Only through collective, political, mass action that targets capitalism and its associated social and economic arrangements can we secure justice. We must overcome the political, corporate elites who dominate our policymaking and are destroying our planet.
Frederick Douglass was right:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will...
If there is no struggle there is no progress.
Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning.
They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.”
http://www.blackpast.org/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress
To do that effectively requires understanding the large-scale, historical forces that shape what Michael Harrington called the “limits of the possible”.
We need to work on transforming capitalism into a different system, not work individually on its margins or merely do helpful volunteer work. To succeed will require identifying the contradictions within capitalism, finding the leverage points, confronting those with power, and fighting their naked self interest and greed and the system that induces it.
6
Representative Fred Upton is from Michigan, serving Michigan's 6th District. He is not from Ohio.
This is the most abjectly inchoate socialist manifesto in a while, even for the NYT...
It’d simply be embarrassing for its shallow ineptitude, except for the NYT announcing or achieving a couple of all-time highs – neither involving opioids – while the dialectic was being so rigorously constructed:
1. https://investors.nytco.com/investors/investor-news/investor-news-details/2019/The-New-York-Times-Company-Reports-2018-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-Results-and-Announces-Dividend-Increase/default.aspx
2. Its stock price, as of fifteen minutes ago ($30.60)
What’s more, do an average of the personal wealth of your BoD – inserting the principal’s personal worth, when the BoD member is clearly a proxy for such a principal...
I think AG and Dean are simply messing with me – or trying to figure out which sort of struggle-tchotchkes and accessories and gym-wear ads they should try to get past my border wall...
Seems like careers in struggling about to go the way of careers in manufacturing or copy-editing...
As far as:
“...Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how Americans produced the conditions for its greatest social accomplishments like the creation of the welfare state and the toppling of Jim Crow...
Religion may just be the opiate of the masses...
But Lenin’s screaming from the grave for a shot of naloxone, after taking your blue pill...
PS
Poll your readers, and ask how many think 5-series SUVs should be outright free...
Mr Bouie. what you , and you on your side are arguing for, plain and simply, is economic jealousy. Nothing more.
4
Apparently, my brand of (pretty far left) liberalism is illiberally being branded as reactionary, because I am unwilling to use a pitchfork on my neighbors, possibly myself. Puh-lease!
1
When Biden crossed his heart and said, "Bless me, Father," what he really meant cannot be printed in the Times.
1
“If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole”.
This guy needs a basic economics class. The wealthy don’t hoard their wealth, they invest it in companies, the stock market, or put it banks. It is then reinvested into other companies, or is used to buy plant and equipment. The banks also lend their savings to consumers to buy cars or appliances.
The wealthy also don’t hoard opportunities they create them. Look at the opportunities created by Gates, Jobs and yes the Koch’s. Not many opportunities created by the New York Times.
Today’s central problem is we have few people that have even a basic understanding of economics.
4
"For Biden, you don’t need to demonize the richest Americans or their Republican supporters to reduce income inequality"
His contempt for Biden over this couldn't be clearer. For Bouie, the richest Americans are demons. I wish him luck in his struggle to free himself from the tyranny and oppression wrought upon him by Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, etc. Confrontation and resistance to these evil forces is necessary for progress. I look forward to the day when all have a fair and equitable wage as switchboard operators and riders on Pony Express, and those who tend the ponies.
4
The most remarkable utterance made by an American President was made by FDR in 1933: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Fear is the most powerful of all human emotions. It unsettles the mind and thereby impedes judgement and rational thought. Fear was and is Trumps "ace in the hole". He won the presidency on fear and his supporters feed on fear. Fear of immigrants. Fear of Muslims. Fear of blacks . Fear of Gays. These fearful people are often relegated to the great white unwashed populating the rural backwaters, the MAGA throng at Trump rallies. But fear does not respect class or gender. The politicians have to grapple with the fear of loosing their donors, rich friends, and own often not inconsiderable wealth. So, in the end, the ultra rich, eg., Bloomberg and Schulz, grapple with fear of loss. After all their success is not measured by intellectual achievement or physical prowess but by the coin of currency. Fear is not relegated to the impoverished. Americans have always understood that money talks.
3
Centrists, by definition, are conservative, not because they stake out a particular position, but because they hope to occupy enough space in the middle to attract enough votes. It's the "don't rock the boat" position. Change rarely happens when you govern from the middle, because the strategy is "steady as you go". Changing political opinions form in the population first long before they are represented in the political system and our representatives. One such example is universal healthcare - universally accepted as something that folks wants, but derided by politicians as ruinous.
3
I like this line of thinking. Trump's ideas on immigration and America First foreign policy (i.e. disengaging from overseas wars) are broadly popular. That means neocons and proponents of lax immigration policies extremists, and Trump is a moderate!
3
The first requirement for a candidate is that he or she be electable. I believe that Joe Biden has that quality. The idiotic “zero tolerance “ tests applied by the far left wing of the party would result in another McGovern-like debacle. I say this as one who took time off from work and campaigned in the heart of the Trenton ghetto, where I received acordial reception from those who had the time to talk to me.
5
The next politician, no matter their party, who calls Social Security and Medicare "entitlements" should really tarred, feathered and run out of town Old West style. If I pay for it every month it's not an entitlement! Rich people really are different. And Starbucks coffee isn't that great anymore anyway.
10
Since 1972 the political spectrum has shifted to the right. Today’s Democrats are moderate Republicans and today’s GOP is a mixture of nonsensical Laffer Curve trickledownism and George Wallace barely-concealed racist, sexist hate-mongering.
You are right and relevant. History shows that if capitalists are not restrained, they will force children as young as ten to work full-time. Without unions fighting for the rights workers' rights, no social progress can be accomplished.
The super wealthy do not control all the media (e.g. the Nation magazine, NPR) but they control a large part of it (Wall Street Journal, Fox) and have a huge influence on the “mainstream” media (NYT, WaPo, 3 traditional networks). They buy and pay for most of our politicians, though not all (AOC). They largely control the public discourse, hence their near-magical ability to convince people not only to vote, but to literally think, against their interest, example: right-to-work laws.
Pseudo-liberals like Bloomberg, McAuliffe, and Schultz are the worst, siphoning support away from true reformers. They are a witting or unwitting part of the system of economic oppression while hiding behind a few socially liberal fig leaves (abortion, gay rights). Canada is a very similar country to ours and universal single-payer health care has not ruined them. And if you think Venezuela was ever an advanced nation like the EU or U.S. you know nothing of history.
And Biden, Sanders are too old. Soon Pelosi will be.
9
If Mr. Bouie is the Times's replacement for Mr. Blow, I hope it's only temporary. After reading this and a previous opinion piece, I have yet to understand this writer's point.
8
I keenly remember deciding that John Kerry was our best choice to run against GWB. The reasons were reasonable. He was a war hero, GWB was not, he was a serious thinker, GWB was not and he was moderate unlike Dean.
Of course I had no idea what swift boating was and neither did Kerry. I mean who would possibly lie about a war hero when the other guy didn't even attend. We were clearly fools.
I will never choose another candidate based on trying to appeal to people who don't have two brain cells to rub together. I will listen closely to each candidate and then I'll pick the one who is the most passionate about changing the status quo and who can articulate that to anybody who is listening.
9
I believe that the anger and violence that was associated with the Black Lives Matter movement...arson, looting, hate chants, assassinations and massacres of law enforcement personnel...turned many Obama voters into Trump voters. Talk about backfiring. Follow MLK's model...not Al Sharpton's.
3
The 2018 election tsunami-like results in the House have made clear: 1. 2020 will be the year of the woman; 2. of racial diversity; 3. who is strong yet compassionate and 4. clearly possessing the intellect, morals and progressive agenda that 2018 put the stamp upon.
Kamala Harris checks all the boxes. America does not need tired old white men running the country (even though I might fit that description.)
5
Every Democrat who has won the Presidency since FDR without the advantage of incumbency has been able to plausibly present himself as representing a new direction--FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama. When the Dems run the "experienced" next-in-line guy (Stevenson, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore, Hillary...), they lose every single time. Biden is the prototype of the sort of Democratic presidential candidate who cannot win.
Biden is also a prototype of the swamp creatures who have corrupted our politics, a dutiful servant of the banking interests that dominate his home state of Delaware. The Senator From MasterCard was instrumental in pushing through the appalling Bankruptcy Bill of 2005 that made it impossible for so many Americans to extricate themselves from credit card debt, often precipitated by medical crises. Joe Biden is the last Democrat I want to see nominated in 2020.
7
To me, a moderate means a voter seeking a little more wealth distribution but is ok with or resigned to the moneyed interests/rich elite both defining the problem and dictating the solution. In other words, Obama, Biden, the Clintons, McAuliffe, etc.
As a baby boom voter I'm struggling with the establishment versus progressive versus pragmatic sides of me, so now I'd like to have a workable vision laid out by the candidates. Though I see vulnerabilities, Elizabeth Warren is probably the one policy wise I'd embrace. I fear she peaked to early.
4
Power to the People, right on!
We can welcome these moderates into the big tent of the Democratic Party because it is a big tent.
The job of real conservatives is to apply a little leavening to the exuberance of the progressive engines of society and that is fine.
Now let's make some changes.
2
I think it's actually quite bold for our contemporary 'centrists' to wade into the fray in search of compromise between the rich on one hand, and the very rich on the other.
5
Joe Biden is a liberal and always has been, as his long record plainly shows. Why the author thinks he is "understood to be a moderate" is something the author should explain. If it's because he does not hate Republicans or rail against the rich, a lot of us liberals see that as a plus. As for Bouie's thesis that progress comes only through confrontational struggle against the powerful, that may well be so, but his examples don't support it. The New Deal is widely viewed as a pragmatic effort to mitigate the Great Depression and "save capitalism." And the thousands who marched in the Civil Rights Movement did so waving the Stars and Stripes, not the Red flag of revolution, and appealed for the support of all Americans, including millionaires.
8
Because Biden is so wedded to purported moderate positions, because he prefers a Republican over a Democrat, we should hope that Biden doesn't head the Democratic ticket.
Furthermore, we should hope that a progressive woman is on the ticket. After all, the American people have shown that they want a progressive future.
4
@dbsweden. No,they haven’t shown that at all. Otherwise Dems would have taken the Senate.
1
Bouie writes out of passion, but his recommendations are also powerful political common sense. Democratic politicians will prevail by meeting voters on the policy ground the latter already occupy.
3
What is moderate voter disenfranchisement? Only 50,000 citizens denied the right to vote vs 100,00? 18.5 million denied health care vs 37 million? Half of the rich paying their fair share of taxes, while the bottom pay the same? Only half of all classrooms overcrowded, underfunded, underprepared? Homelessness reduced by half but never eliminated? Hunger reduced by half but not eliminated? A difficult position to rally around.
4
@Ak. You are so wrong. 18.5 million are not denied health care. You are throwing around the word “half” as if you had any data to support your claims. You have none.
1
As a Conservative, it's been interesting watching the Democrat party implode. Not sure if this was intentional on their part, but they have become known as the party of infanticide, open borders, "green" unicorns, and now racism. At one point I was concerned about Trump's chances in 2020, but after watching the performance by Democrats at the SOTU, It looks like Trump should will win easily.
3
I've never had a candidate I could vote for without holding my nose in the Democratic Party because since Carter they have all been Neoliberals. Every Republican was too. Nader was a bad idea but he unfortunately was correct in his assessment that there was no difference in the parties. The slow inching to the right is so complete that if this were a football field the middle is now on the 1 yard line of the far right. Stacked courts up and down, Roe v Wade all but over and yet the media must create conflict wherever it pays, not where it ought to be. The line moves and so do the cameras but there is no wide angle lens to show us how deeply we've retreated as progressives. Neoliberal think tanks even call themselves "progressive this progressive that" they lie just as viciously as the Republicans, telling us "we cannot afford that" all while providing cover to their big Wall street donors and pushing laws to foster institutional racism. Get a slide rule and truly parse out the middle and you cannot find a Republican or a Neoliberal at all. Unfortunately the Neoliberals and the true believer Trumpies will never be able to get together because the Neoliberals get a little sick to their collective stomachs when they realize just how alike they've been, and are. See Northam in blackface here. The true split is not on the progressive side, its really on the right. I think purging the Democratic Party is good and refining what progressives are is as well.
3
Fred Upton is not from Ohio. He represents the Michigan 6th congressional district. Look it up!
1
Oh, yeah, America was all built on struggle. We all have to fight for progress. Well, no. America was built by smart people being inventive and engaging in intellectual struggle. The Democrats who simply want to steal from the rich are not Robin Hoods. They are just hoods.
2
"Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests is how America produced the conditions for its greatest social reforms."
Yet Biden, has spent his career accommodating powerful interests, esp banking interests. https://www.salon.com/2015/10/21/joe_bidens_greatest_betrayal_the_one_senate_vote_that_makes_it_hard_to_support_a_biden_run/
https://www.tommoody.us/archives/2018/01/18/joe-biden-backed-bills-making-it-harder-for-americans-to-reduce-their-student-debt/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/joe-biden-neoliberal-democrat-conservative-lobbying
2
I like Joe Biden.
But, except for Obama, the Presidency (and Congress the Senate for that matter) have historically been a place for old White men to practice their patriarchy.
This old white man says it's time, way past time in fact, for a younger, less stodgey group to take over. Because, frankly, the old white men have made a pretty big mess of the country. Time to ditch the horse and buggy crowd once and for all, on both sides of the aisle.
3
Be careful about Biden. In the 2008 vice presidential debate, he promised to support an amendment to the bankruptcy code which would permit homeowners who were under water to write down the amount of their mortgages to the value of their homes. This is the same right that every debtor in bankruptcy has under the bankruptcy code except for homeowners. After the election, he and President Obama who made a similar statement during the campaign, promptly forgot about it at the behest of the bankers who were busy ruining the economy of the world.
4
In today's political scene Biden may seem like a good candidate but I remember the joe Biden of the past and I despised him then. He supported Clarence Thomas. And those hair plugs!
2
Biden is starting to remind me of Lieberman.
2
This is naive knee-jerk liberalism at its finest. I'm a moderate liberal and this piece misses the mark completely.
5
I'm sick and tired of billionaire politicians telling me that America can't afford Medicare for all. Not one of these old White men has ever faced a medical condition that bankrupted a family. How about cancelling one aircraft carrier that only has a life expectancy of 2 minutes in a real shooting war anyway and using that money to pay for healthcare for every American.
Joe Biden's performance at the Clarence Thomas hearings was a disgrace and hid bullying Anita Hill was an insult to women. No apology afterward makes up for his brutal chauvinist behavior.
Elizabeth Warren has shot herself in the foot by listing herself as an American Indian and Trump will eat her lunch if she runs against him.
Beto is a cool guy but no match for an ugly mud wrestler like Trump.
Kamala Harris could stand up to Trump and I like her politics. She's the only strong candidate at this point. Will America elect a strong woman of color? Yes, if she speaks to the issues that really matter to them like healthcare, repealing the Trump tax laws, and stupid Trump trade deals that hurt farmers and the middle class.
3
I will vote for any person of color, regardless of party, gender or LGBQT affiliation. That he or she may also be “angry”, raises My support to brobdingnabian levels. I would give a large measure of consideration if the candidate is related to (or even knows of some one) who is a poor desperate immigrant. Surely, no white person would qualify; and our Party would win.
Happy? Mr. Boule.
3
Refusing to support dumb ideas just because they are popular doesn't make you more or less a centrist. It does suggest you reject both the left and right variety of populism.
5
@Peter Vanden Bosch Excellent point. Putting personal political capitol on the line by going against popular opinion because you believe it's the right thing to do is not a sign of being a "centrist" but of being a person of integrity and common sense.
“Spending limited taxpayer money on a free college education for the children of rich parents badly misses the mark for most families.”
What does he think we are, idiots? That is disingenuous and straight out of Hillary's campaign. The wealthy will not send their children to state colleges and universities just because they are free. They could send their kids there now at present prices, but they don't. No, they have legacy status at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. What millionaire would give that prestige and social capital up to save an amount of money that was meaningless to them? Red herring.
The people who will benefit from free higher ed are the ones who struggle to pay for it now. That's us, the 99%.
3
@nora Not a red herring. When the Medicare Drug plan was passed by George Bush and Congress, there was no means testing. The richest Medicare eligible people in the U. S. get to do the subsidized drug plan. They may pay a little more because of high earnings, but they are still subsidized.
1
well done
1
Liberals be aware!
Biden turned his Sate of Delaware into a domestic "Cayman Islands" for the financial industry - ever notice why all of your credit cards are in Wilmington? Biden let them get away with a 29.6 APR and lets billionaires hoard their art and other assets in duty free storage.
Biden is a sham .. he's an old man crook with a weird sense of humor and if his life long record of protecting banks and millionaires doesn't catch up to him the #MeToo will ..
Write this old man off and move on..
3
@Aaron, correct. But to be honest, Delaware was a well known 'corporate haven' long before Biden came around.
Although refused to do anything about it, and in some ways entrenched it even further.
3
The Bouie Fallacy
Don't worry about getting a Democrat elected just "do the right thing" so the criminal traitor gets 4 more years.
2
Amen.
My new favorite NYT columnist.
3
The word I miss in politics is "moderation" which does not Imply that a political party is going off the deep end of either side but is willing to compromise to get the best ideas for u all. That is why "socialism" scares people because it is associated with great revolution and upheaval. The current resident and his minions have gone way over the edge to "fascism" which is making us think of that screaming maniac Hitler. The United States should strive for policies to benefit us all and not tip the scale in favor of the most powerful. The ideal President is one who never strays from this idea. That is what I am looking for as well as a change of gender to women who have waited long enough and have wonderful powers of organization, cooperation, and fairness.
f
1
Let's cast out moderate consensus-seekers. We're all Jacobins now.
All well and good and I agree with most of what Mr. Bouie has to say. But I am continually amazed and disappointed that liberals like him continue to write articles like this and don't emphasize climate change. All the experts agree on its coming catastrophe and that we should have started acting on it years ago and now need to act hugely right now because it is almost certainly to be a society-threatening event if we don't. Nearly everyone on the left agrees with them. Yet most, including most of the presidential candidates, go blithely along acting like it's just another issue to check off in a candidate's policy positions. I look at one issue first and foremost to decide on a candidate and that is climate change and how strongly that person supports the issue and what he or she specifically plans to do about it. Only then do I look at other issues and how moderate or liberal a candidate is. Right now, as far as I can see, there is only one candidate who seems to take the issue with the seriousness it deserves, and that's Inslee. The rest of the Dem candidates of course support action on the issue, but it appears to be just another issue to them. Another box to be checked off. That Inslee garners so little support I fear tells us way too much about even us Dems and our inability to look beyond tomorrow an make the big sacrifices that are required.
1
So in the battle between "confront versus accommodate," people supporting the former are right and people supporting the latter are wrong? Thank you, Mr. Bouie, for a prescription that ensures continued division and rancor that will impede rather than facilitate progress.
3
Personally, I would like to see the data that proves your assertions. As a college Professor, I discuss thee issues with my students from a financial perspective. We look at the budget deficit and debt, and discuss if more free stuff from the government is feasible. As college students they would benefit from these proposals, but they see that it is impossible.
As for free college. I saved for years in a 401k and am now giving that money to my daughter so she will have no debt when she graduates. I resent the idea that someone who has been less intelligent and frugal gets the same benefit for their child paid from my taxes.
3
There's centrism of the sort described here that can move things forward, albeit at an almost glacial pace. Let's not confuse that with candidates or elected officials who seek the goals of the progressives (who are, in fact, progressives), but who seek to do so with policies that will create the fewest unwanted consequences. I assume that any of the goals of Hugo Chavez when he was first elected were laudable, and he addressed real problems. But the particular solutions were fraught with their own long-term consequences (i.e. in the end, socialist ideology is less to blame than the incompetence of those who devised the policies to achieve its ends).
Yes, let's move forward, and do so boldly, but thoughtfully. Let's do so with the realization that any gains might also have unintended consequences, and it pays to be attentive to those. And with the realization that in the name of remedying the latter, the next Trump, or McConnell (and there will be one) will use every means possible to overturn those gains.
1
I see centrism differently from Mr. Bouie. Bouie's point that many of the supposedly "extreme" policies are actually quite popular is well-taken, but there's equal fallacy in assuming that any advocate of such policies is therefore a centrist.
The difference between centrism and radicalism is not about popularity but rather pace of change. A policy that effects massive change and is immediately adopted, with all resulting changes occurring swiftly, is radical, no matter how popular it is. This is why "conservative" is more directly antonymous with "radical" than with "liberal"; real conservatism argues for preservation of the status quo, radicalism argues for major and swift institutional change.
Under this conception, centrism is pretty easily seen as the preference for deliberate, incremental change over sweeping change. This was a hallmark of the Obama Administration - the "turning an aircraft carrier one degree every hour" model. It's not fearful of any change or intervention in the way that true conservatism is, but it's deeply wary of unintended consequences that could outweigh the benefits of poorly conceived and/or implemented plans.
The problem is that centrism of this sort is weak outside of the oft-demonized "Acela Corridor". Thus cost-benefit analysis arguments over policy tend to be ignored, and unresolvable existential arguments about the soul and makeup of the nation take center stage.
1
Biden, Schultz, et. al. would like for us to remain on our knees, gathering crumbs from the table of the .1%.
Warren, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, et. al. want to help us - ALL of us - stand up and demand what we have earned and deserve.
There's the "Biden fallacy" and there's the "Biden Baggage." The latter begins and probably ends with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas that alone will, in the wake of the recent Brett Kavanuagh hearings, disqualify him from becoming the nominee. In the #MeToo era women, and women of color, are going to reject an aging white male with that dark stain on his record in favor of younger, racially and sexually diverse candidates, like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker. Added to that is his establishment support for the big banks and lucrative speaking fees that hurt Hillary Clinton. And finally, there's his lack of judgment in supporting a Republican House candidate in the upper Midwest where Clinton lost the election while the Democrats needed "all hands on deck" to take back the House. If you really want someone like Biden with his blue-collar appeal, there's a much better candidate available. That's Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) who knows how to connect these voters and win in the important Midwest red, swing state of Ohio.
2
The difference is Democrats rely on reason and clarity while Republicans are masters of propaganda and appeal to our fears. That Trump is in the White House is testimony to the effectiveness of propaganda . In the next round it will require the clarity and intelligence of people like AOC to quickly deflate Republican propaganda balloons.
Keep thinking like this and you'll guarantee Trump another victory.
5
I like Biden - but his day is past - time to go LEFT and fight to the death.
1
@APO "to the death?" Spoken like a true, to-the-barricades Starbucks wannabe revolutionary.
2
Trump Republicans say this prayer each night: "We pray the Democrats stand a socialist candidate for president in 2020. Amen."
Never Trump Republicans say this prayer each night: "We pray the Democrats stand a moderate for whom I may cast my vote. Amen."
Choose wisely, my Democratic friends.
3
Here's the nub of the problem: "If there’s a major division within Democratic politics, it’s between those who confront and those who seek to accommodate. Because we lack a varied vocabulary in mainstream political discourse, we call the latter “moderates” or “centrists,” which doesn’t capture the dynamic at work."
What do you mean "we" journo-man? I never ever call these guys moderate. I only see that on the news or in the paper, which usually elicits a string of epithets from me. I say we come up with a bevy of expressions to describe these guys. "Accommodationist" works. "Oligarch appeasers" works. How about "Plutocrat patsies?"
1
The best candidate is the one who will win against 45*.
2
The truly ironic part of all this is the Heckles and Jekylls of the Left are going to get their turn at bat...whereupon because they will not transform society in a day, or a month of Sundays as they insist they can, they will be turned out as quickly as one can say “identity is fate”, and of course the result will be exactly the opposite of their desires. Less pluralistic, more Orwellian, more like ‘Bladerunner’ than they can even imagine. Well done.
2
Didn't Hillary run as a centrist? How'd that work out? If Democrats want to run as mealy-mouthed, milquetoast centrists who dance around the issues, spew platitudes and court suburban Republicans with the retching rhetoric of "I'll be able to reach across the aisle and work with the other side", fine, go ahead. Count me out. I'll be voting Third Party or writing in my choice. And don't even try voter shaming me with "But Trump will win, how can you." He will have already won if Democrats plan do something as stupid as last time.
1
Yes last year I wanted Biden who was trustworthy and shows Emotional Intelligence, however with Planet Earth in crisis I want someone who will take this on full frontal. We say all we want in these pages, but until the climate crisis is solved not much else matters.
Did you ever wonder why no one big on Wall Street or the large banks went to jail during the 2008 collapse.
Check contributions made to Obama's Presidential run.
1
Biden is a Republican in disguise.
