper to the next tier.  Colorado Senator Michael Bennet appeared to be a nice man and a solid Democrat who simply does not have the charisma to advance to the White House.  Representative Eric Swalwell laid claim to represent the next generation, goading old Joe to hand over the torch but he pushed too hard like a rambunctious teenager.  His issue of gun control will stick but he must wait for a better opportunity to advance. 

In the end the only candidate to significantly advance her cause is the junior senator from the state of California.  She has learned on the trail.  She connects.  She has proven to be a determined opponent and Joe Biden felt the sting of her jab.  She broke through the cacophony of white noise while the others drifted. 

Kamala rises.  Now she must sustain her momentum. 

Jazz.

1.  The character Nobody in the 1995 film Dead Man, directed by Jim Jarmusch and starring Johnny Depp. Music by Neil Young. 

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES AND THE FOUNDER OF CROW DOG PRESS. HIS COMMENTARIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AT DISSIDENT VOICE AND COUNTERPUNCH.