You quote him on the "billionaires are as patriotic as poor people." How ignorant. The question is why are billionaires patriotic and why are poor people patriotic? Different reasons and of course that answer is one group are radical capitalists who buy off our congresspeople and get more votes for themselves. What an ignorant thing to say. Joe is cute but we hope he does not get in the white house. His time is gone and perhaps the Democratic Party needs to go. Minimally, we need some modern people in there who can solve our problems and give us true democracy and true government and as far away from Ayn Rand's philosophy as we can get. Let's get real and modern have a decent real democracy.
1
The Biden Fallacy is sponsored by the corporations. They would love to see Biden win the presidency...he is their dream guy. He will follow in the path of "his mentor," Barack Obama...safe and sane and fruitless. Yes, the corporate donors corralled our former president as soon as he showed he could run a campaign. And then, all those promises he made to the electorate sort of got lost in the shuffle; read "Buyers Remorse" by Bill Press. Biden is more arrogant but he sold out years ago to the other side. He would probably be more comfortable as a republican, but they wouldn't have him...same with the Clintons. But there is one label they all have in common: Neoliberals.
1
Welcome to the Times, Mr. Bouie! Always enjoyed your pieces at Slate and looking forward to reading you here. This piece is on point! There will be no true progress for the people if so called "moderates" pander to the wealthy.
1
Former VANCOUVER City Prosecutor, Josephine Townsend accused me of “...having a problem with authority.” I was puzzled by the comment because she intended it as a put-down. I asked her where she got this information, since I hardly knew Townsend. She looked at me with fake compassion and said, “Your ex husband Howard told me.” I laughed all the way home. I guess I was a bad wife since I didn’t do as I was told by the authority figure in my home (said tongue in cheek). On the other hand, Townsend confirmed why I filed for divorce from an abusive divorce attorney.
We need checks on authority figures. . . Obviously. If you don’t have problems with authority, your conscience will never awaken to take responsibility for your life. . . and be there for others.
There isn't a candidate yet on the left with more than a 50% chance of beating Trump, and almost all of us know it. We are waiting for Obama, JFK.... Martin Sheen!... someone with charisma. Every liberal President since Truman has been under 56, male, charismatic, appeared very liberal and was a DC outsider. ... if they didn't tick all 5 boxes they lost.
1
"...it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege." Exactly! But reference to beating Jim Crow and to welfare reform—good God, man, don’t call this excuse a “welfare state”--is meaningless without reference to context. Two world wars! Black men needed for war! A major depression! Massive unemployment! Industry on the verge of extinction! Unless American oligarchs and plutocrats are faced with similar loss of status and assets, I don’t see what leverage the people have. In fact, there isn’t even a “people,” deluded as many are by the Pied Piper of white supremacy, xenophobia, and denial of science. I can think of many reasons not to support Biden or Bloomberg, but in the end it’s about winning the big election. Holding our breath until we pass out will not do that. So let’ get real about winning, ASAP. And stop whining about who is the purest of them all.
1
There’s a brass plaque on San Francisco’s Embarcadero that commereorates Bloody Thursday. The 1934 Maritime, Longshoreman strike and the “shape-up” system. Workers had to ask for employment each morning, and jockey against each other for a job for the day. Workers who got “uppity” were noted in “the blue book”. Employers could intentionally hire fewer than necessary to pick up the pace.
Silicon Valley, it’s tech employers and “Contractors”. Time to remove the Tech Shape-Up system?
Joe Biden can get elected over Donald Trump. Little else counts. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
2
Mr. Bouie doesn't believe that a "mutually beneficial solution" is possible, or reasonable, but I'd suggest it's the only type of solution that works. That's why demonizing doesn't work. It is indeed mutually beneficial for the wealthy and privileged to cede some of their wealth and privilege for a more egalitarian society.
Yes, there are extremes who will make the most noise and carry on the biggest fight, but the extremes don't change minds. The moderates have the best shot at changing the cultural mindset.
1
There is no necessary equivalence between "broadly popular positions" and moderation, and still less so between such ideas and logic or rationality. The triumph of Adolf Hitler in the Germany of the 1930's should be a sufficient example to confirm that observation. The ideas of a substantial number of Americans--denial of climate change, clamor for a border wall, trickle-down economics, identity politics, white nationalism--are no less suspect for being embraced by millions. Popularity is a statistical concept, not a rationalistic, jurisprudential, or logical one. This country was founded on a fundamental distrust of "broadly popular positions" by placing fortified intermediaries--indirect election of a chief executive, appointed justices, and the various impediments to voting--between the inevitably conflicting desires of the people and the actual exercise of governmental power. What the people say they want--in anything but one voice--and what enables a country to function in a moderate way are not necessarily synonymous and often are, in fact, polar opposites.
33
Joe Biden says: "wealthy Americans are just as patriotic as poor folks". True; they also pay far less in taxes, and they intend to keep it that way.
Next time a politician promises to cut your taxes, ask yourself: "Who paid him/her?"
2
Mister Bouie seems to endorse anger and confrontation as a way to get things done. The irony here is that he succeeds in arousing the anger of a lot of moderate liberals—I include myself here—against voices like his, because we see his tactics as playing directly into the hands of Trump and Trump supporters. His rhetoric is precisely of the kind that will turn off middle-of-the-road voters in 2020, and again allow Trump to win states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It seems to me that Mister Bouie’s assessment of public preference is mainly wishful thinking on his part.
3
The fact that people like Jeff Bezos, Howard Schulz and Mike Bloomberg became billionaires through their ideas and hard work does not preclude any other American from aspiring toward financial success. I’m so tired of the Jamelle Bouie’s of this country bellowing about class struggle and racial hatred. Where was all this blather just two years ago when Obama left office? Think of it: some of the largest groups of millionaires in this country are in professions like the NBA and NFL, people who have excelled in their work and have been richly rewarded. There always has been and always will be income inequality in our capitalist system, yet this American system has managed to create the largest middle class in human history. If there’s one thing President Trump understands, it’s that jobs are the driving force of our society, and good—paying jobs are the priority and the road to success and security for the greatest number of people. He knows, because he created thousands of good-paying jobs throughout his construction years in New York.
1
Our country doesn't elect liberals as Presidents, at least not in 50 years. Progress comes slow and progress comes from nominating moderates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and having them nominate left-of-center judges and justices and people to oversee departments.
Your praise of the most radical during the civil rights era fails to mention Jackie Robinson's call for "personal responsibility" and the derision it received at the time.
Votes for Ralph Nader in Fla. paved the way for attacking Iraq and far left 3rd parties did similar damage in 2016.
We need a candidate that doesn't satisfy the left-wing base of the democratic party. We can't risk it all on that chance. Not at this crucial time.
1
A socialist democracy is not radical. Higher taxes on the rich is not radical. Access to health care and education is not radical. A living wage is not radical. A social safety net and all it encompasses is not radical.
Take a very close look at who is telling you this is something radical. At who is trying to convince you that it will "ruin America". Odds are this is a very wealthy individual, or a minion sent in his name.
2
"Antagonism, indignation, anger — these qualities don’t diminish democracy or impede progress. " How about empathy and deep listening? Civil discourse, dialogue?
The party of hate.
the party of envy and disparagement of others.
The party of identity politics, rather than unity.
The party of division and fanning the flames of outrage.
May we all hold our beliefs lightly, And, listen with open hearts to others. May we all assume positive intentions in others, including people of different races, ethnicity, and economic status (including rich folk)
Capitalism ain't perfect, but it is far far better than any alternative. Of this, economic history is crystal clear.
2
Economic interests of different groups are what ultimately drives politics. The upper 1% and corporations pursue their interest and subsidize and encourage politicians who espouse their interests, such as Biden. He got $200,000 for a single speech in Michigan in which he praised the local Republican congressman who won election by a single digit. Biden is hired staff for the 1%.
1
It has been my experience that anger in the streets must be balanced with thoughtful discussions around a table.
Demonstrations garner the media's attention; they provide sensational headlines accompanied by dramatic photographs which prompt citizen conversations. But it is the measured discussion participated in by those who can change the course that ultimately alter any situation.
So who really has the 'power'? Both groups are essential but meetings that devolve into screaming matches accomplish nothing except elevated blood pressure.
Unfortunately anger in the streets has is now mostly played out as anger in the hashtag. Much thumb typing is devoted to various outrages but each in turn gives way to the next outrage diminishing forward momentum on any one topic. The public lacks the organizational leadership of Jim Crow protests or the Women's Suffrage movement. This scattered energy is lost on politicians except to take advantage of the momentary photo-op.
Change always comes through upheaval. The current occupant of the Oval Office is the catalyst to burn off the dross and awaken a more elevated society. Hopefully the replacement will be a measured, articulate individual and will avoid vulgar antagonism as many of the newly elected Representatives seem to relish.
Through all this we should still celebrate our system of government. Other countries have descended into civil war over less strife than we now have.
1
I believe that we have some identity confusion with the uses of "accommodate" versus "struggle" in this piece. People like Cortez accommodate extreme views- it is very easy to say "I'll make college and healthcare free" without a sound backing to these words, without a plan. You win votes by demonizing the other and painting it as a struggle.
Let's compare this to Bloomberg, who takes nuance in his view on healthcare and tax reform. He's thought this out, he has a reasoning to what he's saying. That's struggle- struggle against ignorance and populism. And to boldly make these statements as part of your platform is arguably political suicide in the age of extremes.
Look, I'd love free college and universal healthcare. But there are externalities to these things and conditions to be met. Give the people what they want to hear and say "I support free healthcare! I'm going to tax the living daylights out of the rich!" That's short sighted and accommodating of a populist view on an issue most of us (myself included) haven't crunched the numbers on. To say "wait a minute, this is a nice idea in principle but..." is to fight the stream and do what's best in the long term, when most of us merely think of the here and now. That's true struggle- a struggle against ignorance and having our best interests in mind, even if they may not seem so in the moment. We have to call the situation for what it is- the future should be one of Bloombergs and Bidens in office, not Cortez's.
Most progressives agree with this sentiment, but it collides with electability - at the top spot, anyway. There's still a lot of conservatives and independents to be swayed, even if you don't count red hats. Couple that with all the healing that need be done when this presidency implodes. Forget the billionaires mentioned, but even many Progressives acknowledge someone like Biden (if only for one term) is like MAGA-Narcan for 2020, if coupled with a more progressive running mate. The real issue isn't wanting progress as much as how incremental it need be to get it done.
1
We should nominate Sherrod Brown (assuming he runs). An undoubted progressive, he has proven he can carry the kinds of states we must win in order to prevail in the Electoral College: he has been elected to the Senate three times in Ohio.
1
Centrism has gotten a bad name. Maybe it should be re-branded as pragmatic progressivism. The goals of centrists are most aligned with what we would consider the farther left. We all agree on the need for universal healthcare, but there is more than one path to getting there. The path that doesn't blow up the current system of private insurance but achieves incremental change might be the most effective. President Obama was a centrist Democrat who move the needle on many issues. Despite Trump's attempt to move the needle back, much of his achievements will endure.
Politics has been called the art of compromise. You rarely get everything on your wish list, at least not at once. Let's not demonize Democrats who take a pragmatic approach to progressive goals, and who, like Biden, are sometimes willing to compromise with Republicans toward that end.
1
A moderate position can only be viable when both parties to the debate are willing to meet somewhere near the midpoint. The analogy may be inaccurate but there is no midpoint in the Middle East when Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran vow to destroy Israel. The right wing of the Republican party, having destroyed Republican moderates, seems unwilling to compromise on virtually anything.
Only Bernie Sanders has consistently supported Universal Health Care, free state-college tuition, control of the crooked banks and a
15$ minimum wage. Biden and friends have supported a few of these to become more appealing to the electorate, but, as someone who is blind to the egregious faults of the Republican party and refuses to condemn them after their recent performance, he will fudge and betray. Only Bernie can carry through an agenda for the people. Democrats, don't make the mistake you made last time. Too much is at stake.
1
In one fashion or other, "I've got mine; to Hell with you" pervades our collective senses and is a source of chronic reaction in our politics. Ministering to either the economically wealthy (lower taxes) or poor (cheap-or-"free" health care) doesn't change that. Either way, some pay the bill for while others don't. Nature itself finds equality to be the brass ring always just out of reach ~ sort of like Making America Great (Again).
This rhetoric sounds quite a bit better than it really is.
The problem lies in "blowback." Consider Mitch earlier this week who equated - roughly - making sure that as many people as possible who are eligible to vote DO vote ... with a "power grab" by the Democrats.
Consider Trump's SOTU, starting a war against 2020's version of "Mex. rapists" - socialism.
Let's stop with the latter, because you can be almost sure that the only candidate who'll get through 2 or 3 primaries with 5% of the vote and even mention socialism is Bernie, who's - face facts! - not just DOA as a viable candidate in 2020, but not anything other than a toxic, divisive force in the Democratic party at this point.
Not only is America 50 years or more away from considering how much better Canada and European countries are - flawed though many of them are - than the US, principally because they DO take better care of their citizenry, ...
if issues a little ahead of their time like "free college education" are too prominent, we'll just see that 2020 turns out same as 2016.
White women then certainly weren't ready for much in the way of change - don't confuse the millions who've marched with the 10's of millions of women who "went along" with their angry husbands.
And remember, African-Americans - while they've been reliable in supporting Democrats over Republicans - seldom turn out at anything like the rate they should. Both critical constituencies to a Dem. win are the furthest thing from radical!
1
There is much to agree with in Bouie's column, but he incorrectly assumes that the majority view is important. Our electoral system is heavily weighted toward the 10 swing states that decide the presidency and the 20 or so small states that decide the senate. It is easy to imagine policies that could increase liberal majorities in California and New York, but work against electing leaders who could implement those policies. Just ask Hillary.
2
Isn't it ironic that as we discuss a war against the well off, New York City is struggling because of lower tax revenues resulting from the stock market correction.
The big tent of the Democratic Party is big enough for candidates and voters with a wide range of views, but Jamelle Bouie is right about the misguided moderates like Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Terry McAuliffe and certainly Howard Schultz.
The key is the need to avoid disparaging candidates whose views are much more liberal or left-wing. The public remarks of Biden, Bloomberg, McAuliffe and Schultz – ridiculing the more progressive candidates – were way out of line
Antagonism, Indignation, Anger....
Isn't that what we have been experiencing from Trump for the last 2 years. There is a self righteous moralizing that occurs on the far left, where protesting by and of itself is seen as a moral act.
It represents an American myopia, that is sadly lacking in an understanding of world history.
Antagonism, Indignation, and Anger could just as well reflect Germany in the 1930's.
How did that work out?
3
Unless we can create a firewall between the vast amounts of private and corporate wealth available to influence public policy in this country from our deeply flawed electoral process, we won’t change course. The existence of a few progressive billionaires who support Democrats doesn’t make me feel one bit better. When I hear Alexandria Octavio-Cortez, at a mere 29 years old, exposing our political system for what it is, mincing no words, and then imagining a couple hundred more of her taking their seats in Congress over the coming years, I feel a slither of hope. But it will be a bloody political war; no-one ever willingly relinquishes power paid for by wealth.
1
Most voters don't share the left's criticism of the wealthy, and in fact, believe that the rich are smarter and better than the rest of us. In spite of proof to the contrary, millions of voters believed that Trump was a smart businessman. They roared their approval when he told them how rich he was and how only fools pay taxes. Even though so much has been written about how Trump's fortune was given to him, his base still thinks he's "self-made." Even though we know he's lied about his wealth for decades and is actually worth much less than what he's claimed, millions of his followers still think that he is a great man because he's a rich man. Americans are in awe of and obsequious to the rich, convinced they know more than we do. If Trump isn't re-elected in 2020, it's very likely that one of these other billionaires will be elected president. We just can't get over our obsession and admiration for anyone rich.
The problem with Messrs. Biden, Bloomberg, McAuliffe and Schultz is that they are still parked on Wall Street at a time when the Democratic Party needs to find its way back to Main Street.
3
The problem with so-called centrist Democrats is that they are what used to be called mainstream Republicans. Other than their views on social issues they are not much different than Ronald Reagan.
The most recently elected Democratic Presidents have been from the "centrist" model and that includes President Obama. After coming to power in the teeth of the Bush recession and market collapse, his Justice Department did not prosecute one bankster or any of the other fraudsters who triggered the crisis. Too be honest, he bailed out the banksters and did very little for the mass of people ripped off. He also embraced the National Security State and droned SW Asia killing civilians while collecting an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize.
These people need to go back to their natural home- the Republican Party- and fix it. When centrist Republicans abandoned the party the right wing took the whole thing over, leading to the current craziness.
3
@David Gregory, you are 100% correct.
Self righteous anger may get a nomination and a lot votes.
And lose a lot of votes. Anger can focus arguments, and dismiss others. Anger can be reasonable but many sense a choice of reason over emotion, cool Obama over heated Trump.
1
Theodore Roosevelt, our greatest Progressive, busted monopolies but not the corporations themselves. He helped clean up our food and water supplies and working conditions, and gave us our National Parks system, but he didn't wipe out companies, Standard Oil notwithstanding.
There is a middle way. Joe Biden might not be the presidential candidate I'd choose to run against that crook and parasite Donald Trump, but he might win where a younger, polarizing lefty would fail.
Not all young Democratic candidates are polarizing or lefty, of course, but since we are dealing in stereotypes -- you know, the old white moderate guy . . . .
1
There are roughly three types of voters in the US. There are conservatives, who are socially and economically conservatives. They will always vote Republican. They are the true identity types, as they want a US exclusively for the whites. There are progressives, who are socially and economically liberal, and inclusive in all races and sexual preferences. That's not identity politics, quite the opposite, but you would not guess that from the press. Then there are the economically liberal and socially conservative. The latter has most to do with the fact that they're also white, and want them to keep dominating. The former is of course just common sense. You may call them white welfare voters. These voters usually determine the election result, as at least some of them waver between parties, depending on whether the campaign is about social issues (Trump) or economic issues (Obama). So they're often called that way, as Reagan democrats, Obama-Trump voters, or Bush-Obama voters.
The "centrists" fall into the fourth category, socially liberal and economically conservative. I did not yet mention them because they hardly exists as voters, according to polls they constitute around 4% of the voters. However in DC and the press you'd think they constitute the huge majority "in the middle". They're neither majority nor in the middle, they're pretty radical, going against 96% of the voters. That's because they're exclusively the 1% and their cheerleaders.
After reading Mr. Bouie's words as opposed to the quotes from Joe Biden in his piece, I am even more strongly in favor of a Joe Biden and what he represents. Resist extremism. Be nice, be reasonable.
1
I rue the day that we allow those who are most resentful of successful people to gain power. The irony in your piece is that you want some beneficent ruler to dictate what healthcare people can have, and how much money they are allowed to earn by helping other people. You claim you want to speak truth to power, and then you want to set up an involuntary healthcare system where we cannot get the care we want, but only that doled out by our benefactor. And then of course the system would not incentivize the creation of more innovations in health care, because it is not backed by private donors, but mandated and stolen by the government. I'm tired of these self-proclaimed virtuous progressives. THere is NO SUCH THING as a virtuous progressive. They rule by edict and don't tolerate dissent. Progressives should be ashamed of themselves.
3
It is my belief that those who support and demand excessive taxation of the rich and the pie-in-the-sky "Medicare for All," lack significant life experience. AOC is one that lacks life experience, on the other hand, Elizabeth Warren does not and she supports these issues because she knows there are those out there who do. I am not rich. I am in the upper-middle-class but I do not want to tax the rich for the reasons expressed by Bloomberg and others. Moreover, I do not want Medicare for all; that's not to say that I don't want people not to have access to healthcare, but Medicare for All is not the answer. It would require a significant increase in taxes, which I do not support! I already pay too much in taxes. I do not want to pay any more. And I betcha I am not the only hardworking, by the sweat of my brow, American who feels that way! Above all, Medicare for All will never happen because the insurance industry is too powerful. The USG would have to abolish it or outlaw their right to sell health insurance and that would be unconstitutional. The kind of populist reforms proposed by the radical left, which includes most of the Democrat Party now, would require a Bolshevik-style revolution. Does Comrade Pelosi and rest of them have the guts for that? I doubt it, especially after AOC gets comfortable with her $174,000 annual salary. Cheers!
3
@Southern Boy,
Lack life experience? You obviously know nothing about the background of AOC or Warren. Working as a bartender to make ends meet, and being a single parent on a low teacher's salary in the latter case - ring any bells?
In regards to your comment, allow me to paraphrase some well used modern lingo about 'haters':
"Bootlickers gonna lick"
1
@Mike,
I have read all about the two. AOC is 29 years old, Warren is 69 years old. I'd say she has far more life experience than AOC. Yes, Warren had some tough times but now she and her hubby have a combined net between $4-11 million. Will she and her hubby part with that wealth, turn it over to the state for redistribution? I seriously doubt it. Oh, you forgot to mention that AOC worked as a waitress at a taqueria. Again, life experience. Cheers!
This. Right here. Everything in is the article. This is best thing I've read all week.
Obama was a moderate. He is also, in retrospect, easily forgotten. Moderation got us Trump. Trump made a dramatic ( though dishonest) appeal to the guts of voters, tuend them into supporters, on many many issues...and they voted for him. And, HRC, the hood ornament for polished liberal moderates failed...milk toast.
After the cataclysmic failure of Trump ( the equivalent of the FYRE music festival) people want responsive government. For example: If not Medicare for all..then Medicare for the almost destitute, who are non medicaid eligible. How about giving seniors on Social Security basic dental coverage since dental care is directly related to heart disease. How about a humane immigration policy that celebrates those that want to live here, are already here or want to come...And a foreign policy that is fair and even handed.
We don't want Joe Biden. He is Obama 2.0. Safe, careful, moderate and..yes... boring. We need pizazz, enthusiasm, curiosity, humanity and zeal...combined with experience, adventurousness and vision.
I love the votes from Cooper. Smack on. Neither side should expect to get everything they want, all the time. The concept of the Senate and/or House blocking everything the president wants to do on principle, even if they might agree with it, b/c he is of the opposite party, is antithetic to the idea of a two-party system.
This is the time to stand up and be counted. Not the time to be namby-pamby.
I’m nearly 74. But I can see clearly that this nation needs radical change. Not a middle of the road capitulation.
I am thrilled by the voices that are standin up. Both young and old. I look at Jeff Bezos who is willing to risk even nude pictures coming out - in order to stand up to extortion and abuse. I look at Occasio-Cortez and Stacy Abrams and Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi and others.
This is not the time to give in to those who are trying to lead the nation astray or simply look to the past.
Stand up,folks! Otherwise this nation is going down the wrong road where so much is wrong. Need I list all the terrible things we’ve lived through under a madman, a criminal who has been supported by cowardly sycophants in his own party?
I need Courage! I need people voicing the Truth! I do not need compliance I’m the name of “compromise.” Give me creative thinking to solve the huge problems this nation has. Give me investigations and arrests and an end the to “occupation” of the White House by a criminal administration, that must end. Give me a roll-back of cruelty and crazy, word salads and nincompoopery.
The old and the young are ready to join hands and take this nation back!
1
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were both well to the partisan political right of FDR and LBJ as expected. But Bill and Barack were also well to the partisan political right of Ike and Nixon. The Obamas have joined the Clintons in making millions " earned" from their " public service".
Joe Biden is not going to be President. Joe's mental and verbal malapropisms are legendary and endearing. The myth of the Democratic appeal to the white working class was buried beneath 57%, 59% and 58% white voters voting McCain/Palin. Trump/Ryan and Romney/Price.
1
Yes, I am angry; however, I see Biden as a bridge. Pair Biden with a younger, more progressive candidate for Vice President which will position the Democrats to move more left in the future. Meanwhile, give Biden four years to clean up the Trump mess. Remember, Trump is leaving a huge, huge mess internationally and in our own government. Clean up the executive, get people hired and point them in the right direction. Give the Republicans the opportunity to ditch McConnell's leadership and cleanse their party of his influence. The younger Democrat talent time will have time to hone their skills. Not all the wealthy are our enemies and if we the American public remain firm, change will occur. Our sheer numbers give us the power, we just need to recognize and exercise that simple fact.
1
I must say I'm heartened by this article and the most popular comments to it. Just two years ago this very publication gave little, if any, ink to truly progressive ideas or people. It was so maddening that I came close to abandoning my subscription many times. The NYT all but ignored Bernie Sanders, as did the rest of the mainstream media. Unfortunately it took a catastrophic presidency and an unhinged GOP to get us to the point where we are starting to have the right conversations.
Too long. I'll try it again tomorrow.
Let us not forget that Bernie was extremely popular and I am certain that he would have beat Trump. I cannot count the number of Republicans that I know that liked him. Moderates are nothing but a continuation of Reaganesque policies today. So then nothing ever happens, creating more anger. Bold brave leaders are craved today.
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
George Orwell (Animal Farm)
1
This is Mr Bouie's most articulate and incisive article since he joined the NYT. There is no question that service to the "donor class" was the be-all and end-all for politicians of both parties in the 1992-2016 era.
Bill Clinton invented the new "serve the donors" mantra, and George W Bush and Barack Obama kept it going. Even the ACA (Obamacare) was tilted to favor drug manufacturers and health insurers above patients.
Trump opened an avenue for change by beating the money-buys-votes paradigm. Democrats do not need to sink back into that now-old and stale paradigm. Instead, we can confront. And as we do, we should make ourselves open to including more voters under our umbrella.
We should not be damning and demeaning those who voted for Trump. They are not all racists or homophobic. Many were just tired of, and disappointed with, the tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum of GOP and Democratic campaigns during a pretty nightmarish status quo.
If Democrats can find common ground and build an aggressively positive message and agenda, and stop heckling and backbiting, we can win some elections in the 2020's. Mr Bouie is on to a big potential development in the Democratic party.
This reminded me a lot of an excellent article in Politico by Nick Hanauer, who argued that the "majoritarian" points of view are actually of the left. I wonder if the author used that article as inspiration.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/14/democrats-must-reclaim-the-center-by-moving-hard-left-219354
Centrism is for people who never take a risk.
4
I wish Joe Biden would realize that his time has come and gone. Biden is older than Trump -- Father Time and Mother Nature are not on his side anymore. For over 30 years Democrats have repeatedly said NO to Joe Biden during his ill fated presidential runs. His campaigns for the White House always crash and burn early.
There is never going to be a President Biden. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Not sure where the "fallacy" is. The only thing that matters now is that Democrats win the election in 2020 and the Prez candidate coattails carries the Senate too. That is why the best ticket is Biden/Obama. ( Barack or Michelle).
2
MY ARGUMENT With Jamelle Bouie is that he misinterprets some quotes from Biden. Joe Biden hales from a time when it was centrist to work across the aisle in Congress, a political act that is viewed as a travesty, and can result in attacks and punishments from party leaders. For example, Trump's going to campaign for a favored candidate before midterm elections. Trump of all people encourages extremism. Actually, Judge David Hale has found Trump guilty of incitement to violence by encouraging supporters to "get rid of" protesters. Trump promised to pay their legal fees. It's hardly a surprise that I saw on a program for one of Trump's "rallies," The Grand Wizard Speaks. Or something like that. In fact, I believe that Trump has caused the 4th coming of the KKK, installing members and sympathizers into the White House. Nixon was considered hold to the ideas of the GOPper radical right wing extremists and splinter groups of hardcore loonies. Today, Nixon would be considered a raving liberal, simply because of the social programs he signed into law, such as such as Medicaid and others. Indeed, Nixon had enough hate for both sides to make him eminently despicable. What has been since lost is the Power-to-the-People, the logical, rational debate in the public square. GOPper "litmus tests" center on religious beliefs rather than the greatest good for the greatest number. Yes, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. So debate and VOTE VOTE!
1
This is in part a generational divide, not a party division. People tend to moderate as they get older (on both sides), as through experience we see what is possible and what is not. I think it's great that the young firebrands push the envelope, and good ideas emerge (on both sides) that are legislated and moderated in Congress and the White House; ideas that benefit a plurality. The problem right now is dysfunction in the White House and Congress, which contributes to the anger of many voters.
It's the old dilemma, " You can't simultaneously prepare for war, at the same time preparing for peace". Or from economics 101, what do you want to produce as a Nation Guns or Butter. It's very obvious the United States is more interested in Guns, and preparing for war. With a 700,000,000,000. Billion budget for the military, there is very little left for any social safety net, education, medical care for all citizens etc. These "so called " moderates who insist we can't afford spending on social issues, well, I guess they have no problem spending more on the Military budget than the next 7-9 countries combined. We as a Nation have our priorities back-ward. Do we really need 1000 military installations in other countries around the world? Lets immediately reduce that number by 1/3 then 1/2, and see what happens. We have hard choices to make as a Nation, lets start by reducing the Military budget by 25%, then 30%, and finally 33% and see if the Russians still want to invade us and take our cars out of our garages.
3
@DPK. But when Trump says he’s bringing troops home, liberals scream.
1
The billionaire's club wants things to stay the same. They love to say "we can't afford it" or "it is radical" or "it will ruin the economy". Reality is: We can afford it, we are the richest country in the world, it isn't radical if it has been in place in Scandinavian countries for 70+ years and you can't ruin the economy by growing a larger more economically stable middle class.
2
@Typical Ohio Liberal. There are only 500 billionaires, so what are you talking about?
1
"Progressive" and "Centrist" are misleading terms. Progressives should be called divisive, because for them, politics is always cast as an us vs. them struggle. Centrists, like Biden and Bloomberg, are better thought of as inclusive, because they believe that the interests of everyone, regardless of how close they are to the center of the distribution, should be taken into account in creating and managing a cohesive society.
2
“Free stuff”, whether Medicare, college or whatever, is generally worth exactly what you pay for it. Politicians use it to buy the votes of those who covet what they are not willing to work for. The problem is that you must constantly promise more to disguise the fact that the original promise wasn’t kept, so we now have “Medicare for All” replacing Obamacare and “guaranteed minimum income” replacing the hourly minimum wage. It’s easy to see how this moves liberal politicians further and further left. Hopefully, enough people understand that no attempt at legislated socialism has ever succeeded. A centrist candidate has the best chance at success.
3
The minute you give yourself a label--"moderate," "centrist," whatever--you antagonize someone whose definition of the term may be different from your own. If Joe Biden runs--and I fervently hope he does--I think his message should avoid labels. Something along the lines of : "I'm Joe Biden, you know me." That's the only identifier he needs, because we DO know him, and we like him. He's an Everyman for our age. To nail it, he needs to choose a sensible woman for VP--not a firebrand who has already accumulated enemies or a "socialist" label.
1
From my point of view as someone about to retire and a member of the middle class, we have been trying incremental progress for 40 years and have gotten nowhere. Depending on which analysis I read, at the cap of my career my salary is probably only equivalent to the minimum wage I made decades ago. I applaud AOC, Warren, Harris and the 100 new women in congress and can't wait to see what they can accomplish. AOC is exposing what we've been up against. Let's give progressivism a try.
Absolutely on Target, Mr Bouie. What is the point of "winning powerful interests over to your side" when doing so actually moves you over to their side?
If the last several years of Republican control has taught us nothing else, we should niw know full well that "meaningful progress is [im]possible without a fundamental challenge to those who hold most of the wealth and power in our society."
While we have sat idle, we have let those challenges slip away through the decimation of labor unionism and the false siren of supply-side economics, which have been shown over and over again simply to be wrong.
Political power shifts only through actively persistent confrontation. This does not have to be violent or anti-constitutional, but it must be strong and relentless, pedal to the metal all the way.
3
Two of the greatest reformers in our political history, TR and FDR, understood that privileged
Uber-rich achieved their status not merely through their hard work and ingenuity, and not merely on the backs the workers they exploited, but because they had the political deck of cards stacked in their favor. It is not the denial of social welfare (which is one of The plutocratic goals) that tipped the balance in their favor, but control of the levers of power, Both sought to balance the interests of all of the rest of us against the weight of the fat cats. Antitrust legislation, work safety laws, progressive taxation. strengthening labor rights, when paired with a government funded safety net, helped create a middle class.
What the “centrists” either fail to comprehend, or in the case of Schultz and Bloomberg, are willfully blinded to by self interest and egomaniacal self regard, is that the fat cats are forever fighting back...and through lobbying and campaign financing, have upended a delicate balance.
TR sought to tarnish the detrimental effects of the guided age, FDR sought to restore
dignity and security to the multitudes devastated by the flaws in our capitalist economy which
resulted in the depression. We need a dedicated fighter to rebalance the power to solve the problems that the wealthy have been able to shield themselves from, but which afflict society as a whole.
1
Mr. Schultz showed his ignorance by describing Social Security as an "entitlement". Social Security is an insurance program into which Americans have paid premiums and are therefore owed benefits. Perhaps the benefits are out of sync with the premiums, but if so that is a financial problem, not a political one.
You are conflating two types of conflict one of which has never enjoyed much legitimacy in this country. The labor movement succeeded because workers were demanding what were clearly understood to be basic rights and fundamental decency in working conditions. Civil rights succeeded because African Americans were demanding that they be accorded fundamental constitutional rights that they had been (and have been?) denied. Both movements succeeded because they were claiming benefits to which those in the movements were undeniably entitled by the most basic ethical norms. Free education that enables function as a productive member of society is clearly something that fits this frame as is the right to some level of health care. Certain services like pre-school child care and maternal/paternal leave can also be formulated this way. And defined benefit pensions beyond the control of one's employer is another basic issue of this type that hasn't been much acknowledged. But in demanding greater equality the demand that some portion of great wealth should be seized and redistributed does not have the same moral sanction. In fact it smacks of envy which is seen as sinful or evil in most ethical systems. It is a crucial distinction as Americans have a strong sense of fairness and it makes it hard to understand that going after someone else's wealth as a fundamental right. Any political program will have to confront this issue to succeed.
1
Good points but whoever the Democratic candidate is has to first of all get elected. This means they will be competing for swing voters in a few states, in which case demonizing wealthy people or GOP voters or centrist ideas will cause them to lose the election.
2
Moderates are necessary because they are often the ones who end up paving a way g for the polices of the embattled few elitists in both parties and/or ultimately paying for them through nose. We talk so much about race, gender, environment, equality, energy, economic disparities, and healthcare without "true" agendas that will benefit the country with the implementation of long term planning. There are no "quick fixes" to years of irresponsible socio-economic agendas. There are no "simple" , "right now" solutions to long term issues.
The radical, dogmatic, illogical, and damaging ideological policies promoted by both parties are exactly what got this country in the political upheaval that its in. We need moderates to inspire new ideas, who can breach the seemingly impenetrable walls of emotionalism to build a more egalitarian consensus for action, for new approaches to reverse detrimental social engineering, to build bridges in the areas of technology and human existential futures, to be the buffer between warring factions who care more about their own personal gratification.
Extremists and so called radical thinking can be lauded or the "moderate" advances of social change and a small reduction of racial, sexist, economic, and existential adversities, but those approaches, even with their limited results, are not a blueprint for the long term future of America.
1
Warren may be misquoted. I think the best way to tax the rich is to go after their income that is hidden from the IRS: tax their capital gains. Before Reagan, all income was taxed fairly. Now, a third of the rich are trust fund babies, like Trump who never worked a real job in their entire lives.
As for Biden and the rest of the candidates, they are all establishment democrats. We've seen them sell out election after election to the very donor class with its foot on our necks for generations. We need progressive candidates who can be pragmatic --- younger versions of Bernie Sanders.
There are not enough progressives in the US to win a presidential election. Warren, Harris et al would lose.
Biden is a good choice. His politics are left of center and he is less offensive to whites than the others.
The house of state is on fire with Trump. We need our best chance of putting it out.
5
Politics is loaded with double-standards, none more so than branding those on the left as "radical" or "socialists," sometimes using both. It's an effort to radicalize a movement based on the bottom-up instead of our centuries' old top-down approach to solving problems. Yet, nary a word is mentioned to brand those on the far-right, whose number in offices are far greater at the state and federal levels, including the presidency, as "extreme" or "fascists." Why the double standard? Pundits claim that if the Democrats lean too left, they'll lose the presidential election, but since they provide no proof, there must be another reason, likely preferred to be hidden, to make this claim.
1
A well written article but several presumptions are in error. The welfare state is anything but. It perpetuates itself and keeps down trodden people, down trodden. It is becoming so ingrained in liberal thinking that it believes that some people can never extricate themselves from dependency, especially black Americans.
There will always be differences amongst peoples well being and success in a society. All people are not created equal in physical ability, intellect, and outlook. These three characteristics determine their level of success and their share of the available wealth, comfort, and security.
Government's ability to diminish the differences in the well being of people has a dim record. The Great Society is marked with a tombstone of utter failure and waste.
The article provokes thought but needs a more realistic admission of our country's history and current state of affairs.
1
LBJ's Great Society WAS effective until the republicans chewed it to pieces.
1
We now have an easy test to separate the centrists and moderates from the extremists: How do you feel about guaranteeing economic security to those who are unwilling to work?
2
Instead of so many politicians defining themselves by labeling themselves, why does not someone step up and say I love my country, I salute our ideals and achievements, I recognize we have problems and I will be open and honest about the need for an inclusive dialogue about how to solve them - and solve them we must for the sake of the future. And climate change, income inequality, poisonous racism, injustice are problems that will destroy them if we do not address them now. I hope that politicians will stop calling social security an entitlement - it is an insurance policy we pay into. Medicare is basic - one still has to pay expensive supplemental insurance which is strangely based on what state you came from when you signed up. An entitlement is the benefit wealthy football franchise owners get when taxpayers pay for new stadiums
3
Protest has been needed to oblige attention to injustice. When such protest becomes the popular will, comes the time for discourse. When discourse has run its course, comes the time for legislation and administration. Historically, popular will has often led and guided our leaders, not the other way around. Lincoln and FDR are examples. I do not see many of those branded, "radical," as radical, but elected officials and leaders making reasonable demands for less egregious inequality, action on the environment NOW, a simple right to vote without obstacles. The "moderates" referred to in the column are not moderates at all, imho, but out-of-touch defenders of a status quo. Popular will clearly wants change.
2
There is a reason the many voters in North America turn to centrists governments. They understand that by global and historical comparisons, the vast majority of us are incredibly wealthy. Lots of room for improvement, but I'll take steady incremental progress over revolutionary zeal, thanks.
5
Great work by Bouie - who has been doing amazing work for years on other platforms- and good to see the Times finally incorporating new, fresh voices rather than the same Axis of Boomers and WSJ flotsam that have calcified these pages for the last 2 decades
1
What the Democrats need is a fighter for single payer health care, yes the 1% will fight back hard. This is the thing that most Americans want and need regardless of party. Want to win that is the issue to run with and then make it happen!
Sadly, the 1% won't fight. Not enough.
When Democrats abandoned trade unions and embraced identity politics they lost much of the middle class. Promising things for free to garner votes belongs to third world country politics.
6
The problem with your article is not the content but its conclusions based on the statement that Bloomberg, McAuliffe and Schultz are moderate progressives. They are more like moderate conservatives and only seem like MPs because of the extremists in the WH right now. Thus comparing Biden to them is not a sound argument.
The media need to start looking at Bloomberg, McAuliffe and Schultz and labeling them based on what they say, not what they intend on running as. Plus Schultz is running as an independent so he wont be in the democrat primary.
2
One thing Democrats always forget: Competence matters. You can be the most progressive person on the planet, the Bernie or whomever, but it's competent campaigners and then leaders that will produce change and defeat the facile arguments of the right.
2
President Obama was more than competent. But that didn't help him when he had to fight the republican evil.
The conflicts and polarization this country faces is a function of what Trump and the progressive left share: their basic idea that truth is what we say it is. How then can the progressives be an answer to Trump? They are just more of the same and it is moderates in the middle that will propel us forward, whether they be conservatives or liberals. Think Klobuchar or Harris.
3
I share many of the same goals with the angry ultra liberal 25% of Americans. But in much of America, such people cannot get elected Dog-catcher. We need centrist candidates like Joe Biden (who represent our objectives and have broad appeal).
Remember that Hillary was a flawed candidate. She did not truly represent centrists.
3
I'm an old woman, cynical and fed up, but I believed and still do that Hillary Clinton had "paid the price to lead" and that she wanted to go down in history as the first and the greatest champion of the people.
Brilliant conclusion "If there’s a major division within Democratic politics, it’s between those who confront and those who seek to accommodate." I would also add avoid the inevitable, intractable challenges like the environment, healthcare, and the widening wealth gap. Sanders, Warren and Harris etc. are unafraid of the the bogeyman labels like Socialist that Republicans will tattoo on them and demographics may be on their side. Ironically Obama did try to confront the long term difficult challenges establishing the bipartisan Simpson Bowles Commission. This "Moderate" approach failed because neither side including Obama had the political courage to follow through on a long term fiscal plan.
It seems to me that, if we are to survive as a country, we need to start taking the "anger" out of argumentation for passionately held beliefs. We seem to have reached a point (perhaps engendered by reality television programs where there is drama without anger and shouting) where it is impossible to have a discussion about policies that have broad-ranging implications for all of us without shouting and insulting and leaving bad feelings all around, regardless of who wins.
I am not hopeful about what the future holds.
4
I agree entirely. Biden has always sort of made me cringe but I couldn't figure out why until reading this. He is solicitous.
1
Mr. Bouie's use of the words "confront" and "accommodate" to portray progressives on the left and center left moderates is amusing. Accommate is used more as a pejorative, signifying capitulation, rather than compromise which may convey the idea of thoughtfulness.
I prefer thoughtfulness. The issues at hand for the average American: reducing the income divide, how to combat wage stagnation, how to pay for ever increasing college costs, how to deal with increasing health care costs, how to deal with retirement savings, deserve a thoughtful response. Simply placing the word "free" and "more" in front of everything is not a solution, "Free College", "Free Health Care", "More Wages", "More Retirement income". How will we pay for it is a reasonable question.
In order to solve these problems, we need more than an angry demand with the sole solution being "Raise taxes, the rich will pay for it." (The left's version of Trump's answer to who will pay for a wall: "Mexico will pay for the wall.") Unfortunately, we will all pay for the services we use, despite knowing that some are profiteering at the expense of others. Compromise requires that we level with all parties involved so as to find a reasonable solution.
1
The US is a divided nation. Swinging far to the right or far to the left only increases anger and a swing back. The notion that ideological purity should be the test for elective office is faulty.
There is nothing wrong with attempting to bridge the gap, with being moderate. Progress always involves 2 steps forward and one step backwards. That is the history of the US.
Demonizing your political opponents does not solve the problem. Pretending that the other side is "all evil" does nothing to solve national problems. Don't be naive as to how progress is achieved.
As long as we have a strong rural, conservative component in this nation we will always have to seek compromise. Joe Biden has been around long enough to know this. He is a liberal with a track record of reaching across the aisle.
Those who think that compromise is a "sin" are no better than the right wing who hold the same beliefs. It is that kind of thinking that will never lead to real solutions. Beware of those who demonize.
8
Thank you for this opinion piece, Mr. Bouie. Not so long ago I, as a Democrat, could focus on only one candidate-criterion: can the Dem beat trump? By comparison to that urgent goal, the other issues seemed not to matter at the time, and I told myself only a "moderate" candidate could win. Now, as both trump and his chances seem to dwindle, I feel I can start looking at the race in terms of those issues you mention.
Suspicion should always be attached to politicians attempting to lead by embracing economically progressive positions after years of effectively working with the opposition. Yes, fine, we want & need your support in the fight to reclaim & preserve labor's rights, however leadership must lodge with the dedicated & proven partisan of the common man & woman.
The social liberals have cleverly advocated championing the climbing of the illiberal economic ladder & joining the unalloyed plutocrats in flouting superiority & supposed "merit." This is the way the status quo is maintained by those who've suppressed labor, turned back the advances of FDR & maintain power based on flouting illogical wealth & status. These plutocrats & their hopeful fifth columnists are destructive to what we used to call America.
1
If the Democrats gain the presidency and both houses of Congress, they cannot be timid. They must boldly enact and implement a broad range of social programs that are sorely needed to bolster and revive our middle class and working classes, which have been ravaged by the macro-forces of advancing technology, de-industrialization and global trade policies. We will need to vastly reduce the amount of resources that are consumed by an out-of-control defense industry and must reverse the Republican tax give away to the rich. Finally, I'm not mad at rich people, but it is clear that we have reached one of those periods of history where the excesses of a capitalist system have resulted in over-concentration of wealth, income and undue political power. These conditions lead to instability and cannot be sustained, and our economy will work better with an invigorated middle class. (See the work of Piketty and Saenz.)
1
Democrats haven't run a true Progressive for President since McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984. Both lost by the largest electoral vote margins in history. The only way to see if things have changed sufficiently, is to run a real progressive in 2020, and see how it goes. That will either confirm strongly held convictions, else point the way as to what platform to run on in 2024.
@Richard We don't have time for that. I get it, but we simply don't have time anymore. I am so incredulous--and angry and frightened---that people don't understand the environmental crisis that is upon us. We need to run a democratic candidate with the greatest chance to getting elected and ALL democrats vote for him (yes, probably a man. I hate it, but it's a reality).
1
There can be but one goal in 2020- stop Trump. Democrats must select the candidate who is most likely to defeat Trump. While I never suggest voting for a person rather than a platform, this is an election where we must do so.
3
To my way of thinking, a moderate is a person who, while having their own point of view, concedes the legitimacy of their opponent’s point of view & seeks a path forward via dialogue & compromise. Alas, these are tough times for moderates, as evidenced by how little gets accomplished in the federal legislature.
4
Well said. I fully agree. We cannot play the middle any longer as it just a strategy of standing still. We have tried all the conservative economic ideas for years now and all they have done is lead us back to the 1800’s. Where income inequality was so rampant that children worked in factories. Time to tell the excessively wealthy and Corporate America that if we are to maintain our great Democracy then they need to pony up. Hoarding money so one can be on the richest persons list is no panacea for anything. Also, according to the Bible, it is just plain immoral.
1
"In each case, these moderate politicians have positioned themselves against broad public preference. What then makes a moderate, if not policies that appeal to the middle?"
Moderate suggests the middle, but the middle of what?
Middle of voters? Clearly no.
Middle of donors? That may well be.
Middle of the policies on offer? That may be a way to repeat "middle of donors" as "middle of what people with money will buy politicians to say."
That isn't democracy. It is not even a republic. It is a plutocracy, a government of, by, and for the wealthy few.
But it may be a moderate plutocracy, as opposed to outright fascism. And that might be the other choice given to voters.
So what do we do? Accept plutocracy from the corrupt who won't hurt us as much? Or do we stand up and fight back? Do we take some losses doing it, for the longer term good?
Those are basic policy choices. Those who've sold out of course urge that we all sell out.
4
Perhaps we should try to avoid labels such as "moderate," "centrist," and "liberal."
Instead, I suggest that both politicians and voters alike focus on whether candidates have a commitment to and a plan for promoting social justice. Howard Schulz and Michael Bloomberg reject popular paths to social justice, such as medicare for all, without saying how they would assure universal health care. That signals to me that they do not have the commitment to social justice we should require of anyone seeking public office.
The objective must be radically transforming the existing socio-political and legal system to assure that the fruits of our collective economic productivity are enjoyed by the poor, the disenfranchised, and the oppressed first and foremost and not just the well off. A minimum wage of $15/hour (or greater!) or a guaranteed income may be a good way to achieve part of that. Or other policies no one has yet put forward may be necessary. But the goal should be the radical transformation of a system in which tens of millions of people work one or more jobs full time and are still unable to support themselves, let alone a family. There is something profoundly wrong about such a system. A commitment to transform it into something more concretely just for the dispossessed and downtrodden is what we must demand from our would-be leaders--at all levels.
1
Any proposal to tax people other than themselves will always be popular with the untaxed.
2
Everybody pays taxes. Sales tax, gasoline tax, cigarette tax, and liquor tax.
Income tax is only one form of taxation, and in general it is the most fair, as it is progressive.
It's simplistic to condemn those paying little or no taxes for wanting the rich to pay more. The wealth of society has been hoarded by the rich, at the expense of the majority of the people.
That's unjust. And while it may be common sense for the rich to want to hold on to what they've got, it is just as natural for the majority of the people to demand a more equitable society.
2
In reply to John Williams: I don't know whether Frederick Douglas said it better. He said it with greater rhetorical flourish, Anna Julia Cooper said it more directly and pointedly. Each to his own, neither is BETTER than the other. I do note that the rhetorician is a man and the realist is a woman, however.
1
I don't agree with the author, but he is at least consistent. Claiming to be a "resistance,” and nominating Joe Biden, is politically incoherent. If Democrats want to win, and then accomplish something meaningful, they need to offer a real alternative. I don't think Biden does that.
2
The great tragedy of the Obama years was the failure to confront Republicans head on for:
1) The Iraq War
2) Torture
3) 9/11
4) Bank fraud and the economic collapse
5) Scorched earth obstruction
6) Merrick Garland
Moderation, looking forward not backward, were the watchwords, and in the end, Trump is the result. Democrats proved last fall that confrontation works as long as it is mindful of the real issues driving voters. It should be obvious that the strategy going forward needs to be confrontational as well.
Propose a wealth tax over $10M, settle for $50M
Propose a 70% marginal rate, accept 65%
Propose Medicare for all, accept an expansion of Medicare down to age 55 and a buyin below that for people otherwise not covered.
Propose free college, settle for debt free college.
Stop starting where, with luck, you might end up. That's the message coming from Warren, AOC, etc. And it's popular. It'll win votes. Lots of them.
4
Sorry, I don't believe you're going to solve today's problems by shouting louder than the other side.
3
To me, it seems that in order to avoid total calamity, we need to address the concerns of the right while pushing for the policies of the left. That is why I am in favor of building a Wall (the least environmentally destructive possible) in return for huge, popular immigration policy changes including asylum protection and paths to citizenship. The red hats must save face, but their wall will eventually come down.
Bring back the draft, and make all Americans, male and female, bone spurs or not, serve their country in public service or the military.
Tax the rich like it is 1954, because it is. We need to pay the debts that war has caused, and we need to build our infrastructure so we can actually move about the country on roads and bridges that aren't failing.
Stop arguing that capitalism is God, that it has all the solutions and if we just let it run rampant, America will be "great again".
Capitalism is just another tool for the rich to make the poor fearful and powerless, just ask the 50% who are as "rich" as the richest 29 families.
Sure, none of this will come to pass, but only because money has won, big money is running the show, and if an FDR ever showed back up, he would be destroyed by the "centrists".
Can't be too cynical in today's America.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
2
@Hugh Massengill: NOBODY ever paid that 91% marginal rate in 1954 -- literally nobody.
Look it up. Google is your friend. The rich had tax deductions and loopholes to get out of paying back then (more than today, actually).
The amount actually COLLECTED is what matters, and that has consistently been about 40% from the rich over the last 75 years or so.
That is likely too low, but putting in a crazy high marginal rate (then lots of loopholes & deductions) will not end up collecting any more actual taxes.
The Presidency ultimately, regardless of how the incumbent gets elected, is there to serve all of the country, not just some "base". Presidents who fail to act in such a manner tend to do poorly and the country suffers.
Yes, radical approaches to several matters have to be taken, to get the country onto a sustainable, equitable track. But that won't happen without broad support. It will be a test of whoever becomes the next President. However, for even some of that change to happen, someone who wants to try has to get elected. By appealing to only a small radical slice of the electorate, the regressive alternative (i.e., GOP) will be elected and needed change will not happen at all.
It's the paradox of representational government, something that our greatest leaders have had to wrestle with.
1
Moderates have been commodified by a socio-economic system, ie, capitalism, that has consistently evolved (and continues to), to maintain power of the few over the many. To make real progress radical change in thought and action is needed, anything else is just a band-aide
3
While I agree with Mr Bouie I would maintain that what is most important in '20 is to get rid of Trump who is toxic for our planet and especially for the US. And if a democrat from the left can do it then it's two birds with one stone.
That said I am not convinced the existing winner take all system can be reformed from the top down. In Europe where we have paid holidays, relatively free healthcare, reasonable wages, etc, all this is partly the result of powerful trade unions organised at the local level and of governments who encourage their existence as one of the foundation stones of a modern society.
Taxation is absolutely important as is a reasonable wage, healthcare, readily available education, an understanding of the needs of the collective and the dignity of all work.
4
I would argue that the binary 'struggle' versus 'accommodation' isn't sufficient. Certainly angry rhetoric whips up the base that provides the energy and passion for change, but what is often missed is the power wielded by those who channel that passion into transformational change. Those of us engaged in the Civil Rights movement recognized that it required both MLK who generated passion and indeed intellectual focus to the movement and Lyndon Johnson's mastery of political power to usher the Voting Rights Act that changed the USA for the good.
5
One of the basic questions in psychology is whether attitude changes behavior or behavior changes attitude. Our physiology demands emotional equilibrium with graduated changes. Obviously their are exceptions such as the egregious civil rights violations that necessitated legislation such as voting rights and affirmative action to guard against prejudicial judgments. However other areas of legislation don't always require this approach. It's interesting that progressives such as Warren have no trouble giving a detailed account of how they would tax the wealthy in that it only effects a minority of the population. However when it comes to medicare for all proposals they avoid discussions regarding tax increases and how it would effect 80% of the population who are satisfied with their current health care coverage. Obama care did an excellent job of expanding health care incrementally without a major disruption to peoples existing coverage.(Prior to supreme court rulings negating mandatory medicaid increases) Compare that to Hillary's grandiose proposals with it;s regional alliances and rube goldbergish paradigms that ignored the effect it would have on peoples existing coverage. Incrementalism is not cowardice. It acknowledges are need for careful methodical change in social policy.
1
Mr. Bouie is absolutely right. Remember how 20 years ago both parties made even saying the words 'class warfare' not PC? It was directly muting the expression of anger and outrage people were experiencing even then. The corrupt democratic party establishment proposed not speaking out as the best way forward. Very handy for the financial elite to have the party putatively representing the little guy actually working for them.
Class warfare is a provocative term and yet it is succinct and, as a metaphor, accurate. The financial elite have been winning it 'bigly' for over 40 years.
It is important to make clear that Democratic party reformers such as Our Revolution and Justice Democrats and other groups who are trying to restore democracy by ending systemic corruption are about changing the system, not persecuting individuals in the .01% financial elite class. That said, the wealth inequality in this country is sooo baaaddd, (how bad is it?) that the top 26 families in the US now have more wealth than the bottom HALF of the US population which is over 160 million people. That is mind boggling when you think about it. So the .01% financial elite ARE fairly few in number and it might be hard to avoid the sense that they are being individually singled out. Howard.
If Howard's feeling liberal, he can have one vote like everyone else. The financial elite are very alarmed that they are now understood as the problem with democracy. They should be. Harder to buy politicians in 2020.
1
Regarding the difference in accomplishment between genteel criticism and struggle, this article on how Norway ceased to have many poor people and became an oasis of relative economic fairness and prosperity seems apropos:
How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the
‘1 Percent’ by George Lakey (2012)
https://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-the-power-of-the-1-percent/
2
@Thomas Zaslavsky: The answer in Norway was simple: hydrocarbon wealth. In Sweden, workers have been more or less united for well over a century. Remember, Joe Hill was Swedish.
3
There are a few misinterpretations of U.S. history in this column.
1) The New Deal did not happen because of the power of labor unions -- it only happened because of something called the Great Depression: No Depression, no New Deal.
2) Yes, the civil rights movement took on powerful and entrenched interests, but at heart it was not an economic issue. It was a moral issue of a different sort that absolutely required confrontation to bring about change.
On the other hand, the economic inequality that is happening today is to some degree a moral issue and Mr. Bouie is absolutely correct that Schultz, Bloomberg, and even Biden just don't get it. Tactics from the civil rights movement may be appropriate, but let's not equate the top 0.1 percent with George Corley Wallace.
2
Jamelle - thank you for your editorial. I loved you on Slate and every piece you have written for the NYTimes so far has provoked much thought and discussion.
What I think is different from the earlier eras of Progressive politics you cite is the lack of causality between the current wealth and the current poverty. Industrial-era factory owners exploited their workers, and New Deal unions helped level the field. Jim Crow era whites exploited African Americans and the Civil Rights Act pushed us toward more justice. But in today's America the rich have not gotten wealthy by exploiting the poor, but by ignoring them. Bill Gate's wealth (and Mike Bloomberg's) did not come at the expense of anyone's poverty, and taking their wealth away will have a marginal impact on our budget deficit or national wealth distribution.
I have no issue with wealth tax and higher marginal tax rates, but I do not think that will have any impact on declining wages in the US. Eliminating poverty does not follow from eliminating wealth. Unless you can find a causality, reducing wealth is just a matter of aesthetics and not economic justice. We may prefer a world with fewer rich jerks, but we will still have as many struggling families.
1
It's remarkable that your post misses the effect on the population of greater taxation of the rich, including tax on excess securities transactions.
Greater wealth for the government opens up the possibility of universal health care, free higher education, increased Social Security benefits, and, yes, jobs, through the adoption of a permanent system of infrastructure maintenance.
No, more tax revenue will not increase wages in existing jobs. But it will confer a better lifestyle on those who earn what they do now.
1
I fully agree. Make the politicians work for the people. But what you are proposing won't come when the "right" person is elected to POTUS. It will only be achieved with boots on the ground. Just like in the fight for civil rights, people need to consistently make their voices heard in the streets to finally convince the wealthy elite (on both sides of the aisle) that there is no other option but to do the right thing.
3
I fail to understand the point of the article; the title makes it even more elusive.
You acknowledge Joe Biden supports what you call "a liberal agenda." (That was a Republican slur the last I heard it.) Biden was ahead of Obama on gay marriage. He endorsed free college while still Vice President. He was for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour when the official position was $12.
So how, pray tell, is Biden "understood as a 'moderate,'" much less "like Bloomberg, McAuliffe and Schultz"? That's not "understanding," it's misconception, a misconception this article seems to propagate.
What makes a moderate isn't their appeal to the middle, it's their understanding that it takes something to the right of the middle to legislate major change in a system that requires a 60-vote majority. It's the willingness to make an appeal or entreaty to the Congressional representatives of people to the right of center. Do we need to amend the Constitution? (We probably do.) Now we need an additional seven to the right of them.
Said another way, with Donald Trump's nominations to the Supreme Court, we need twenty Senators to the right of the Democrats we have now.
It's not enough to have popular positions. You have to have Congressional support for those popular positions. You think taxing the rich is popular, how about gun control. Try, even after the massacre of dozens of children, to get 60 or 70 percent of Congress to vote for measures supported by 80 or 90 percent of the populace.
7
@J T
I agree with your comment, but I think the problem of “popular positions” is more complicated. People are in favor of many concepts in general terms, but that support often wanes when it comes to specifics. Medicare for All is a good example. People want everyone to have health insurance, but MFA is overwhelmingly popular only up to the point where it is understood that all employer provided insurance would be eliminated.
To some extent there are the same issues with gun control, and, of course, you have the NRA on top of that. The biggest obstacle I see is that support is very broad, but not very deep.
Popular positions lead to the election of politicians who represent those positions.
Trying to influence reactionary politicians with "moderate" appeals leads, as we have found, nowhere.
There's no mystery about the meaning of the words "moderate" and "centrist."
A moderate is reluctant (I prefer "afraid," but I won't quibble) to push hard for anything, be it change or maintaning the status quo.
A centrist is a fence sitter, who equates the wants of the few with the needs of the many, and is ultimately a defender of the status quo.
What difference does it make that a "substantial majority" of people favor free tuition, for example, as the article says?
Substantial majorities always want "free" everything; i.e., they want other people's money. So what if they want it? They can't have it. Because it ain't their money.
6
Your imitation of Margeret Thatcher is accurate. And is just as far as she was from the truth.
The majority of the people pay taxes. They want their tax dollars to be used to improve their lives.
The rich deserve to be taxed more. The great majority of their wealth comes from the labor of others. Their fortunes are derived from "other people's money."
2
@Longue Carabine: The health of a nation is not determined simply by its total wealth but by how that wealth is used. Ancient Rome was very wealthy, and rotted, and died. The British Empire was very wealthy, and rotted, and is finally dying of Brexit. America is dying of Trumpist greed.
2
Good thoughtful piece. But probably wrong. Where the author went wrong is in forgetting the old Christian saying: hate the sin, love the sinner. We need to fix the sin of income inequality and we need to fix it with taxes and expanded services. In the process we needn’t demonize our opponents who through ignorance or self interest cling to things as they have wrongly become. We will show them how much better things can be and in the process one hopes convert some of them.
1
The fallacy is in conflating the struggle of opposing forces against one another that illuminates society's injustices with the temperament of the president at the center who must propose to Congress and advocate for their legislation of redress to those problems.
Yes, we needed radical labor activism, but contributing conditions for the creation of the welfare state was a protracted Great Depression several orders of magnitude worse than the 2007-'09 recession, and massive Democratic supermajorities in Congress. We also had one of the wealthiest, most privileged presidents ever in Franklin Roosevelt.
We absolutely needed a "confrontational…black freedom movement" to end Jim Crow. But again, it took Democratic majorities and we had two of the wealthiest insiders as president, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Contributing to those conditions were a high tax rate enacted to pay for WWII, a country flush with upward mobility and security thanks to the New Deal and G.I. bill, an "ask not what my country can do for me but what I can do for my country" attitude, and the national wound of the assassination of the man who spoke those words.
FDR, JFK and LBJ were not angry radicals before they championed the radical transformation for the downtrodden that made them—and us—greater. The angry radicals fought against them.
To pass broad, lasting reform again the last thing we need is this sort of dismissiveness of moderates necessary on both sides as well as in the White House.
4
The wealth of the presidents you cite is what helped them to get elected, which is unfortunate. Elections should not be up for sale.
Their wealth was a not a factor in their social justice policies. But it was a factor in their less than progressive other policies.
JFK accomplished nothing towards social justice. He was a pretty face with, like the largely empty suit Obama, a pleasing personality.
With all due respect, I think it's a bit early to start "demonizing" prospective challengers to the present administration; a more democratic way would be to listen to all of them (and I'm sure there'll be more), and give the present "administration" enough time to make it easier for any of them to rid us all from this catastrophe.
3
No, Mr. Bouie, I think that some of these centrist are so because they have actual experience in running something and knowing that ultimately everything comes with a price tag, even if it is only a matter of changing priorities.
Struggle and confrontation are dandy catchwords but getting things done, basically the nitty gritty of politics or business is accommodation and not confrontation.
You might argue that should be exceptions and that there have been: Civil War, World War Two, but they are exceptions.
So most things are actually done and accomplished the Biden Way.
14
Accommodation is the result of negotiation and compromise. It's not the beginning of change, but the end.
Confrontation is the only effective way to begin a negotiation. Anything else is, as Obama showed us, accepting defeat in advance.
"In each case, these moderate politicians have positioned themselves against broad public preference"
What preference? Free everything?
Are the "moderates" really "positioning themselves against" a viable policy or is it more likely that they are just being realistic about what we can afford?
Maybe the correct terms are not "progressives" and "moderates" but "fantasists"(think Green New Deal announced today for example) and "realists".
11
It was in the 1980s that the Democratic Leadership Council, started by mostly Southern Democrats, including Al Gore, began promoting "bipartisanship," which in practice meant agreeing to everything Reagan proposed.
They ignored the plight of the farmer, didn't protest Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers, and finally, when one of their members, Bill Clinton, became president, they pushed through the NAFTA treaty that George H.W. Bush had worked on, instituted harsh welfare "reform," and failed at health care reform because they tried to follow Nixon's ideas.
The DLC had a strong presence in online forums in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and they continually referred to Democrats who still had their New Deal ideology as "too far left." That was the constant refrain, "You're too far left."
It's time for that attitude to go.
4
This is great!! THANK YOU.
We citizen need this perspective. The truth is lost when speaking in dualities. Or as if the truth were in a continuum.
2
It looks like everything happened very recently , like 10 or 20 or even 30 years ago and system get troubles which politics have no solution.
The truth about America is yes we are richest nation on earth , The biggest economy, Yes we are 3rd biggest nation on earth based on population.
However , our situation at least for a long period of time since 1960's can be described as Precarious.
Precarious is not fitting our self adulation concepts very well.
I take LBJ's word and advice for any sane citizen, "Don't spit in the soup. We've all got to eat."
1
The question that has to asked of the next Democratic presidents candidate is: "Can he or she win back the Obama voters that defected to vote for Trump in 2016?" If the answer to that question isn't "yes", then nothing else is of much consequence. Biden may not be the candidate many Democrats want, but he may be the candidate they actually need.
3
To be clear, the nation got lucky (IMHO) with Obama. Modest experience and accomplishments, but very intelligent, able to attract stellar advisors, good sense of historical trends globally, a requisite sense of humor, a lovely family. We won't see his match soon again.
I am not enamored of any candidate on the currently very wide Democratic horizon who is inexperienced. That cuts down the field by a considerable number. Owing to the damage done by the current regime and the criminal who heads it, a heck of a lot of repair is the first order of business after a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020. That requires an experienced hand.
While there are opportunities to build new ways of governing from the ashes, putting essentially good agencies (EPA, CFPB, etc) back on their rails is Job One, and that is repair. Nothing in the essential repair agenda precludes a "Green New Deal" or other ideas, and proponents of those should be brought in wherever their ideas can be refined and brought to fruition.
We know what an inexperienced Individual-1 with his evil co-conspirators can do. We don't have time for our replacement to learn on the job.
6
So glad Mr Bouie has joined the Times.
5
Well said!! Thank you
3
Joe Biden invented the term, Drug Czar. Joe was at the point the Bush Clinton war on crack cocaine, which was in fact just another part of the seemingly never-ending war on people of color. Want another Republican in the White
House nominate Joe.
Want a sure win run a person of color.
Maybe paint the "White House" another color and the House will stay blue.
2
@GladF7
I'm getting very tired of hearing claims that the "war on drugs", with a special concern about crack addiction, represented a "war on people of color."
In practice, the draconian criminal provisions enacted were ill-considered and destructive. They incarcerated many low level pushers and failed to get the head honchos in the drug trade. But many of the leaders of the African-American community were understandably appalled by the widespread destruction created by readily available crack and were at the head of the pack pleading for a "war on drugs."
Sometimes we need to remember the old adage that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" - and make quick corrections - rather than retrospectively depicting well intentioned people as malicious.
1
From post-WWII America through maybe the 1970s, the understanding seemed to be that we - broadly, all Americans - were in this together. The wealthy may have complained, but they paid their taxes at very high marginal tax rates. (And, please, don't say they had to pay 70% of their income in taxes. It's a marginal tax rate.) Manufacturers and service providers seemed to realize that if they didn't control their costs and pay reasonable salaries, no Americans would be able to buy all those cars and houses and refrigerators and insurance policies. To say nothing of probably the most recent grand infrastructure developments.
Some 60-70 years later, those American capitalists don't need Americans anymore. They can make stuff more cheaply abroad. And those same Americans are no longer needed to buy that stuff. They can sell most of their output abroad. They can open franchises and Starbucks and Apple stores outside the US. About the only thing they can't sell abroad is houses, and as long as there are "enough" Americans who can afford them, damn the rest of us. And then there are the tax cuts for the wealthy. As a result, it's not terribly shocking that wages have remained stagnant since the Reagan years while billionaires are minted by the minute, and that we have the deficits we have.
Maybe this is a bit simplistic. There are tons of other factors at work here. But if there's no pushback, and soon, we are looking at the end of the republic.
4
As Jim Hightower said, "Ain't nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
5
@Far from home And with those views he soared to the high elected post of Agriculture Commissioner in Texas while his state went from blue to red. Not exactly a winning strategy. Pretty tough to make positive change when you're in permanent opposition.
3
Yes, this new NYT opinion writer seems like a spoiler of Democratic cause to me. If I would be a rich billionaire with the goal to establish oligarchic rule over the U.S., I will hire somebody like this author to publish articles similar to this one, just to ultimately discredit democratic form of government.
4
"Antagonism, indignation and anger-these qualities don't diminish democracy...." For Republicans, those are acceptable qualities to display when they are out of office. And what about when they hold the levers of power? Then those in the opposition are labeled as a "mob" according to Trump.
But, what are we to make of the same man who declared that in Charlottesville, he even found "good people" among neo- Nazis?
2
Is Joe’s false plastic smile as false and plastic as Don’s?
I located the first few quotes ("Progressive peace in a nation...") from Anna Julia Cooper's 1892 book, "A Voice from the South" that Mr. Bouie cites, and they're from the section that begins on p. 149 titled "America has a race problem and how can it best be solved?"
She describes the races as the product of Darwinian evolution."The proper equilibrium" is explained through the beautiful metaphor of the "planets and suns" in their orbits.
It's beautiful, it seems naive, and very sad to read. I'll try to read more later.
The view of race it presents seems similar to the one W.E.B. Du Bois describes in his 1897 addrees called "The Conservation of Races."
I'm not quite sure how this applies to the struggle between confrontational Millennials vs. we white Corey-Booker-leaning "gerontocratsl." I've read in other discussion just like this one that he and Kamala Harris are bought and paid for by corporations. I guess that makes him a moderate, huh?
1
Making friends with the enemy is all well and good until it comes time to make an enemy of your friends. Fact is, Democrats and Republicans have very different interests and represent very different people and when push comes to shove, we Democratic voters need someone who will shove for us and get what we need. Our part is to back them up when they put on the gloves and get in the ring.
3
Voting for them is backing them up.
After that, it's up to them to do the job for which they were elected.
Obama said he wanted to be "pushed." Then when he was, he branded his pushers "professional progressives," or some such criticism.
Don't vote for candidiates with the hope of pushing them. Pick those who already stand for what you believe in.
@abigail49: Our part, and theirs, is to win the Electoral College. Y'all forgot that in 2016. and whooped it p because Clinton had a popular lead that lay within the margin of error. Good luck to you in Georgia, with the help of S. Abrams. Here in NYC, because of the Electoral College, my vote rarely counts.
"... you can find a mutually beneficial solution ..." No you can't. This is a fundamental economics question as basic as Physics Laws of Thermodynamics.
You can't because **The country has limited total productivity.** Unless someone has some magical scheme to change that, it is economically impossible to find that mutually beneficial solution.
The rich have jiggered the system to make it possible for them to get and keep 90% of the results of the productivity for themselves. Labor is the source of that productivity and they don't get to share.
Mr. Bouie is fundamentally correct in suggesting that change will occur primarily through a struggle. But the reason for the need for that struggle is the conflict over what is a realistic distribution of the limited results of our productivity.
5
I tire easily of articles like this that present politics (or any topic) as a choice between moderate and extreme or right and left. Life is a color continuum as opposed to black and white.
Let’s take “Medicare for All” as mentioned by the author. This is a loaded three word moniker (MFA) that righties take as socialism and lefties take as nirvana; but what does it mean ? Do we all pay in equal installments for all our lives to enroll or is the premium income adjusted ? Does MFA cover all medical procedures or only the basic ones and with an added “advantage plan” required for elective procedures ? Is it run like a managed care HMO or a true consumer choice affair? Will we be obliged to use MFA or will it be a public option in competition with private plans? The devil is in the details so let’s not dumb it down to a binary choice. People need to understand clearly what they are about to swallow.
Secondly politicians more often than not run on more extreme platforms with more extreme proposals but gravitate to the center when faced with the reality of two party / three branch governance. It’s hard to know when you pull the lever just what you’re getting. Trump is rather the exception but then again his goals in my view are far removed from the “normal” political leader. How exactly would a President Elizabeth Warren govern in the end if faced with a GOP senate and GOP leaning judiciary? Would she twist at windmills like you-know-who or moderate her approach for success?
5
Your post omits the most important factor in governing: the will of the people.
By treating the process of governing as a closed-door affair among elected officials, you ignore the power of the bully pulpit.
Obama ignored it, and lost his progressive base and ultimately the entire government.
Trump understands the bully pulpit only too well, and thus his Nuremberg-style rallies and continued support by the rest of the GOP.
Warren and Sanders both know how to use it. One hopes they would continue to do so if elected to high office.
So the NY Times has added yet another voice to point out why I currently find the GOP to be the lesser of two evils. I will always vote against the candidate most likely to increase the size and scope of government.
5
@I want another option until said "ee bil" government is giving you and yours life saving medicine?
1
Bouie, you're like the anti-Heather Mac Donald, whom I heard on First Things podcast saying that if Blacks began acting like Asian Americans for ten years and still there were problems of police violence, etc., then she'd be willing to entertain the idea that racism is inbuilt in American life.
This is nonsense. The pathologies within Black communities are largely -- not, though, as Bouie thinks, entirely -- the result of past and, yes, current oppression. On the surface, they can't act like Asian Americans because their situations delimit their choices, situations established by their particular history. But I don't agree with Ibram Kendi, who at the end of his book, "Stamped from the Beginning," says there's nothing wrong with Blacks except for the fact that white people think there's something wrong.
There's a lot wrong with white people, too. We all have our problems. No victim and no oppressor should be exempted from censure. Politically, the question before us is, What is really the best route by which to create a better America? Is there such a thing as "too far left"? If you're going to say that fantasy policy is the cure, then why not a $50-an-hour minimum wage and a bill pinkie promising no one will get sick anymore?
To compare our past oppressions with ongoing "oppression" by the rich, is absurd. Going on the attack against business, whose thriving helps our poor the most, is absurd. And purposefully trying to distend the body politic is, you guessed it, absurd.
4
Business doesn't help the poor, it exploits them.
Even Abraham Lincoln publicly acknowledged what every capitalist avoids admitting: that the wealth of the nation depends upon its labor.
Big time politicians and billionaires know the donor class would shun them if they endorsed these “windfall” taxes.
1
Yes, that is true.
But Bernie Sanders showed how it would be possible to win office without big donors.
Nothing will change until the buying of elections by the wealthy is eliminated.
This is a bogus argument, resting completely on a silly premise: that ideas that poll well are de facto good ideas and so should be the focus of politicians and parties
Um, no. Duh.
Poll the idea of the government simply giving every man woman and child $1,000 cash per day, every day, for life. Polls really well, eh? That make it a good idea? Solid policy? Mainstream, not fringe?
Oh, and some "moderate" says itys a bad idea? Well then "moderates" are stupid or bad for the party or losers.
3
Who are you? Donald Trump? You can’t make up a poll question, then make up the results of said mythical poll, and then use that as evidence to prove an argument.
Political nomenclature and categories continuously slip and slide.
Edmund Burke himself supported the American Revolution but disavowed the French Revolution.
Joe Biden is a Burkean democrat, a career politician who knows all the old-timers and many of the freshmen in Congress, a Vice-president who apparently convinced 44 that supporting same-sex marriage was the right thing to do.
He seems to have decided to court moderate Republicans with the aim of wooing some of the incumbent’s base to his side—whether he ultimately throws his hat into the ring or not.
Some believe that only a progressive Democrat—especially a woman who hails from a racialized subculture—has a chance to prevail against the incumbent. Still more others suggest that a centrist—preferably a white Christian male—can best topple the incumbent.
Anna Julia Cooper’s insight reprises Hegel in the context of Emancipation and Reconstruction. But we must note her distinguishing qualification—"conflict, such as is healthy, stimulating, and progressive, is produced through the coexistence of radically opposing or racially different elements.”
Watts, LA 1992, 9/11, Charlottesville, government shutdown. Healthy? Stimulating? Progressive?
Intelligent compromise and gradual progress can lead to greater social advance than confrontation and upheaval, which can cause a violent reaction or correction.
It all depends whether you are in the Burke camp or the Rousseau and Paine camp.
2
So, Schultz, Bloomberg and no doubt most of the billionaires say offhand we can't afford it and that's that? I saw an estimate of Schultz's wealth tax obligation on his $3.4 billion and it was $91 million. Golly gee willikers, how would he ever afford groceries?
Medicare for all, which will evolve to Medicare for more, Medicare for the poor, Medicare with a lower age eligibility, Medicare as a paid for opt-in or something else would be paid for the same way it is paid for now but based on ability to pay with subsidies for the poorest Americans.
The right's fanatical propaganda for decades has sought to undermine trust in government and create the hostility that someone, somewhere, for some reason, at some time is getting something that they are not even if they have no need for it. Oh, and taxes are bad and theft regardless how much the rich benefit from living in our country.
Are we supposed to throw up our hands, claim it's too hard, we're too stupid to figure it out, admit we're not world leaders and in fact losers, that selfishness, greed and capitalism are immutably good and right and true?
4
As Jamelle Bouie writes, an extraordinary black woman from the south once praised the values of hostility, resentment, and rage.
She wrote that these were the touchstones of democracy, and that each became necessary when challenging the discrimination of power, prosperity, and opportunity.
She wrote this in 1892, 126 years ago, “A Voice From The South.” Her name was Anna Julia Cooper. She was right, and she was a great American.
She identified the hostility, resentment, and rage which flowed through the veins of George Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and many other great leaders of the United States of America, Without those touchstones, America would not exist.
2
NO entrepreneur or business person worth a lick is going to NOT start or stop growing a business because they are concerned about tax liability.
To think otherwise is utter stupidity and buying into right wing propaganda.
3
Exactly.
But you know what will stop an entrepreneur? Fear of losing their health insurance if they quit their current job to start their own venture.
2
Truly and succinctly stated.
The great lie is that greater taxation will harm businesses.
The truth is that taxes affect only profits, the unearned income of the wealthy.
As a socialist progressive I take heart in the thought that there is no chance Mr. Biden will get the nomination. Not due to his advanced age, but because Americans will not elect a three-time looser.
@citizennotconsumer: Americans don't elect the POTUS. The Electoral College does, and it elected a five-times bankrupt.
1
There are 50 states, each with the power to accomplish the wildest progressive dreams within their borders.
So please, just please, try out some of your progressive ideas in California before requiring the rest of the country to go along with them.
Like try free healthcare, free college, higher regulations, minimum income, abolish billionaires, sanctuary cities, racial quotas in all aspects of life and 70% tax rates out there first. And if it works out as a vast improvement, either people can vote with their feet or we can talk about national policy.
That's the beauty of the federal system. Laboratories of democracy, as it's been dubbed.
3
Well said, and so true.
1
"The Biden Fallacy"?
Oh, pleeaaze...
Castigating Biden, a longtime advocate for the Democratic middle-income base (in deed, as well as in word, despite these two cherry-picked quotes!) and the interests of the 99% (Social Security, Medicare, fairness in taxes [i.e. taxing the rich at their fair share, not the current record-low levels]) etc.) is bad enough, but labeling the pandering to the rich by *some* Democrats as "the Biden Fallacy" is really tantamount to libelous disinformation.
This is not an "opinion"! It's either a woefully lacking-in-context or information expression of ignorance, or worse yet, a stalking horse, attack job smear.
Who need Breitbart or Fox, then they've got this sort of tawdry thing?
4
CNN reports a poll showing 62% want Biden Toruń. Not the best news for this column or the announced candidates.
3
Only two U S presidents have ever “struggled against the powerful”, and bested them, if only for a time: FDR and LBJ. I’m not counting Lincoln and his mythology; his preoccupation was territorial unity, not the happiness of black folk.
3
Jamelle Bouie, progress happened when President Barack Hussein Obama was elected in 2008 and again in 2012. The president who followed Obama is a frightening example of power and privilege invested in an ignorant and unfit man. Though I have witnessed Joe R.Biden's career of Senator and then Vice-President since 1972, I don't think he should run for President for the third time. His time has passed and he has served America honourably for 46 years.
Isn't it possible for Barack Obama to run again for our presidency? The Constitution makes clear that any ex-presidents can RUN, but not SERVE in office. However, if the Electoral College elects him, he could be our 46th President, because the President is chosen by the Electoral College (the useful appendix of American politics for our 45th president).
Barack Obama and our First Lady, Michelle Robinson Obama, were emblematic of progress in this 21st century. America came together after G.W. Bush's divisive presidency to elect him, though the 45th president insisted for years that Obama was a Kenyan and not born in the US. Fact is that Obama was born in America (Hawaii) of an American (Kansan) mother and a Kenyan father.
Nothing but another, different constitutional crisis than the one we are presently in, could happen in 2020 if Obama runs. Our 45th president famously lost the popular vote in 2016, but won the Electoral College vote. He serves, but, oh so badly!
I see very little of value to working people from Obama's two terms.
His chronic failure to confront the GOP head-on and refusal to use the bully pulpit (until the end, when it was irrelevant) led to the rise of the Tea Party and the GOP takeover of the government.
Before the anti-Communist witch hunt hit, in 1948 in New York City, free medical care for all was provided by a network of 32 municipal hospitals. The transit fare was nominal--a dime or so. Though landlords howled, in the five boroughs, municipal rent control laws kept rents low. Education--from kindergarten all the way to a Ph.D. at CUNY--was provided absolutely free by the City (as of course was the completely free education system in the state of California). Besides the local Democratic Party, there was a left-wing American Labor Party answerable to the Congress of Industrial Organizations with many Communist activists . . . . Since that time, the economy has expanded several times over. Yet what New York City could afford in 1948, we are now told would quickly bankrupt the country in 2019. That is pure baking soda. . . .
Why is it that there are always trillions available for wars & windfall corporate tax cuts, but never for the people?
4
You hit the nail accurately with your first sentence.
The millionaire class (now billionaire class) effectively defanged the labor movement.
Remember how the cowardly leadership of the AFL-CIO purged its most militant members with the ousting of the communists, and began a long-term cozy relationship between the industrialists and the "labor lieutenants of capital."
The most ignominious chapter in the decline of the unions was when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, bringing hardly a whisper from the leaders of the other big unions, much less the general strike that the situation should have provoked.
Change always comes about, as the writer of the article accurately observes, not through accommodation, but confrontation. That includes change for the worse as well as for the better. It's how the right effectively gained control of the government and has maintained the support of its least likely ally, 40% of the working class.
Determining the correct path for our country is never easy, but attempting to govern by demonization of our citizens and name calling isn't going to work. The newest version of this? Label those socialist Democrats as evil and equate them with a dictator in Venezuela. Previous version? Obama is an evil un-American Muslim. Hillary's a crook. We've seen it for long enough, and it's time to stop it.
Debating healthcare, college tuition or changes to the tax code is something the country sorely needs, and we are not Venezuela. So let's just knock it off with that kind of talk. The debate isn't right, left, moderate, or whatever you want to call it. It's a policy discussion to shape our nation's 21st century.
Demonizing labels shouldn't be part of that debate, or the vision.
1
Another excellent piece. But Bouie needs to spread the word to the NYT leadership which seems quite committed to a moderate Dem, person-of-color-in-the-middle-and-preferably-female, candidate while missing no chance to go after Sanders, in particualr.
1
So many commenters here are falling back on the tired trope that "anger" won't win voters. Well, news flash - this is exactly what got Trump elected. Trump managed to play on the racism of his white base and all their imagined "victimhood".
So let me tell you who should be angry. Any woman who has been denied employment or a promotion because of her gender. Any ethnic minority treated similarly. Any working class person who views a college degree as a pipe dream. Any mom or dad who must "choose" between either going into serious debt or bankruptcy for a child's medical treatment, or watching their child die.
Angry? You bet I am. And I am just getting started. What I'm most angry about is that what I've seen so far from the Democratic candidates is nothing but bootlicking of Trump voters. Walk away from them. They'll never change. And pay attention to us, for a change -- your base for the past fifty years, remember?
I am way beyond angry at Democratic candidates "reaching out" to folks who would rather see this nation as an apartheid state, where those of us who aren't white and Christian should "know our place", and where whites alone are entitled to the blessings of this nation, blessings, I might add, that were created on our backs.
I am waiting. I am still waiting for that angry Democrat. He or she should have appeared many years ago. But I haven't seen them yet. But know this -- the Democratic candidate who understands MY anger will get MY vote.
384
@Charles Dodgson
I hear your anger as passion, and I like it!
35
@Charles Dodgson Count the number of people in Western PA who are angry the way you are angry, and not the way Pres. Trump is angry. Count the number in the whole country, and recall that 48.2% of the electorate is not enough to win, but 46.2% is, if just the right number of people in the right states vote for the angry Republican. Count up the angry Democratic voters in each state; more importantly, count up the electoral votes in the nation (and if you think the Constitution is going to change in this polarized environment when an Election Day national holiday to encourage participation is considered a "power grab," think again), and show how the angry Democrat wins, not in the 14th District of NY or the state of Vermont, but the electoral vote of the 2nd District of Maine (which Donald Trump worked hard to win) or Nebraska, or for that matter all 29 EV's in Florida. Mr. Biden is not my personal choice for nominee, and my eyes were opened by the unfortunate comments of Mr. Bloomberg in this article (sad), but one person's preference is not important, when we can finally hope to crack the 60% barrier in turnout for the first time in 52 years which means over 140 million votes will be cast. (Forty percent of eligible voters will still not be angry enough to even bother, and we will pat ourselves on the back for reaching 60%.) Show Mr. Biden how he wins 85 million of those with an anti-capitalist message and crushes Pres. Trump. Or look forward to four more Trumpian years.
21
@Charles Dodgson
The voices of "anger" from within the Democratic Party have been muted to silence or delegitimized because the Democrats, since the takeover by elitism and covert neoliberalism, morphed it into the "enlightened" wing of the GOP.
Sen. Bernie Sanders presidential primary bid in 2016 and Sen. Elizabeth Warren's confrontation with President Obama remain as voices crying out in the wilderness from the fringes of the Democratic Party.
Most recently one of the so-called leaders of announced 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Kamala (the Kameleon) Harris, raised her voice asserting the obvious fact for-profit health insurers are one of the primary causes of America's failure to provide efficacious, economical and universally accessible healthcare during her exclusive townhall on CNN only to somersault backward from her claim less than 24 hours later.
32
Joe Biden could have beaten Trump easily in 2018, but he missed his moment. It's time for him to retire from politics, past time actually.
1
Centrist can mean many different things to different people, so the concept is pretty much meaningless. After all, where you perceive the center to be depends partly on your vantage point. Most Americans don't divide neatly into perfect partisan boxes. I'm in favor of universal health care, improved K-12 and affordable college education, and raising the minimum wage, but I'm also in favor of gun rights, concerned about illegal immigration, and detest political correctness that emphasizes identity difference over commonality. So am I left, center, or right? Perhaps we should simply be concerned with what policies most Americans support, and less with what label to attach to them.
1
You are what Prof. Krugman described as a "social conservative/economic progressive", or a "racist populist", as he deemed to be a fitting shorthand for this quadrant of the political landscape. I'll bet you had no idea. Check it out: "The Empty Quarters of U.S. Politics", NYT, 2/5/19.
America's greatest accomplishment was "creation of the welfare state"? Seriously? In order to provide welfare you need a thriving economy and that is America's greatest accomplishment because without that nothing else is possible, including survival as a democracy.
2
@richard: America now has a thriving economy. Is that a great accomplishment? And what is a thriving economy if only a minority thrives? Taken together with the spread of poverty, the spread of crime and suicide, the reaming out of the middle class, the spread of white supremacy, the progressive rotting of the infrastructure, is our present economy something to celebrate?
4
The problem with categories like "Centrist" or "Moderate" is that they are characterizations based on the viewpoint of the 1%. And that is the view that dominates all media and all discussions. If you are Howard Schultz then you consider Bernie a radical. I'll go out on a limb and say I doubt that his employees share the same view. Outside of Davos, the yacht club, the board room, and Mara-Lago, Schultz and Bloomberg are oligarchs, and should be referred to as such by the media. Compared to the views of the left worldwide, America's progressives are the real centrists. We will know we have finally gotten somewhere when the mainstream media admits there is an oligarchy and names the oligarchs. The Koch Brothers are no less oligarchs than Oleg Deripaska.
2
As a self described moderate, I think Mr Bouie fundamentally misreads what moderates believe in.
Many moderate leaders came of age in the 1970s and early 1980s and saw how well meaning attempts to redistribute wealth through taxes and other means stagnated economies and discouraged enterprise and entrepreneurism. Why go through the pain of starting a successful business if the state is going to take the financial rewards away and give them to someone else? That's difference between today's moderates and today's progressives.
In the 1980s and 1990s, moderates also saw how Reaganomics and its equivalents certainly helped economies to grow again, but unfettered capitalism did harm and hurt people through no fault of their own. So some level of regulation and government support is necessary. So that's a difference between moderates and many conservatives who think the market is always the answer.
I could go on.
But Mr Bouie's main flaw is in his assumption that if a policy is popular it must be correct - which he gives as the raison d'etre of moderates everywhere.
History is replete with policies that were popular at the time of their passage and turned out to be disastrously wrong.
The true statesman is the one who stands by his or her beliefs even when the tide of conventional wisdom is running strongly in the opposite direction.
2
Taxes have never hurt businesses.
Business taxes are levied on profits, not on income.
This is spot on, thanks.
I think the term "moderate" is used in relation to the status quo, as in, how much change from the status quo is being proposed. The position of least proposed change is therefore called "moderate," or "centrist," though neither has to do with moderation or centrism.
1
People always point to Civil Rights because it was splashy and a familiar reference point. The less prominent cases are more common, but less exciting. The passage of Medicaid, say.
As for policies, what seems clear from the midterms is that ostensibly conservative voters will vote for progressive policies as ballot measures, but will not vote for politicians espousing those same policies.
2
Exactly.
It’s called ‘identity politics’ and Republicans are the worst offenders.
"As if through a glass and darkly the ages-old strife I see...
For I have fought and died under many names and in various
disguises, But always me....."
Using labels such as "moderate", "centrist" and "progressive" to encapsulate the public policy views of the ever-growing field of declared and undeclared presidential candidates are at best carelessly inaccurate to deliberately dishonest at worst.
Voters should focus instead on the public policy positions of each candidate, retrospectively and prospectively, in addition and most importantly the sources and methods of each candidate's FUNDRAISING. In the final analysis, following the money is key.
3
We need broad-based progress on topics that benefit most people, not solutions to niche passions.
1
There are more than 500 billionaires in the US.
Three of them are black.
What if we taxed them all at 60% until the the numbers of white, black, Latino, etc. were a reflection of the actual population mix. Then we could cut the tax on all of them them to 30% - and encourage them to do the Gates, Buffet, and Robert Smith "Giving Pledge" thing.
We don't, after all, want them moving away to Luxembourg, Jersey, or the Cayman Islands.
Where they live should have no effect on their taxes, which are levied on the profits they make in the US.
You have to distinguish between language and propaganda. To the rich that control the meaning of words through propaganda (what Chomsky refers to as the process of manufacturing consent), a "moderate" is anybody who above all serves the interests of both societal stability and the wealthy, without openly expressed disdain for any race or class (anybody who doesn't want to rock the boat. So a billionaire who exists at an absurd extreme of the spectrum of life experiences of the human race and simply could not relate to the experiences of the vast majority of humanity is a "moderate" by definition because there is simply no way that billionaire would ever really want to rock the boat very much. The Clintons basically led the co-optation of the democratic party by the corporate moderates and now nobody really represents the poor's interests in any meaningful way. The Reps demonize and scapegoat minorities and the Dems demonize and scapegoat lower economic class whites, and they get together in bipartisan harmony any time the banking industry needs some piece of legislation passed.
4
After the shame of institutional racism, the extremes of wealth and poverty (generated by the shift in government policies in 1981) are the most challenging issue facing this nation. Those extremes have been made possible by using the wedge of racism to split the white blue collar population from the rest of us, and is the structural underlayment of the GOP's "Southern Strategy" ....
It is time to stand up, and remind the 1% that a top marginal rate of 70% (Sadly, so much lower than the 1950's 90%+) is NOT confiscatory and oppressive, but rather - extraordinarily cheap - as guillotine insurance goes.
Ours is a nation destined for greatness - with unparalleled prosperity, and justice before the law for everyone(rich and poor alike). We Shall achieve that greatness, I am certain - and the only question is: Will we do this the easy way, or the hard way?
So far, the smart money is on us demanding that we do it the hardest way possible.
5
I disagree with Mr. Bouie's usage of the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement as twin lessons showing the effectiveness of a modern confrontation of the American wealthy class to achieve more economic equality. The New Deal happened amid a likely unrepeatable economic collapse, and even it was an accommodation against more radical demands for leveling among American socialists and communists: FDR was not Huey Long. On the other hand, the CRM remained principally, and perhaps unfortunately, about achieving black Americans' political, not economic rights. In my view there is no historical precedent for what Mr. Bouie, I think, wishes to see in America in terms of radical economic reform - a position with which I agree.
1
Terry, rich parents will still pay for their kids (and others' kids) college, they will pay higher taxes than poorer people. That's why "free college" is not really free. With progressive taxation those with the highest incomes will pay more in taxes, which, in a well run state, will be used to fund public colleges and universities. The objective is to make sure that cost is not a barrier to getting our young people a college education. They may still flunk out in droves, but everyone should have an equal shot.
3
The Democrats like Biden ensconced in the wealthy clubs of power are not unlike their Republican counterparts. Americans should be required to watch Chomsky’s REQUIEM FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM, which provides us with a story of America that seems to be the economic political equivalent of The Picture of Dorian Gray.
3
Political scientists often describe politics is the art of the possible. The most significant government programs over the past 100 years - including the big three of social security, medicare and medicaid - all became law when the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate and a progressive Democratic president. To pass the progressive agenda now requires not only a Democratic President but a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and the Democrats holding well more than 50% of the House. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening in the near future. Thus, the moderates and centrists understand that change at this point has to be incremental until the Democratic Party occupies all three branches of government. Incremental change is just what is now possible and no amount of reason or argument is going to pull the Republican position on these issues close to the progressive Democratic position.
5
@Schneiderman Thank you. So many Starbucks revolutionaries among these commentators and so little common sense.
Thank you. So many wannabe Starbucks revolutionaries commenting here and so little common sense.
The progressive policies of up-and-coming Democrats, as well as Warren and Sanders, are what will get them elected.
How they use those policies as starting points, in confrontation with those of the reactionaries, is the issue.
"[I]it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe [those who hoard resources and opportunity at the expense of the public] will willingly relinquish their power and privilege."
I find little fault with 'moderate' Democrats--I think our goals in terms of social justice and the environment are similar. I just think that they are, as the foregoing would indicate, naive. They believe that they can maintain their wealthy patrons and, at the same time, promote the social change we desperately need.
One problem with moderation, or centrism (or triangulation, for that matter) is that when one side moves farther to the right, moderates have to move in the same direction to 'meet them halfway.'
Republicans voted in 2016 against their mainstream, but they voted for a charlatan. Democrats' mainstream held, but was not able to excite independent voters. Wealthy patrons manipulated both parties.
We need a new paradigm, and the tools are at our fingertips, literally, with social networks. They can be used for evil or they can be used for good--to manipulate or to organize.
As we have seen, wealth and business success are abysmal criteria for leaders.
I'd say that the Democrats motivated a great many independent voters. Clinton won the popular vote by three million.
Biden,“I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble."
I believe they are a major part of the problem.
The world's 26 richest people own the same wealth as the poorest half of humanity, Oxfam said Jan 21, 2019, urging governments to hike taxes oh the wealthy to fight soaring inequality. One percent of Jeff Bezos's wealthy was the equivalent to the entire health budget of Ethiopia, a country of 105 million people.
The growing gap between rich and poor is undermining the fight against poverty, damaging economies and fueling pubic anger.
Anyone who votes for a moderate has forgotten that many middle class people are only a dire emergency away from loosing their home. Welcome to being poor.
9
I don't think we throw out Medicare for All or Tuition Free Education until we see how these are to be implemented. To me, both are goals but most goals have steps to achievement and are not reached overnight. To me, a moderate would be someone who understands the steps and doesn't give up the goal. Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Shultz have no interest in either and I really don't think Joe Biden does either.
2
“Progressive” extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
America needs a progressive president who can meet the 21st century challenges posed by our government’s unwise embrace of trickle-down economics over the past 40 years, its failure to meet the challenges posed by human-caused climate change, and its failure to meet the challenges posed by globalization, among other challenges.
Civilization is moving backwards at a breakneck pace. It is simply not the time for a moderate U.S. president. We members of the human race have screwed up so miserably that moderation is over.
3
ATTACKS ARE CHEAP; SOLUTIONS DIFFICULT
Mr. Bouie properly points out the pressures needed to dislodge vested interests that are selfish.
But he fails to emphasize that raw attacks -- a la Trump -- without constructive responses -- a la Lyndon Johnson -- are worse than worthless, as they delay and deny adoption of constructive solutions to the problems addressed.
3
I am honestly in awe. Steven, you are the op-ed writer that America needs.
"Without radical labor activism that identifies capitalism — and the bosses — as the vector for oppression and disadvantage, there is no New Deal. Without a confrontational (and at times militant) black freedom movement, there is no Civil Rights Act. If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege."
5
Trump reintoduced the word ‘Socialism’ into the American conscience at his 2019 State of the Union to highlight what the GOP will be running on in the lead up to the 2020 Election.
Trump has formally signaled that our own socialist policies will not stand. The GOP is coming to destroy your Medicare, your Social Security, your VA Hospitals and your Public Education.
The opposite of Socialist policies? Winner-take-All. But the GOP can not keep the Presidency with the low number of winners they already service. They need to gerrymander the voting precincts and lie to The Base because everybody wants to be rich. They need the poor, the workers, and the middleclass to vote for the interests of their rich masters, in exchange for what, exactly?
An opportunity to be part of the herd, thinned out overseas in the next war because there are no well paying jobs that can support a family at home?
America First is now our Foreign Policy, but our Domestic Policy is Rich First.
Rich First, Vote GOP! That is the slogan. Will The Base still not get it?
The GOP is just getting started.
They’re laying the tracks to the next war because that is the only way they know to keep the economy humming. After the Tax Cuts for the Rich, and the rigged Courts, the GOP plans to finish what they started.
Trump was a radical choice for the country, not a moderate.
When Trump won, he proved that moderates are loosers.
7
The Republican attack machine, as formulated and fostered in recent decades by think tanks, has decided that it has won the socialism argument against Democrats. Therefore, they feel more than comfortable with the socialist attack mode.
But they forget one important fact in their calculations. They fail to recognize that the Rove/Ailes playbook had its day many years ago. The machine that produced the demagoguery is either presently or permanently dormant.
Can they bring it back when the party was previously so unified in its anti-socialism stance? It's not a sure thing.
2
Jamelle Bouie's attack on centrism uses the old straw man method. Describe your opponent in a way that no one would support him or her. The need for a centrist candidate is based on much more than simply opposing taxing the rich. Let me outline some centrist positions or attitudes that distinguish them from extremism on both the right and the left. First is the acknowledgment that problems are complicated and rarely solved by simple solutions. Second: Centrists recognize that approximately half of our country do not buy in to progressive tropes. Medicare for all and single payer are very popular until voters are told they would have to give up their current plan and pay higher taxes. Centrists do not see everything that happens between a person of color and one not of color (whatever that means) as racist nor do they assume that unequal outcomes de facto mean racism. Centrists understand that some people need to be jailed and that sometimes military action is justified. Centrists do not jump to conclusions when there is a tragic interaction between police and civilians, and centrists support freedom of speech everywhere including the academy. They reject political correctness and rigid orthodoxy in favor of pragmatism. And centrists still believe this is a nation of opportunity for all and thus respect traditions such as standing for the national anthem even though they recognize our problems and need for change. Just the beginning.
6
What you describe is not centrism, it is conformity. It is the view taken by those who have benefited by the status quo and are therefore willing to turn a blind eye to any truths that would “rock the boat.” I don’t buy that the author was constructing a straw man argument, but I can see someone is trying to redefine terms and change the subject.
8
Somehow you managed to bring the peaceful protest of black football players into this and — remarkable given our history and rights — portray it as a fringe action. You essentially proved the point of the article. Those in power will not relinquish it voluntarily.
1
@Jake,
Those are not "centrist" positions, but conservative ones. They lead to no change whatsoever.
But then, a centrist position IS essentially a conservative one.
There is no middle ground between the interests of capitalism and working people, between civil rights for all and bigotry, between universal health care and health care for some, between convicting a police officer for the unjustified murder of an unarmed person and letting him go free.
A moderate is not necessarily one who is trying to 'accommodate" the wealthy. In many cases, they are urging policies that have a chance of passage. Sometimes the progressives act like they are the only voice in politics and they can run roughshod over those with more moderate leanings. Compared to other developed countries, the US is basically a conservative nation, the lack of universal health care being one example. As a centrist Democrat, let's not forget the McGovern debacle of 1972. Another Trump term would be infinitely worse than Nixon.
As a recent expat who left because of the current political climate, I think it's important to distinguish wealth and power. The gap between the merely affluent and the real rich is roughly 1000-fold. This is more than that between the affluent and a person relying on public assistance. That gap is so large that it's hard to conceptualize. The political problem is that the disparity leads to a parallel power disparity. This has been codified by judicial decisions such as Citizens United, which willfully ignore the impact of wealth disparities fueling power disparities. The billionaire class now seems seigneurial authority over people who work. That, rather than tangible assets, is at the heart of current class warfare. We presume equality before the law. That equality has been seriously eroded. Restoring faith in that concept is how politicians can promote unity.
1
The surest way to stop any progress is to call a Candidate a Progressive, as if it is a dirty word.
I would prefer to call them Humane Americans.
We need many more of them to level the playing field.
3
Conflict is the only way good things for most of the people can happen.
That was one of Obama's shortcomings for he was very conflict adverse. The Clintons wanted more than anything else to be very, very rich. They were truly not interested in conflicts with the people they wanted to join.
With the rare exceptions like Warren Buffet society has to pry open the money holding hands of the 1% to provide health insurance for everyone, quality free college education for the gifted with a living stipend for the students, job oriented technical schools with pairing with industries etc.
When people complain about how much they have to pay in taxes my response is it is not how much you pay but how much you have left after taxes that determines how you live.
6
Excellent point.
Anybody who wants a bitter laugh about U.S. health coverage policy should search You Tube for the clip of then President Richard Nixon holding up a prototype of the coverage card that all Americans would carry under "Nixoncare".
No, it wasn't called that. His idea was for something like HMO coverage for all--very similar to the British NHS , which is national health *care*, not national health coverage (like Canada, Medicare).
Those socialists in the Nixon administration took it for granted that directly employing the providers was the way to go; as John Erlichman (domestic policy supremo) put it, "ultimately, of course, national health will eliminate [a specific problem created by a technical regulation in another area of government]...
As for Joe Biden, he should think of Harold Stassen and reconsider. If Mr. Trump survives to run in 2020, honesty and character will be an issue--maybe THE issue--and I don't ever want to hear about Neal Kinnock and the generations of Biden coal miners ever again. It's minor compared to Mr. Trump and the 8000+ lies, but thinking of the Trump rally crowds chanting "write your own!" and Mr. Trump coming up with "speech leech" goes one antacid too far.
1
Stop calling it "free college". It is free tuition (which SUNY had back in the 1960's) for good students from families whose income falls under a certain level. And those students will pay far more in taxes during their lifetimes than if they had not graduated from college. So stop calling it "free college".
8
What do you call K-12 education, if not "free"?
It's a colloquial use of the word, meant to describe things that the government pays for out of taxes alone, at no additional charge to the taxpayers.
Thank God that the Times has finally engaged a columnist to pair with Paul Krugman who cares to espouse the progressive ideas that are not UNTRIED, but were responsible for the huge social progress that this country made in the first decades of the postwar era. It's wonderful to have another bright intellectual light who does not trot out distorting and misunderstood labels. The US was moving toward social justice and proving Marx wrong through its wise investment in a social safety net that helped to preserve capitalism by supporting the health and well-being of workers--an idea, by the way, pioneered by none other than magnate, and thus prototypical "left radical" Henry Ford in the 1910s.
Is there anyone else out there who is moved to outrage when our mainstream journalists, mouthing the inaccuracy of right-wing pols, repeat the obvious lie that our economy will not support single-payer health care? Does any journalist, discussing the latest budget for the Defense Department, make the point that we can't afford yet more military junk for a restless militarism that winds up delivering nothing in terms of advantage for American interests?
8
Capitalism moved to support the health and well being of its workers for the same reason that a slave owner wanted to keep his "property" fit to work.
That's not a good enough reason. Unionization is what resulted in a better life for working people.
Capitalism produced the Great Depression, which forced the powerful to enact the social safety net to stave off chaos and possble revolution.
The decline of unions is directly tied to the rising economic inequality in the US and the exploitation of overseas labor to the detriment of US workers.
Capitalism was a progressive movement in the early 19th century. Never since.
The reason people who accommodate the wealthy are called centrist is that the people doing the calling, aka the media, are themselves wealthier than most Americans.
6
Over 100 years ago, Frederick Douglass eloquently expressed views very similar to Jamelle Bouie's description of what is required for transformational change: "If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
8
A "Moderate" should be someone who first works to make sure our rules are fair and the country provides real opportunity for those with energy, intelligence, training, and determination to succeed--and for the rest to live rewarding lives without existential threats. A moderate should ensure the institutions that can enable a decent life including health, defense, protections from threats to health and safety, transportation, education, etc. are working properly, and the rules enforcing good social behavior and citizenry are as easy to follow, and understand as possible. A moderate must be a leader of all the people, not a few.
A "moderate" running for president should advocate for what is necessary, not what makes the wealthiest among us least grumpy.
The alleged Democrats who claim to be "moderate" seem to believe that our current system is working for a few very wealthy people, so why change.
148
Here is MLK in support, "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that 'justice too long delayed is justice denied.'”
238
@Daniel Mozesl
Thanks for providing this. Not much more need be said. You'd think that the logic of MLK's pronouncements would be more firmly established in "our" thinking.
14
By Mr. Bouie's standards we don't have a centrist problem, we have a problem across the Democratic party. There is nothing particularly conflicting about Sanders, Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, AOC, et. al. They are throwing out a lot of "progressive" ideas but they are not leading a mass movement, nor are they mobilizing people in communities to organize against Trump and the Republicans. They say they have more progressive ideas than Biden; but they are all talk. They have grand ideas but they are not a mass movement. They are not engaged in more conflict than those Bouie has identified as centrists. If you want to see what they have done then look at Sanders campaign and take a hard look at the actions of the Bernie Bros.
29
@Larryp
If it wasn't for the DNC Sanders not only would have been the candidate, but would have won against Trump.
Most Americans want what Bernie proposed during his campaign. It is why most of the rest of the Democratic field are talking about it now.
The only candidate that has these bonafides and has proven it, is Elizabeth Warren
26
@Larryp
and what exactly are the actions of the Bernie Bros to which you refer? Besides a serious start to building a mass movement?
13
Went from near zero name recognition to winning 46% of the Democratic primary vote in 2016 ... But no, not a mass movement. Went from a lone voice in Congress ridiculed for preaching Medicare for All, to one third of the Democratic senators and well over 100 Democratic House members now supporting the idea...But no, not a mass movement.
19
Do the math: Dems moving to the center only moves the center to the right. This has been going on for decades and hasn't done much good for a party increasingly out of touch with the working class.
7
Finally a sensible column describing. in rational terms the condition of our country and need for resolve to make it work for all Americans.
5
We can afford to subsidize extraction industries; however, we argue about providing basic health care for all, even though it would ensure that all children, mothers et al will be healthy and productive as much as possible. We argue about education beyond H.S., even though more young people would continue to college or vocational training venues. We cannot remain competitive in a global economy if we do not recognize education as necessary to compete. Thousands of young, bright and talented people are trapped in the inner cities without the means to provide technology for all students. Not all young students are supported at home; they need the support an active well paid academic community can provide. If our population is aging, that is more reason to mentor and encourage young people from all communities. Scholarships are good things; they do not reach enough young people. Teachers are expected to buy basic school supplies in poor districts; that is a responsibility the government should have: local, State and Federal. The DOD is highly subsidized, weapons they have not asked for, nor want. When was the last world war? Special Forces are paid for; it might be time to describe teachers as special forces. No doubt the military would welcome more recruits they did not have to teach how to read and absorb information. We do not need a military base in every Congressional district, empty and requiring maintenance which provides pork barrel money.
4
@Linda Miilu Do you people on the west coast ever consider the cost of your proposals? Do you have any idea what it would cost to provide health care to everyone? Why should that cost be put on the back of the people who pay their own way, in addition to paying for people who can't pay for themselves. Earth to California!
1
Being bi-partisan means finding common ground to resolve issues. This nation is full of many different viewpoints, not all right, but also no wrong. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and a belief. A centrist like Vice-President Biden has negotiated the aisles of Congress for decades, seeing compromise as the forward thinking way of the future. We should not emulate socialist nations, nor communist nations, nor pure democracies. The United States is a republic and we are unique. I appreciate your opinions but I disagree.
5
@Terry Neal
... and another commenter conflating a system of government with economic systems. They're not the same. Yes, our nation is a Republic. That's the governing system. We're also a nation with a blend of social programs--publicly funded K-12 education, publicly funded policing and firefighting, publicly funded FBI, CIA, and military, publicly funded healthcare for military veterans and people over age 65--and privately financed business in many areas as well.
Our country is both socialist and capitalist; I wish everyone could simply embrace that for the fact that it is.
Some of our socialism, such as taxpayer funded K-12 education, is beneficial for everyone in our country. Some socialism-- such as taxpayer funded football stadiums providing vast economic benefit for 32 NFL team owners and about 1,800 players each year-- is inherently unfair, unhelpful, and fails to provide enough economic benefit to justify the $5.7 billion public investment in current stadiums. Note that cost; interesting coincidence, isn't it?
1
You are totally lost, Mr. Bouie. Being a moderate does not mean always having your finger in the air. It means being for workable solutions to pressing problems. These solutions are almost never far left or far right.
6
Please Joe Biden do not sell out to Larry Fink and his ilk. 99% of your constituency is elsewhere and we will find out where your contributions are coming from.
2
It has been a lot of fun trying to untangle Mr. Bouie's recent string of rookie columns if only because the knots come out so easily. For today's exercise one could say that if you asked a large group of children under the age of 10 if they all wanted ice cream for dinner the vast majority would say yes. But that doesnt make it the right choice does it? So yes if you try to sell a cute sparkly package of easy fixes and call them "medicare for all" and "Green deal" with no real specifics or any understanding of the real markets for such proposals, you will get the same response. But it doesnt make it the right choice, the people Mr. Bouie criticizes are the adults in the room and will have to say no to the "children" even if it seems popular - and on that note I really do wonder whether the majority of people really would support such outrageous proposals if they knew the real facts. If not a country run by children will not run well, let's hope people see that.
6
Mr. Bouie: I like the way you think, and I admire the erudition you bring to your columns, which have become one of my favorite reads. In this one, however, while I agree with your thesis, I think you have taken a road that I'm not sure I want to travel.
Our country is so vast, and our population so disparate, that I don't think any of us can say with certainty, "this is what the majority of Americans want." We can predict with some accuracy the trends in certain areas, but there are battlegrounds ahead where,for them to prevail, the value of progressive positions will have to sold to an uncertain population. Who will have the juice to rally the electorate to ideas the Republicans will be attacking with state-of-the-art weaponry? The coming primary season, I expect, will be an eye-opener for many, and we should not be surprised if the most vocal progressives fail to make it on the first ballot.
Demonizing any group, be it immigrants or billionaires, while it might be a winning strategy in the short term, is unlikely to lead to equal representation for all Americans, as we have seen to our chagrin. You have implied that Joe Biden is an ally of the donor class, and then proceed to list several progressive positions he supports. What is our "take away?"
I agree that the likes of Bloomberg, Schultz, and McAuliffe are out of touch with the needs of the future, I will lend my support for anyone who represents even a small step in what I think is the right (left) direction.
5
It’s so easy to sell ‘free’; who doesn’t want free healthcare, education, childcare, food, housing, opera tickets etc. ? That political ignoramuses who propose these fiscally irresponsible, if not impossible policies are called progressive is an utmost misnomer. Charlatans, playing on the whims of people who most likely contribute little or nothing to the costs, is a more accurate term.
Fortunately the average American gets it in that nothing in life is free; it is really transfer of money from those who work, into the pockets of others, many of whom do not.
4
@HENRY
"Free" is not how Democrats describe their ideas, it's how Republicans do.
For example, Medicare for current retirees and the disabled is not free for recipients--there are both premiums and co-pays.
There's a vast difference between "free" and "lower costs because Medicare administration is less expensive than for-profit organizations".
"it is really transfer of money from those who work, into the pockets of others, many of whom do not"
Another inaccurate generalization, which could just as well be slapped on the beneficial tax treatment of unearned income.
3
Sometimes billionaires say stupid things such as that said by Bloomberg. Canada has a "medicare for all" since 1965. The country's finances are in better shape than the US. And, the health care outcomes are considered by the World Health Organization to be superior to many outcomes in the US.
14
Joe is a nice guy but there are good reasons why he he could not make it against Obama or Clinton. He makes believes that you can play nice with GOP members in House and Senate that will not say no to their racist and sexist President and make progress. He is wrong now and he was wrong in the past. Be nice is what moderates who still took corporate money wanted from Martin Luther King. It took JFK getting killed and Rap Brown scaring folks like Biden to move 3/4s the way up the mountain and claim they were at the top. 3/4's will not cut it. People are ready for full Medicare and serious moves in the environment, if they believe they will get action and not 3/4 action.
9
The reason I know who Terry McAuliffe is, is because I saw his name come up again and again as (what was it?) Democratic party chair or some highly-placed function in the 2000's. He was the guy you saw quoted everywhere. The dems coached Al Gore to sit there and let Bush walk all over him. The Democratic party triangulated and compromised and carried the Bush administration's water for them by voting for a war resolution in the hopes that that would make the Republicans not smear them as unpatriotic (ask war veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland how *that* worked out) and then lost anyway and then picked John Kerry in 2004 and lost again and came this close to picking Hillary Clinton in 2008 who, we can now safely say, would have lost hard to John McCain. When I hear the name Terry McAuliffe, I imagine a bunch of high-ranking Democratic apparatchiks huddled in a bunker quaking and going "Oh no, it looks like no matter what we do, we might win this election, for the love of God somebody take the wheel and run us into the ditch! Terry, what have you got?" That assessment may be completely unfair to Mr. McAuliffe personally but that is what his name conjures for me: a decade of Democrats losing winnable election after winnable election.
The one major election in the past TWENTY FREAKING YEARS that the Democrats didn't throw by picking a "centrist" or an appeasement strategy was 2008 with Barack Obama, who (however he ended up governing) was not obviously the same old same old.
6
There is nothing patriotic about shielding the vast majority of one's wealth from taxation through trusts, shell companies, offshore banking, and all the other accounting maneuvers that our billionaire's grandparents used to make them billionaires, and our billionaires will use to make their grandchildren billionaires.
This is also why raising marginal tax rates on the hyper wealthy and increasing estate taxes, while noble in spirit and perhaps an important litmus test for the democratic party, will (in my humblest opinion) largely be ineffectual and might be overwhelmed by the reactionary propaganda tidal wave we are already seeing ("tonight we renew our resolve that america will never be a socialist country", &c.)
5
So, then... don’t even try? I suggest you re-read the column.
@Michael Evans-Layng, PhD
I read the column. I'm not proposing an alternative program, that is above my pay grade. I'd imagine actual economic democracy in this country would appear as some form of worker control of industry (which we are generations away from) instead of through nonrecallable representative legislation. But again, I wouldn't know, I have a hogh school education, not a PhD.
@William N.
haha high school
no regrets
It’s funny that the higher taxes on the one percent has been tried, and guess what, didn’t lead to destruction. In the 40s the top rate was 90%,and still after WW2 the economy grew and under Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ it was 70%..and the country survived.
Funny also, when Medicare was initiated by LBJ, many including future President Reagan thought it would kill the nation. Yet when he became President was Medicare expunged? It wasn’t!
9
I think moderate and centrist refer to what is politically viable, not what polling says.
I get your point, but why go after the terms and not just discuss the polling instead, thus help make the polling match what is politically viable?
3
I notice that the title of this piece changed from something like "The Myth of the Moderate Democrat" to "The Biden Fallacy." That change is interesting in itself -- was it done to get Biden supporters to read because it attacks their candidate, or because seeming to attack everybody who calls themselves a Moderate makes for poor numbers of hits?
Regardless, I would respond that there is a place and a time for centrism and another place and time for radicalism. Those who say "if you're a center Democrat, I'd rather vote Republican" are the types who gave us Donald Trump by either sitting out or voting for Jill Stein.
As the saying goes, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." There are too many people willing to forego the good because they want their view of the perfect, and as a result we get the very, very bad.
12
@Roy
I too noticed that the title magically changed....as commentary seems to push back against an attack on being moderate.
Curious indeed.....
4
I fervently hope that the democrat primary candidates will stake out and debate well-reasoned policies aimed at narrowing the gap between the super rich and the rest of us, promoting class mobility and preserving the entrepreneurial spirit that makes the US economy so vibrant. It will be the job of the electorate to pay attention and vote with our minds.
5
Whether struggle or accommodation works depends on the parties involved. Within the Democratic Party, for example, progressives and conservatives are both present and practice a mixture in their competition. They must accommodate in order to be able to achieve and to counter Republicans, so they limit their struggle for what they believe in and think will work, and look for something that will somewhat work and be somewhat acceptable to all parties
Between Democrats and Republicans, this seldom happens because, especially since Newt, Republicans do not believe in accommodation but rather victory by any means possible; one of their means is pretend or illusory accommodation. Accommodation with some group that does not believe in accommodation and regards it as weakness quickly morphs to appeasement.
You cannot practice accommodation with someone who does not believe in it, and Republicans as such have rejected it. Some individual Republicans believe in it and attempt it, but on major defining issues they will find little support and may be primaried.
Republicans reject it because their ideology condemns it (government is the problem and must be made as small as possible), but also because their wealthy major donors want low taxes and few regulations. Their donors do not want accommodation with unions, workers, or the environment, but rather mastery and victory. They want to win (the purpose of competition) as big as possible.
4
Nothing will change until enough people demand that we buck the status quo. Just because someone is poor, doesn't make them ignorant. African Americans didn't achieve the right to vote by waiting on white people. Women didn't achieve the right to own property and go to school by waiting on men to give them permission.
Unions had to flip a few cars before they got their workers what they deserved. Republicans would repeal child labor laws if they could and moderate democrats need to understand that. People are only going to allow the wealthy few to step on them for so long and the end of this nonsense is coming.
Politicians, the uber wealthy and corporations had better take note. Walk beside me or get out of the way.
6
No. Just NO! If you're a center democrat, I'd rather you just vote Republican. I do not want Centrism. This is cowardly. We had CENTER candidate Hillary. We had CENTER president Barack Obama. We had CENTER president Clinton. We haven't moved from Center. Democrats will be loser if they keep CENTER. What are center policy? Big Business over everything?
2
@V Is it worth it to push out all of the moderate democrats and independents If the result is 4 more years of Trump or another conservative, with more Supreme Court nominations. Wouldn't you rather have a centrist president who appoints Supreme Court justices like RBG, Kagan and Sotomayor? Isn't incremental change better than going backward?
8
We need a return of the wealthy Progressives of the Teddy Roosevelt mold. People who are so filthy rich that they can afford to spread their gain for the good of society and the nation in general.
Why should we support your reactionary tax and spending policies. What you call progressive, I call reactionary.
2
Yeah, Biden needs blessings, for he has sinned, as exposed by the NYTimes.
It’s stunning that any Democrat, much less Obama's VP, would support GOP Upton, much less a Dem wanting to run for Pres.
Per Wikipedia---
Upton voted to repeal ACA, voted anti abortion rights, takes money from oil, gas industry, has an A rating from NRA, supports a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, and opposes govt regulations on business in various forms, agreeing with the US Chamber of Commerce.
So if Upton's policies were carried out, we’d have more sick people without health care, more women getting illegal dangerous abortions, more dead bodies piling up from gunshots, no policies to combat global warming, cuts in spending for public services.
And increased rule by unregulated big business for their increased profit and power---to top it all off.
This is what Biden-- from the opposing party--- ignores? For a $200,000 fee? Is that specific enough? He reaches across the isle? He's got some reach.
5
Can someone please show Schultz and Bloomberg the exit?
3
Sure, let's play this out. But can we at least have a follow-up on Nov 7, 2020?
Here's a title, taken from an old line of Dave Chapelle skits - "When Keepin' it Real Goes Wrong."
Of course its easy enough for Jamelle to trash Biden. "you can always find fault".
The problem is actually winning a majority of the electoral votes in 2020, and in this Jamelle Bouie's columns are paving the way for another defeat of the Democratic Party in 2020.
Not constructive.
3
Do some Americans not like one another? How do they tolerate seeing fellow citizens suffer when there is another way? That is what goes through the heads of outsiders, with the inaction on guns and inefficient mass heallthcare.
In most western countries, it is accepted on the left AND the right that healthcare is one of those places where market forces tend to fail and socialsm works.
The lie that it will bankrupt America is nauseating. Have none of these politicians heard of economies of scale? America has population scale in bucket loads, which means the costs should go down compared to other Western nations. You guys will have an enviable system once medicae-for-all passes.
7
..take about ignorance, does the author realize the business acumen of Michael Bloomberg and Howard Schultz - they truly understand how to run businesses. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have absolutely no idea of what's involved in starting or operating a business.
That's the problem - our government, which is a business, is broke and running deficits because Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and yourself want to give away education, health care and who knows what else. You attract a lot of votes and get gullible people like yourself believing all these free things won't cost our government any money.
Well Mr. Bouie, there's no free lunch - that's why our government has $21 trillion in debt, is paying $340 billion in interest this year on that debt and is running a 2019 deficit of $965 billion. Mismanagement by Congress and several Administrations.
Keep criticizing politicians like Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg - especially Mr. Bloomberg who was a wonderful fiscally prudent mayor of New York City, and you'll lose complete credibility, if you already haven't.
3
@JMS
It is simple math. If the majority of the wealth is not taxed fairly, accordingly and Progressively, while the output is over sized (like the military budget, and tax theft for billionaires), the the numbers are never going to ''add'' up.
It is a matter of long division where the rich have maintained their status quo through said subtraction of our ability to vote for what is fair and required.
We are multiplying while changing course.
3
JMS;
I beg to differ. Government is not a business. If it were why would the pro business party, the Republican Party, promote the explosion of our deficits by continuing to promote, and pass, revenue cutting tax cuts for segments of our society that don't need them? Businesses don't purposely put themselves in financial holes.
You also are putting the cart before the horse blaming our current debt situation on "proposals" such as free tuition and universal healthcare that have yet to be realized. A proposal can't exacerbate a deficit until it becomes a policy.
3
Oh dear, you make the mistake which enabled Trump to become President. Indeed most political leaders might make poor businessmen. Lincoln was no big businessman. Neither were Washington, TR, FDR, JFK,LBJ or Reagan. Governance requires a different set of skills. Bloomberg was a good mayor and might well make a good President, yet doesn’t make his views about healthcare or taxation top rates right. Under DDE,JFK, and LBJ the top rate was 70% and the economy grew just fine!
1
Hear, hear! Thank you for your clear vision and voice!
3
Great points. The top 1% have about 40% of the wealth, vs. 25% pre-Reagan. What's radical is not taxing them back to the pre-Reagan level.
3
If there’s a major division within Democratic politics, it’s between those who confront and those who seek to win a national election.
7
@JFB Exactly. Once somebody is elected they have far more power and influence and ability to set the tone of the debate; until hen the focus should be on GETTING ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
4
Fred Upton (Michigan Republican) has worked to dismantle the ACA - so what's with Biden supporting him?
Billionaires may not be the problem, but not paying taxes is a problem. And they find ways to hide money, launder money and just plain cheat.
Philanthropy is not the same as paying taxes. They're not paying for the services they use. No one becomes a billionaire without stiffing the people who do the actual work. And the workers, who don't get paid the big bucks, went to public schools.
6
Sorry but taxing the wealthy is popular. Medicare could be made more broadly available, there are various proposals ranging from allowing 55 and older adults to buy in, but Medicare could be added to insurance exchanges. Of course taxes would go up but our healthcare bill already represents a significant part of our GDP and whether you pay through the tax code, by personal check or via reduction in wages (which is how healthcare insurance is provide by your employer) is besides the point. I fail to see how a system that generates profits and carries large administrative costs could be in aggregate cheaper for the nation. I also fail to see the problem with the concept of free college tuition. Aren’t college educated students a good investment for society? Aren’t they as good an investment as say the tax breaks that are given to Amazon for new headquarters or to manufacturers for new factories or to football stadium franchises. I was a soldier in the US Army. My skills were so valuable that my basic and advanced infantry training were completely tuition free and I only served for 6 years, but after graduating from college I have been a taxpayer for 50 years. Isn’t that a better ROI for society?
7
"...moderate politicians have positioned themselves against broad public preference."
But, we live in a democracy, right?
After a necessary in-depth introduction, the point of the article is more clearly emphasized:
"If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege"
Perhaps we need to have more communication and actual connections with each other in order to supply the vital energies to our social system and help it to actually work, rather than fall apart?
"Kin selection" theories about human evolution can delude us. Hunter-gatherers (who were actually more gatherer-hunters) lived within their community, face-to-face, everyday. Those cultures thrived, almost totally peacefully, for many tens of thousands of years, or more. There is something they learned which our dominant agricultural and technologically based cultures have surgically removed and replaced with submission to hierarchies.
We can't stop farming or making things, but we can start spending more time with each other in meaningful connection, doing the work and play which is necessary to maintain life and our planet. That will also lend some freedom of choice to all of the "helicoptering parents" and perhaps return the concept of play and creativity to our children.
2
I can see where Jamelle is going with this, but his premise is faulty. It's a kind of straw man argument because neither Howard Schultz nor Michael Bloomberg are "centrist Democrats," nor even any kind of Democrat. It's not that they are both billionaires (although yes, there is that, too), but rather neither man has ever been much of a Democratic Party person. Yes, Bloomberg has flirted around the edges, but he's never been a go-to party type. At best, he's a kind of floating Indy. I don't know what the heck Schultz is, or thinks he is, but "Democrat" isn't one of them, never mind the "centrist" nonsense. But by his own admission, Schultz says he and or the Democratic Party have long since parted ways, so let's not go calling him a "centrist Democrat," even for the purpose of dissing him. Likewise, Bloomberg.
That just leaves McAuliffe, a sample size of one. Uh. no. Jamelle, no. Not enough to hang a column on.
You want to talk about centrists Democrats? There's this guy, Barack Obama, and this woman, Hillary Clinton. Those are centrist Democrats. So write about them, not two billionaires most Dems of any stripe won't touch with a 10-foot pole. Or poll.
260
@Bill Swanson
thank you indeed, for telling it like it is!
10
@Bill Swanson Considering that the column is about this election and those staking out a moderate position in it, neither Clinton nor Obama is relevant. But Biden, whom you overlook despite his marquee position in that article's title, is.
16
@MPG: Then why did this column spend so much space talking about "moderates" in general, and Schultz, Bloomberg, McAuliffe, et al.? No, this column WASN'T about the election, it was about moderate Democrats, of which, yes, Biden is one. And it mistook who was an actual moderate.
7
The United States is a cruel hateful Mitch McConnell dictatorship. President Trump puts on a show while McConnell defeats every thing and obstructs any effort a rational governance. Only full and complete revolution will change this. Not irrational violence or anarchy but as Theodore Roosevelt called for in 1912, a practical and progressive transformation from stolid dull and utterly corrupt corporatism and abuse of labor to a civilization that encourages invention, a living wage and honest justice for everyone.
57
@David
Excellent comment and truly the heart of the matter. You point out so accurately where the bottleneck of our Democracy lays. If there are no votes allowed on any given topic, then nothing gets done, but more precisely, no one knows where anyone stands, and cannot vote on THEM, accordingly.
Of course, you can steal SCOTUS seats as well.
9
Fred Upton is the representative of Michigan's 6th congressional district. He does not represent Ohio.
1
Nothing would be more frustrating than to win back the White House for a moderate like an Amy Klobuchar or a Biden.
The progressive agenda would be deemed “too radical” and executive power would be poorly and under-utilized.
5
I think losing to Trump (or just about any current Republican) would be more frustrating. The good news is that the Democratic candidate who focuses on the policies that are good investments in our people and our infrastructure as the foundation of a campaign will, I think, do well, given the popularity of those policies.
1
By dismissing every idea for change as "extremist", nothing gets done. "Free college education for all" means a reasonably priced education while meeting certain criteria (like doing the work to earn the degree. Also, common sense oversight of colleges to ensure a relevant education, free digital textbooks, etc.). This isn't a new idea. We've had programs in the past we can learn from, positive and negative. The rich will do what they always do -- send their kids to Harvard or Yale. They can pay the difference in cost, and their taxes will help pay for the rest.
The country must stay competitive! Having a handful of well-educated rich monopolizing everything while the masses remain uneducated and struggling (or educated and struggling) is not moderate.
5
"Antagonism, indignation, anger — these qualities don’t diminish democracy or impede progress."
They are also the go to tools for demagogues the world over. A marvelous set of emotions to distract from what is really important. Just ask Trump, a master of that art.
Antagonism, indignation, anger is how we ended up with a career white collar criminal in the White House and children in cages on the border. It got us here, but will it keep us here?
Progressive policies poll well because they are the right policies at the right time. But don't expect OVERLY angry and divisive rhetoric to play as well outside of the progressive bubble.
Don't think so? If you are a progressive, doesn't a lot of the angry rhetoric coming from people on the Right sound borderline insane at times? They do to me. I'm sure the reverse is true.
So at the risk of sounding like an accommodating centrist, a little moderation in the rhetoric, a little less demonization, will help sell much needed progressive ideas to people who may be willing to listen if they are not shouted at with indignation and anger.
Assuming of course that the goal is to win elections decisively and pass game changing legislation instead of making a loud point that everyone in the progressive bubble already agrees with.
4
@LT
That is not how FDR and Truman won. Obama tried it and found his progressive legislation blocked by Mitch Mc Connell. Don't underestimate how angry a silent majority might be. We see corruption of the electoral process which keeps Southern and some mid-West Governors in power, as well as corrupt Legislatures. When majority votes don't matter, government is corrupted until a major change occurs.
The problem with Obama is that his campaign anger was feigned, and disappeared once he was elected.
I don't blame Mitch McConnell for being a despicable human being. There will always be such people.
I blame Obama for failing to fight, either through cowardice or a fatal nod to his real best interest, the plutocratic national security state.
In some ways, there seems to be an ideological division between the billionaires and the thousands-aires, a very similar division as between the "conservative" and "liberal". We thousands-aires decry the "elite" wealthy folks who have no idea what it's like to live in the real world and they decry the "welfare queen" borderline poor folks who are too lazy to work for the life they want. Neither of these pictures are true, they are wedges we force between ourselves. We would do better to break through these memes, the wealthy admitting the good luck that boosted them up and the poor realizing the bad luck that held them back. Maybe then there is hope that the wealthy can willingly give back some of their excessive gains and the poor can make good use of those newfound gains.
2
Biden and his love of accommodating the powers that be is the past, the old Democratic party of Bill and Hillary Clinton which happily accommodated Wall Street and big banks that Democrats now want to be rid of. Hillary lost partly because of her cozy relationship to the banking industry and Wall Street.
If Biden runs, he's going to run into a buzzsaw of progressive candidates and voters unsympathetic to his old moderate ways.
Biden has always been close to the financial service industries, particularly credit card companies like MBNA (now Bank of America) and other Delaware banking institutions. In the 1990 and aughts, Joe Biden repeatedly supported "reform" bankruptcy legislation that denied bankruptcy discharge and other relief to student loan debtors and that made bankruptcy in general far more difficult for consumers.
Joe Biden is not a friend of working people or anyone struggling to make ends meet.
He'll try to claim that he was progressive during his time as Obama's vice president but that's not going to undo Biden's work in the decades he sided against consumers against financial services and banking interests during his decades in the Senate.
I hope Biden doesn't run. There is too much in his history that hurt consumers who struggle financially and now continues to punish young people crippled by student loan debt.
He'll claim he's 'evolved.' I won't believe him.
Joe Biden should not represent the future of the Democratic Party.
8
@fast/furious
Hillary also lost due to 26 yrs. of GOP smears, unfortunately used by Bernie in his feckless attempt to be nominated by a Party he joined as a matter of convenience. She also took reliable Blue States for granted, ignored them and lost their votes: PA, MI, Ohio and WI. She ran a very disorganized campaign managed by amateurs; her husband, a master pol, went home.
It is so ironic how Joe Biden often and passionately refers to his working class roots, but fails to fully acknowledge, as Mr. Bowie so capably points out, that it required adroit organization and a firm commitment to political confrontation before legislative victories were achieved that benefited that forgotten class of Americans. The country’s present millionaire/billionaire class are the plutocratic heirs to those capitalist captains of industry and finance who relentlessly resisted F.D.R.’ s resolute call for a New Deal for working families. The Bloombergs and Schultzes of today, as enabled by their so-called political class “moderates”, find themselves in a very changing climate where the dramatic extremes of wealth and the resulting scandal of ever widening income inequality will not be tolerated in a representative democracy. As Roosevelt remarked to the antagonistic business and financial monopolists of his day, “I welcome their hatred”.
7
Jamelle Bouie writes, "Without radical labor activism ... there is no New Deal. Without a confrontational (and at times militant) black freedom movement, there is no Civil Rights Act."
True enough, but neither the New Deal nor the Civil Rights Act was achieved under a president who was a labor activist or a black militant, respectively. They were enacted under more centrist presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. What the country needs now is a figure of unity like -- Joe Biden!
5
@Charles Chotkowski And I don't think FDR ever called the majority of Americans "deplorable", either.
1
Joe Biden will not rock the boat where it needs rocking.
1
Those things were achieved because of the confrontational nature of labor and civil rights activism.
To credit the chief executives in charge is unwarranted praise. Both did what was necessary to preserve order — and capitalism.
I read this opinion piece top to bottom but one need not get past the first paragraph to see its faulty premise: It's not moderates or centrists that have been marginalized; it's the extremes from either party that have ceded the middle ground.
Attacks on moderates have increased of late and are worthy of examination by the New York Times. Partisans have us paralyzed with partisanship and have is at each others throats with no hope for good old fashioned compromise. But apparently that's not enough: too-the-left-of-me and to-the-right-of-me partisans both left and right are increasingly going after those of us in the middle. Leave us out of the food fight! Stop doing Putin's work!
The way back to governing reality for the left is not by appealing to the extreme left. Indeed, it was the extreme left that gave us Donald Trump. Trump won in more than one state by a margin smaller than the number votes for the green party, Bernie write-ins and other third party candidates.
Is our distaste for moderation so great that we'd rather have Donald Trump leading the country than establishment Democrats? The president's re-election chances grow with each opinion piece like this one and each attack on moderate Democrats by the extreme left.
11
@LightMostFavorable If you look at the data from 2016 exit polls and recent Monmouth polling, people holding socially liberal and economically conservative views represent, at most, 15% of voters.
Hardly the "pragmatic" "silent majority" that centrists like to think that they are. Conversely, 44% hold progressive views on social and economic issues, and another 28% are social conservative but economically liberal. Economic populism is support by nearly 3/4 of voters.
3
Joe Biden is the ONLY Democrat who can beat Donald Trump. It's nothing more than a pipe dream to think that Kamala Harris, Booker, Warren, or any of these other fringe candidates has even a remote shot at winning with platforms so far to the left the only votes they would get would be in NY, NJ and Calif. There is an entire country outside those areas, and the "fallacy" of this column is to think that anyone other than Biden or another Democratic moderate can win.
8
@Mattbk
Any smart Democratic candidate should expect lies and smears to dominate a large section of the GOP, masterfully manipulated by another master pol, McConnell. That candidate should start preparing now by bringing on board the brightest most active Democrats. We have been in a long Recession "recovery" dominated by low wages, and lack of benefits, e.g. pension Plans and 401K's with a match from the employer. Corporations have taken over the Government: Barr, Whittaker, Minuchin et al. The whole Government has to change; the specious "tax" argument has to stop, because Corporations use airports, public highways, community health centers et al supported by taxes they hire tax experts to avoid.
@Mattbk,
Please try to remember some of Trump's campaign promises. Full employment. A massive infrastructure program. Affordable health care for all.
All lies in his case, of course.
But all progressive ideas that helped get him elected.
The "far left" embraces policies that all working people need.
The times we are living is a very important factor on the point made by Mr. Bouie. We are facing humongous problems that require big and fast changes by the people that will be entrusted to solve them: climate change, a huge and growing economic inequality, a terribly expensive healthcare system, a globalized economy that demands more educated workers, and the huge mess that has been created by a bizarre, unprincipled President, which includes fomenting racial prejudice and misogyny, among other evil attitudes.
For these trying times, we will need politicians who are intelligent, thoughtful, principled, energetic, science-based, courageous, and as confrontational and decisive as the present situation requires. We don't need to make both political parties or the press happy; we need to make the people happy.
5
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
I have yet to read/hear of any Liberal/Progressive who is an advocate for socialism. Not even Bernie...
Politics, like most choice systems, always comes down to whose ox is being gored.
4
If I knew at this point which of the Democrats who want to be president could beat Trump in 2020, that is the one I would support in the primary. Whether progressive or centrist, simply being sane would be a huge improvement over the present POTUS.
7
@Joe Runciter
I would add at least a H.S. diploma and a university Degree not purchased by a rich father. That might ensure some basic level of progressive thought.
Disagree that legislative changes, even the most significant in American history, including Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, The Civil Rights Act, and the ACA, were the result of confrontational politics, All Presidents have had to make compromises with their own ideals and programs as well as with divided Congresses and their leaders. The ACA fell short of what was intended because it received no support at all from Republicans. Pelosi and Biden both know this and would work together for real progress out of the primeval (or is it prime evil?) ooze that is the Trump administration.
7
Exactly correct, Mr. Bouie.
While so many politicians scoff at free college, Medicare for all and other big ticket items as being too expensive, Congress passed a $716 billion dollar military budget in September 2018 in record time, without so much as a squeak of disagreement.
Somehow, we can always find money for the war machine. It's the only bipartisan position in Washington.
14
Independents and swing voters are in the main not moderates, but torn between Trump’s racial polarization and the class polarization of the progressives like Sanders and Warren. Biden or some other PayGo Democrat could beat Trump, but in office wouldn’t improve health care, wages, global warming, or mitigate extreme inequality where 1% of the population holds wealth equivalent to the bottom 90%. America is a plutocracy under stress and coming apart. Only radical economic and political democratization can prevent 1960s style mass movements. Or perhaps upheaval comes first.
While i strongly dislike Trump and have voted Democratic almost all my life, Trump will win a second term if the Democratic candidate is too far left. 'Moderates' like me believe in a decent minimum wage, full taxation and payroll taxes on capital gains and high estate taxes. But if a corporation wants to pay an execute excessively, thats fine with me. A 70% tax rate is not. Resolving income inequality is not required for working people getting a fair shake.
3
@rickrocket So 75% of your views are economically progressive, yet you categorize yourself as a "moderate"?
@rickrocket,
Those excessive executive salaries and stock options come off the back of working people, those who do the actual labor and create the wealth.
There is a direct line between the benefits enjoyed by the rich and the struggles of working people.
In the name of “bipartisanship” and “reasonableness,” centrist Democrats have accommodated right-wing ideas and policies and have disowned the achievements of New Deal liberalism, all at the expense of the average citizen. As wealth inequality soars and people struggle to afford health care, centrists congratulate themselves and each other for being “pragmatic.” Another centrist presidency would continue the downward spiral, further erode the social contract, and pave the way for another Trump. My hopes lie with the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
17
I am white from a lower middle-class upbringing. My father worked hard to send my brother & I to college. We are both now upper middle-class. Like our father we both worked hard to get where we are today. We too paid for our children's HS & college educations.
I see absolutely no reason for this scenario to change for the majority of all American families. If someone today can become a million/billionaire then more power to them. That is what the USA is about. The socialistic ideas being pushed by the lib dems are not acceptable for the majority of Americans. If they are successful in getting nominated then they are only guaranteeing President Trump another 4 years.
6
@Donald
You are wrong. They are not "socialistic" ideas but merely "social democratic" - and they are supported by the majority of Americans. They are taken for granted in almost all of the US's peer nations, where social mobility such as your life story indicates, is higher as a consequence.
6
The author makes some good points and I think accurately characterizes the conflict within the Democratic party as well as the nature of change. However, I disagree on one particular point. Just because confrontational politics and challenging the interests of the rich and powerful is an effective way to accomplish social change, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right posture for the President of the United States. A left-of-center President might very well approve truly progressive policies if they could be passed by the Congress. But, as soon as a President becomes the challenger-in-chief, the conversation is over before it has begun. To me, the problem isn't that the President is too moderate, too conservative, or too liberal - it's that we look to the President to lead the conversation about what policies we should have. How insane is it that Mitch McConnell says "We won't send a bill to the White House that the President won't sign?" Why on earth not? I'd like to see a President *like* Biden who is liberal but plays well in the sandbox with both sides and doesn't squash progress immediately by making the "other side" the enemy. Yes: staunch progressivism is required for true social change, as demonstrated by history. But when, ever, has the President led on that? We need a President who will *accommodate* the interests of the largest number of people possible and help draw consensus. And then we need a Congress who will send that President progressive legislation.
5
The best politicians with progressive agendas can't do much if they can't get elected. A poll that says a majority of voters want to increase taxes on the wealthy, well...yeah. Let's see what happens when a Dem runs on that agenda.
No one likes the idea of incremental change when what we really need is a revolution. But we are a democracy not a meritocracy; just look at the last election to prove that. Job 1 is getting a candidate that can get elected and send Trump packing. No matter who it is will be an improvement.
6
"If there’s a major division within Democratic politics, it’s between those who confront and those who seek to accommodate. Because we lack a varied vocabulary in mainstream political discourse, we call the latter “moderates” or “centrists,” which doesn’t capture the dynamic at work."
The second sentence is a reflection of the problem of labeling. We like to over-simplify, then sequester and polarize. And that's a symptom of the larger problem, posited in the first sentence, which is the implication that there's nothing in-between; that you have to either confront or accomodate. The art of politics - and the advancement of progress - would both beg to differ.
1
The reason that most developed countries except for the U.S. already have universal health care, free higher higher education, universal pre-school and child care, and higher taxes on the rich is not because they wanted to have socialism. It's because they wanted to preserve capitalism. They were afraid of a communist revolution and so members of the plutocracy figured it was better to spread the wealth around a little bit rather than loose it all, not to mention risk losing their heads to the guillotine.
Our "socialist extremists" like AOC are not radicals. They are New Deal style social democratic reformers. They are the best hope for capitalism.
In fact, we actually need a real radica left-wing movement to install existential fear in the Bloombergs, Shultzs, Trumps, and Bidens. The U.S. working population has been incredibly passive in the face of decades of economic decline. We finally see tiny embers of resistance and the plutocracy becomes hysterical. They haven't seen anything yet.
128
@Eric
hear hear.
lots of strange newspeak transmutation of the definitions of words where when politicians and their news outlets say "socialist" they mean "communist" which to their audience means "bolshevik" which is ultimately neither...and then Bernie and AOC and the DSA are saying they are democratic socialists but they are really social democrats, the original enemies of the bolsheviks and the communists and the socialists..... it's all enough to make one just want to give up and read buzzfeed
3
The entire gerontocracy at the head of the Democratic Party is there because of their fundraising prowess. This might be laudable if those funds were used to support candidates that worked for the common good, but instead they are used to perpetuate the interest of the donors. Even in these days of Sanders-inspired crowdfunding, who do you thing Chuck Schumer is going to pick up the phone for, some schmo who donated $20 or someone from Goldman Sachs who bundled $200,000? Biden's a nice guy, but he's been marinating in the swamp so long, it smells like roses to him.
10
So, those who label themselves "moderate" or "centrist" want to be president, but don't want to make too much effort to attain the office, or do much work once they're in it if they somehow succeed. Just go with the flow. That's not what the country needs.
1
Mr. Bouie, I applaud your ideas and your craftsmanship as a writer. Thank you.
5
You sound just like a "bernie bro" who wouldn't vote for Clinton. Just remember the "pure" dems gave us Trump. Biden should run and promise that he would be a one-term prez. I will vote Democrat no matter who gets the nod.
We have a disastrous President, and we are on a precipice if we give ANY Republican four more years.
Biden can beat Trump if we stop all the purity tests on the left. I don't see Warren or Harris (or Booker) beating Trump.
8
Being a pragmatist, I'm most concerned with Democrats nominating the person who has the policies, personality and background/experience to win the Electoral College. At this point in time, I don't see someone whose policies can easily, if incorrectly, labeled as Marxist winning the election. Democrats have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In the last few decades, Republicans have been about winning and doing anything necessary to win. They have won by scaring middle and working class people into voting against their economic self-interests. In order to win, the Democrats have to have a message that appeals to middle and working-class people. That message will have to be somewhere between what Bernie, AOC, etc. are saying and what Bloomberg, Shultz, etc. are offering. To my mind, and given how far apart the poles of political discourse are, what the Democratic Party needs to win is a centrist.
4
@statuteofliberty
It is entirely possible that Trump won the Presidency because Democrats (B. Clinton and B. Obama, potentially H. Clinton) had compromised too much with the Republicans. While paying lip service to the cries of the unemployed and underemployed workers, underwater and foreclosed home owners, etc., they nevertheless, rewarded the Big Bankers, Big Businesses, and the Elite Billionaires. Trump appeared to hear the cries of the people being lost to the American Dream. I think it will take a solid progressive platform to regain their ears. Anything less will justify another win for Trump.
4
@statuteofliberty
You're asking people to continue to support the 'moderate' agendas of the Clintons - see how that worked out for Hillary?
1
@statuteofliberty
I see we have skipped completely over the ''Socialist'' moniker and are now using the term '' Marxist''.
The United States was founded upon the idea of there being representation if there was going to be taxation. Alright then, I ask, who is representing you ?
The answer is of course, no one, unless you are a millionaire or billionaire and wish to continue getting a free pass.
For all others (us), we want there to be a simple premise that if you make more, then you are to pay more taxes Progressively upwards into a system that allowed you to get rich in the first place.
EVEN IF the government taxed you a further 3% on a billion dollars, you would still be wildly wealthy and never be able to spend in any one lifetime on yourself, your family, their children, and their children's children, but a fraction of that wealth.
It is not sustainable.
1
The fundamental split amongst Democrats is those who feel entitled to whatever they deem they want, and the adults who try to explain that everything can’t be had simply because you want it.
2
I disagree.
The split is between those who are willing to fight for what people need and those who, for whatever reason, pay lip service to what people need but have no desire to rock the boat.
It's not "adult" to hang back from a fight, and certainly not "adult" to sell out.
Many wealthy democrats take calls for economic justice as a personal insult belittling their sacrifices - academic successes, long working hours and stressful, busy lives. They truly believe their extreme wealth is their right. They tsk, tsk at the undeserving masses. A Wall Street charity laughably named the Robin Hood Foundation comes to mind. What a brazen name. As though rich donors are stealing from themselves to give to the poor rather than deciding how big a check to write so they can sleep at night. If powerful democrats don't awaken soon from their decades-long hedge fund and investment bank induced slumbers its going to get ugly(er), fast.
5
Just as there is no such thing as a “free lunch” or “free love”, there is no such thing as a “free” college education. Democrats are hurting themselves by using that term over and over again.
4
@Gary Pahl
In the 1970s, as an out of state resident, I paid about $2000 in tuition for a graduate degree at the University of California. Friends of mine who were residents of the state of California paid about $300 for the same degree.
It wasn't free but it was darn close.
@Gary
Perhaps I could recommend a succinct and precise slogan that all can understand in bumper sticker form.
Education good.
These days, other than a small handful of Sanders-Warren types, our politicians seem to be offering us a choice of "Conservative" - rapid capitulation to the interests of the wealthy; "Moderate" - more leisurely capitulation to the interests of the wealthy; and "Liberal" - slow capitulation to the interests of the wealthy.
How long are we going to tolerate a government that completely ignores the interests of the vast majority of its citizens? ....even when they now like to tear-gas and arrest anyone impudent enough to be exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights to political speech and free assembly?
2
What about the ways that wealthy powerful people make the world better? Doug Tompkins built new national parks. Bill and Melinda Gates enhance global health. Andrew Carnegie founded institutes of scientific research. Look at the plaques on the wall of your favorite museum. Sometimes you need a lot of wealth and power in one place to get big things done.
2
@NB
that doesn't mean we should keep groveling to them...
If there’s a major division within Democratic politics, it’s between those who are electable and those who aren’t. Great social change may ultimately occur because of confrontation and activism, but when has a doctrine advocating social upheaval won an election? Personally, I’d rather elect moderate Democrats who would nudge policy toward a more liberal position than lose election after election due to nominating radical candidates, only to finally, 20 years later, have a radical candidate win and enact reform because the electorate was now ready to hear what he was pitching.
5
@Karen
"Great social change may ultimately occur because of confrontation and activism, but when has a doctrine advocating social upheaval won an election?"
Trump was elected in large part because his voters expected that he would "shake things up".
We desperately need activists. We also, sad to say, need politicians. Activists must avoid acting for political reasons. Politicians, on the other hand, emulate activists at their own peril and ours. If we confuse the two in 2020, we'll be worse off than we are now.
1
It's interesting that the left can't stop talking about how unpopular centrists are and what a danger they pose. They cite polls that show that heavily taxing the wealth of the successful is "very popular"; well, of course it is, we outnumber them 100 to 1, what sort of poll results did you expect. If someone asks me if I want some of their wealth I'll say, "yes", and justify my answer with the unthinking assertion that I deserve it. Am I really envious of them, do I really think I deserve a share of their wealth? No. To whom are these supposed forestalling monopolists a danger? To the extreme left. If Democrat voters move only a little way toward the center the leftists are out in the cold (where, incidentally, they belong). It says something telling about the thinness of their support and the rigidly uncompromising fragility of their agenda that they feel mortally endangered by the center, the exact place America needs to get to. The fact that they themselves have made such a bruhaha about this shows that they understand the risks of their position.
3
If Joe Biden decides not to run, it’ll be because moderates are no longer in favor.
Bill Clinton doesn’t look good in the rear view mirror and wealth inequality has become the wake up call to abandon the weak center. Besides, how can there even be a center when one side is off the charts and over the edge, to the right?
5
Biden is a scourge. Although it feels like he has run for president every four years since the '70s, apparently he has only run twice. And his candidacy on both occasions went nowhere fast.
Biden is basking in the reflected glory and goodwill he gained by being VP to a generally popular president. But once you take him out of his convertible sports car and slick Ray-Bans (the photo is nauseating, if you haven't seen it), he'll still be plain old boring Biden.
I took particular offense at Biden's politics when he carried water for the corporations that insisted on bankruptcy revisions that, among other things, made it virtually impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy. As is typical, rapacious corporations (and their legislators) took aim at the lowest on the socio-economic ladder. But that regressive legislation, of course, never impeded the likes of a Donald Trump from declaring bankruptcy.
For historical reasons, most US corporations (or at least a large plurality of them) are domiciled in the state of Delaware. Biden served as a senator from Delaware from 1973 to 2009, and he obviously understood his primary constituents to be the large corporations that wield so much influence in his home state.
Has he changed? Or would he as president still favor the wealthy and corporations over the common man and woman?
Biden has a lot of history. I suggest we examine it closely before crowning him as the next Democratic nominee. His reflected popularity will not last.
12
Raising the top tax bracket to 70% or taxing wealth over a certain amount is not socialism but is, in fact, good policy benefitting all Americans. The most prosperous period in US history was the period between the end of WWII and the 1980s. The top tax bracket was far higher than it is today but we had huge growth in production and wages for everyone.
Mitt Romney's father was the CEO of American Motors in the 1960s and he felt that huge wealth was unseemly. Mitt himself does not share that view. We need a higher minimum wage and, I believe, a maximum wage as well.
5
First, we've got to get Trump out. Sorry, it's not going to happen with Warren, Sanders, Booker, Harris as our (i.e. Democrat) nominee -- even if we agree with their positions. If anyone of them is the top of the ticket Trump will win again.
Second, as a rule, change happens slowly. So, pick a Biden or Biden-type (i.e. Gillebrand if you want a woman) at the top of the ticket with one of the above as VP. Remember, there are a lot of white, male rustbelt voters we need to win back who often don't vote in their interests for a variety of reasons including race and phobia about the word "socialism" narrow-minded and self-destructive as that may be.
Third, after we have won, a "moderate" can be persuaded, pushed, etc. to heed the call of his party's need for more social and economic justice than Trump or any of the other cowardly, reactionary Republicans that currently hold office.
Fourth, we don't have a parliamentary system, we cant form coalitions like every other western democracy.
Fifth, back to First: We gotta win!
9
@Jon
I absolutely agree with you. Given the current political environment in this country, sometimes you have to take baby steps before you can walk. My parents are both Republicans, that did not vote for Trump. They disliked Hillary too much to be persuaded to vote for a Democrat, so Gary Johnson got their votes. My mother stated several times that if Biden had been the nominee, they would have voted for him. I think he can pull a large majority of anti-Trump Republicans his way. I think Democrats need to use rational logical thought to pick the next nominee, the political climate is not the same as it was back in 2008.
1
@Melissa Keith, i believe many dems who strongly disliked hillary did so because she is a woman, whether they admitted this, or even realized their gender reluctance. The dems should not run awoman this time. They need an average white joe like biden if they want to win, verus merely winning points .
@Jon So you are saying dems should lie their way into office and then bankrupt government?
Sure, if you just ask people if they would like free college and Medicare for all they say yes. I like free stuff, too. But if you ask them if they are willing to pay higher taxes for these things you don't get nearly the same response.
2
@Rick Medicare for all isn't free. That is the misstatement Democrats need to fight. Medicare for all means using your current insurance premiums to band together with others to get cheaper insurance through improved buying power.
1
@Rick RE Medicare for All, if you show them how much they and their employers are now paying for commercial insurance over which they have NO control and the prices of which will continually rise and eat up more of their stagnant paychecks; if you ask them if they if they would like to have a choice of payroll deduction for a government plan at graduated tax rates based on their income or a payroll deduction for the private plan their employer chooses for them for which all employees, regardless of income, pay the same premium; if you ask them if they want to continue losing their family's affordable health coverage when they lose their jobs or start a business and worrying about pre-existing condition coverage, I think you'll get some pretty clear answers on those questions.
2
You win some, you lose some. That is the art of a real deal-maker. And that is ex Vice President, Joe Biden. That is the real reason Joe Biden was a Senator for 30 years! Warren, Sanders, Harris, all have unique ideas about one issue or the other. But being President is not about one single issue. Joe Biden is pragmatic about all issues, to achieve the best from a given situation. Which is why there will be more voters agreeing with him than not to take him to the Presidency.
4
I remember Joe Biden as Senator in charge of a Banking Committee that passed a new Bankruptcy bill that hurt poor people and helped banks keep more profit. Delaware is home to many banks. They are Delaware corporations. If I remember right, Joe got $145,000 from banks that year. It was money well spent.
3
@baldski So you believe that people who declare bankruptcy have a right to cheat their creditors?
1
Today a centrist pretty much seems to mean someone with Republican values economically and moderate values socially. They want to continue the terrible economic status quo to preserve their own slice of the pie, but aren't actively trying to roll back progress made by women, LGBTQ+ and minorities.
That's really not worth voting for. I would prioritize economic justice over everything else at this point. Unlike in the twentieth century, when the New Deal's benefits went primarily to white men, we've made enough just enough progress that I believe the Green New Deal would benefit everyone.
6
who's paying for the green new deal? a lot of the new blue wave - folks who have never held real jobs - are out of touch with economic reality (because they have never had to).
4
@Mark
Taxing the wealthy like they used to be taxed when America worked more equitably for all. That economic reality.
5
@Mark There are a lot of entitled wealthy people in our Congress who have never had to worry about health insurance or paying for medicine or college tuition or taking caring of a dependent parent at home, who got their "real jobs" because their parents knew somebody and even if they were incompetent, never got fired. The only low-income working people they know are their housekeepers, pool cleaners and lawn mowers. So tell me about those "blue wave folks" who are so out of touch.
1
No amount of “moderation” will cure the cancer of unlimited growth—the bedrock of a 21st-century form of unfettered capitalism that is destroying the planet.
4
@Perle Besserman; I suppose you think social and political stability are enhanced by low or no growth?
3
Is it just me, or does there seem to be an inordinate amount of people on this particular subject and on this particular thread that all have miraculously convened to defend the rights of millionaires and billionaires ?
Are we all in collusion now ?
23
@FunkyIrishman No, some of us just want to defend the people who actually pay their own way. You ought to try it some time
1
This article seems limited in it's scope. Moderate? Moderate to me means ok with the 715 billion defense budget. Just tweek Health insurance for profit instead of getting rid of it. Leaving pot on the schedule one drug list & continuing the drug war. Allowing Israel to do what ever it pleases and dictate our Middle East Policy. Basically just going on the way we have. All of which Biden is for. I agree with him on one thing, just being rich isn't a sin. But he has always been Republican lite & always will. McAuliffe, forget it, Just a corrupt used car salesman. And Schultz just seems nutty. Once we get into campaign season we will see who is vague and who really wants change. Mr Boule should have mentioned a few other candidates for this to be more complete.
5
When people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, they dismiss sensible or visionary or change-inducing ideas as "extremist." Best to hunt for their motivation(s), because as Funky Irishman says in his comment, by any objective criteria, there are no extremists in the Democratic party.
7
the people behind these extreme positions are not the ones who built America or made it what it is. They are and have been financial drains on those who support themselves. Free college? Good, then I want my 150,000 back. Hold back federal aid to colleges that charge too much but make kids pay especially if they go away to college.
This writer and his ilk are the ones who hold America back. They are liabilities with their constant cries of racism that will never end as long as they can be used to extort money or preferences from people that pay their own way; that is, the people who make America better.
2
@Bryan How,in these days especially, can anyone deny the obvious racial strain this country has not come to grips with? You seem to be one. How often have I heard the capitalist refrain about making it on one,s own only to find a backdoor subsidy by the "big government cronies"Why have we claimed this to be a Christian nation,when Christ would cry at our lack of empathy and charity.
The author, like so many, simply doesn't account for the bottom line of American potus elections. They are not "national" elections. They are state by state run offs, which preclude at least at this point in time due to demagraphics, the likelihood of a progressive winning the electoral college. The cold reality is that reality. Those 7-8 states are where this election will be won. Underestimate Trump is fools errand. Accept the reality of what America is right now, as opposed to the idealism of what it can and eventually will be. Electing Trump to another term sets that eventuality back by a decade. Biden is the one Democrat running strongly ahead of Trump in Iowa, NC and Michigan. Others are tied. Lesson: many Trump voters don't disclose.
1
If you want to know what a moderate Democrat will do to change the power structure in this country just look at what his running mate Barack Obama did when he bailed out the big banks after their greed had crashed the world economy and he gave them all a slap on the wrist for being so bad. Millions of Americans lost their homes, jobs, health insurance and retirement savings. But, as Ry Cooder so aptly put it: “When the train pulled out that morning, no banker was left behind”. I feel that this is one of the main reasons Donald Trump sits in the Oval Office today.
Cartoonist David Low's character, Colonel Blimp, once said, "Gad, sir! Reforms are alright as long as they don't change anything." The so-called moderate Democrats of my acquaintance, the people who genuinely supported Clinton in '16, not just out of party loyalty, are for the most part well educated, prosperous people of a certain age who have done all right. They are culturally and socially liberal, they are appalled by the overt racism and sexism, agressive ignorance and religious bigotry, as they see it, of Trump and his base. They think this would be a better country if it were run by people with their education and values. Although most Americans would consider them rich, they don't think that about theselves because they know and deal with the truly rich. They believe in career open to talent in theory, but they assume that "talent" is what their children have. They are willing to do something benevolent for the less economically well off, but not if it substantially decreases their own wealth, threatens their social position, or makes it less likely that their children will get the superior education they need to retain or surpass their parents' position. They are fundamentally conservative, although they don't realize it. In a different era, they would have been Herald-Tribune Republicans
2
They all keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
Moderation in everything, including moderation.
1
Once Democrats get back to working for their constituents and not the campaign cash donors you will be able to see that the Republican party is so far to the right they are on the fringe, working for the campaign cash of the "donor class". The Justice Democrats are leading the way much to the chagrin of the political establishment and the media establishment of which both are too invested in the already rigged system of policy and reporting. The Times is famous for putting down anyone that challenges the status quo, I give you there tainted reporting on Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. It's tough to change the politicians AND the reporters but maybe some day the Times will report even handedly. I'm not holding my breath.
1
Good policies are born from the fire of the crucible. The Democratic Party is remarkable for its ability to include such diversity in candidates and their political positions under one umbrella. Their task now is to take all these ideas and candidates and forge a candidate and a platform which people can get behind. Until they do that, they're just herding cats.
For quite a few years Democrats have taken the path of least resistance, making big promises and then not being able to follow through with them. The ACA being a prime example. Easy means anyone can do it. Forming good policy, enacting and properly administrating it is hard and demanding work. Raising taxes on the rich is a softball issue, people generally don't have much sympathy for them and cutting them down to size and besides taking their money is going to solve a lot of problems and not hurt the common person at all. But no one has come out and said exactly how much money fleecing the rich will yield and what will be done with it. That's hard and very well could be the crucible which consumes that idea. An idea which yields a false promise.
2
To me, being a moderate means understanding that no one has sole custody of the truth. It means rejecting ideological rigidity and recognizing that competing legitimate interests exists and searching for ways to accommodate such interests reasonably is a good thing.
Of course, such efforts can only succeed where those holding power are willing to bend. That has not been the case with the G.O.P. for some time. The Democrats have finally concluded that you can't reason with the unreasonable, but you can out vote them, and the Blue Team is acting accordingly. Perhaps after a few more electoral shellackings, the G.O.P. will have rediscover the value of compromise. Until then, the Joe Bidens of the world are probably not the ones to lead us.
4
As contemporary history unfolds, it is the "radical left" that has become the country's clearest voice of reason. You really CAN'T have an equitable society when a handful of people control over half its wealth; that's pretty reasonable! You really have to do something major about climate change; that's pretty reasonable, too!
6
Bravo. Those who have power and wealth will not hand it over by their good graces, it has to be pry from them -usually after having failed to pin the blamed of several financial debacles caused by them on the working class - by protest, struggles and the enduring of acts of violence by the state in the name of security and the rule of law. The castle dwellers have a totally different agenda from the villagers and is up to the villagers to demand justice an a sense of equality.
6
Allow me to rephrase slightly. "Moderate" or "centerist" is a euphemism for individuals seeking to maintain the current power structure. Democrats make some social concessions. However, in general, moderates on both sides are dedicated to keeping predominately wealthy white men in control of the levers of power. It doesn't really matter whether Congress is diverse when the objectives are essentially the same. Political and economic subjugation of the majority.
Democrats have a forty year reckoning to deal with. If you want to see Joe Biden get pelted with rotten vegetables, be my guest. Ask him to run. Otherwise though, I think we should turn our attention elsewhere. Biden is not the man for the times.
3
It is not demonization to expect the wealthy to pay more in taxes.
The Bloombergs, McAuliffes and Schultzs would be a disaster for the Democratic Party at this political moment.
It is not radical to expect the Democratic Party to effectively and comprehensively address the long festering economic issues of the working and middle class.
Joe Biden is a fine man and there is no question that he would be a vast improvement over any Republican, let alone the present resident, as POTUS.
The problem with Mr. Biden is that he does not represent a break from a past of minor, ineffective incremental changes.
The ACA was a ‘success’ in that it klugged together a complex and expensive healthcare system into a complex and expensive healthcare system that covered more people with subsidies for some and unaffordable plans for others.
This is no longer enough,
What is needed is single payer, Medicare for All. This is the type of healthcare system that Canada ($5K/person) can afford at fully half the per capita US spending ($10K/person).
We can afford this, it is a matter of finding the leadership that does not owe its power to wealthy donors and large corporations.
It’s high time that The NY Times begin to take the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party seriously. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are more in line with the broad popular consensus than any of the folks cited above.
8
I believe in and support universal, affordable health care, affordable education for all, elimination of the Electoral College, progressive taxation, strict limits on the influence of big money in politics, regulation of business for the common welfare, etc. If this is Socialism, I am a Socialist. Long live Socialism. The so-called Moderates simply lack the courage to stand up for the 99%.
11
The power-elite are quite happy with the way things are...for them...although they may want some reasonable changes in things that don't affect their status much, e.g. gun control, gay rights, and so on.
The overall dynamic of history is not all that mysterious: those with power, money, and privilege wan't to keep it, pass it to their children, and get more of it, with the least hindrance or restriction they can manage. If that means that 90% of the population is relatively insecure, well, things in the sub-celestial sphere are always imperfect.
When angry and struggling people start making demands for a change in the social order, e.g. the basic tax structure, that threatens the elite's cushy position, suddenly you hear talk about extremism, class-warfare, and incivility. It has always been thus.
4
Mr. Bouie has ably described the political and semantic problems with the term “moderate" in our politics. After decades of agitation from the right wing of our political spectrum—stretching in time from Barry Goldwater to Fox News—it’s no wonder that the news media confuse the right side with the middle. The problem is not that rich people are running for office, both Roosevelts were rich. It’s that what passes for the “middle" position veers towards the extreme right.
The notion of fairness, interpreted by news editors as giving two sides equal attention, has mis-educated generations of Americans. Proposing a 70% marginal tax rate on every dollar of annual income north of $10 million is socialism. By that yardstick Dwight Eisenhower was a communist. Having government require health insurance is the path to socialism. You’ll have to dig up Richard Nixon to tell him his healthcare proposal got watered down to become the ACA.
So, what is “moderate"? It tends to be a focus-grouped sound bite that obscures more than it reveals. It is an amoral proposal devoid of any connection to justice. It’s a grifter’s effort to divide the cash where we the people keep getting a smaller and smaller portion.
We’ve had enough. Let’s start with social and economic justice that benefits the majority of Americans as the basis of our conversation. It’s not about where the idea sits on a made-up political spectrum. It’s about our lives.
9
Fredrick Douglas said it best: "If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of many of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will…men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get."
301
@John Williams
and now compare that to say-it-ain't-so-Joe Biden whose sole policy platform seems to be one of undermining liberal causes.
13
@John Williams
Nice quote - but there is only one 'struggle' ahead of us. And that is to get rid of our current President, something Mr. Bouie did not mention. Yes, everything talked about in the article are righteous and progressive causes - but as per usual, Democrats are way way ahead of the curve. Wealth taxes, income inequality, free education, medicare for all - does it really matter now? I think not. Get rid of the cancer first with a pragmatic candidate, then tackle the thorny stuff.
11
@John Williams
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Truer words were never spoken.
20
Of course a majority of people say they want free healthcare and free education and a huge tax on billionaires. But when they find out the huge tax on billionaires isn't going to pay for healthcare and education, and to get those nice things for free, taxes on people making $100,000 or more have to go up substantially, how much support do you think those programs will have?
1
@Tom Fix the many, many loopholes that give billionaires and multi-millionaires tax breaks that leave them with lower effective tax rates than the middle class and we'll talk. Start with removing the social security withholding limits and the treating capital gains on investments like earned income. As for raising taxes on the (upper) middle class... For my part, I'm already paying an enormous fraction of my income to have healthcare, while staring hefty college bills in the face. Take those expenses away and I can afford to pay more taxes for sure.
2
Single-payer health care with be much cheaper. Canada spends $5K/person versus our $10K/person/year.
Why is it cheaper? There is no healthcare insurance as we know it (only very cheap ‘gap coverage’ plans because there are few ‘gaps’). You’re sick, you get an appointment RIGHT AWAY, you get treated. No copays, no crazy bills for uncovered prices, no in or out of network, no paperwork....no anxiety.
Need surgery? If it’s urgent you get it RIGHT AWAY, if it’s not, like in the US it is scheduled. The difference is that after the process you do not receive a bill that bankrupts you.
Do you pay for this in higher taxes? Yes you do, income taxes are roughly 10% higher in Canada, but you always have healthcare employed or not, you never worry about bankruptcy.
The point is as an economy the US is paying twice as much for our mess of a free market health care ‘system’. There is more than enough money in the system already that can be extracted by taxation to pay for this with much lower impact on individual taxes than claimed.
The trouble is, of course, that the definition of "moderate" has moved over the years. These days it means accepting the interests of the wealthy.
I think it was Frederick Douglass who said that power never gives up anything without a fight. Well, finally, the fight is beginning.
5
Mr. Bouie's call for "antagonism, indignation and anger" will only spur those on he other side of the political spectrum to engage in the same. Surely, that is not the recipe for real progress in a highly diverse nation like ours that seems fairly evenly split.
A majority of Americans seem to be coming around to the idea that we need to raise taxes on the rich, and work towards health care for all. Why not try to build on that?
The idea of blowing everything up sounds fun, but then where will be?
2
@Sparky
We'll be where we are now, with demolition man Trump sitting in the White House taking us back to the racist past of his dreams. Hate wins elections - we need to hate the GOP and everything it stands for. We can talk about divisiveness after we win.
1
What are called "moderates" or "centrists" are nothing more than the old "liberal Republicans" like Nelson Rockefeller. Unfortunately many of these found their way into the Democratic Party, and with their wealth and influence turned the party of the "little guy" into the party of the donor class.
What has Democratic appeasement and compromise brought? Movement towards the right, where the idea of selling out workers and unions was acceptable; where freezing and cutting social programs was okay; where keeping a for-profit healthcare system instead of Medicare For All was good; where bailing out the perpetrators of the Crash of '08 but not helping the millions of average folks was "smart". Does that sound like a "party of the People"?
Mr. Bouie is exactly right: real change and progress only comes from loud and raucous opposition to the Status Quo. If the Dems didn't hear that message with the defeat of the Queen of the Status Quo, then they may be on the road to becoming the 21st Century Whig Party.
But that doesn't mean a turn to Socialism, or that our former brand of capitalism, in place from FDR until Reagan, can't work and produce the desired results. Indeed, demonizing wealth, and ignoring what its power - directed by the right influences - can accomplish, is counterproductive. The Roosevelts were dynastically wealthy and yet channeled their wealth and power for the greater good. A balance can be struck, but that doesn't mean appeasement.
6
Doesn’t your argument imply that the powerful are the real social drivers, since as you say there the cause of what the weak struggle against....without the powerful there would be no struggle.
It is completely disingenuous to claim that a national healthcare system is unaffordable. That totally ignores the huge amount of money coming out of workers pockets to buy insurance now. It completely ignores the profit taken at multiple points along our healthcare system. The insurance clerks, ad companies, benefits managers, hospital administrators all get paid before anyone gets an aspirin. Remove that waste, divert some of the premium money to support the system, insist everyone pay into the system and, voila, you have a plan. And the average family has more money in their pocket and better access to healthcare. This ain’t rocket science, every other civilized country has figured it out but us. I dare one candidate to speak this truth.
80
@Jean Sims
yep. our health"care" system is qualitatively and quantitatively the biggest racket in human history
2
@Jean Sims
A national healthcare system based on the way we do things now is not exactly unaffordable, but its cost endangers our competitiveness in the world. Our healthcare system is horribly inefficient based on what other countries spend for comparable results. Fixing this inefficiency will reduce some stock values and wipe out career paths and millions of jobs (some paying very well). High drug prices pay for ads and make television networks more profitable, for example.
We can expect those with investments or careers involved with this inefficiency to fight fiercely to defend their interests. We can make this fight less fierce by providing assistance to people who must seek new jobs and careers. I doubt if there is any way to make the fight with investors less fierce, so it will just have to be won.
3
I’m a moderate and I’ll not apologize for it. I’m pleased with it.
87
@Kevin Jay
Many of us are not. Moderates have given us Trump and the GOP Supreme Court. Glad you're happy.
17
Really??? Obama was more a moderate. We need a moderate that can attract Independents, Dems and Republicans. Otherwise these tribes go there own way and Trump wins again with his 28% core
27
@wcdevins. Actually pouting progressives gave us Trump and the GOP Supreme Court.
17
I would like to see Mr. Bouie examine the mindset of the economic ruling class. What makes these titans tick, as human beings? If their taxes were raised, would they really retire to some private island and play golf all day instead of running companies and creating jobs? Are they so personally disconnected to America that they would move themselves and their families to some underdeveloped country that won't tax their wealth and their businesses? The underlying assumption of opponents to any "tax the rich" and "pay their fair share" proposal is that if we make them and their heirs pay more tax or pay their employees more, they will just sit on their hands and the bread lines will form for American workers. Even if they do pick up and leave and take their businesses with them, we assume there will be nobody else willing or able to replace them. Are these correct assumptions or just capitalist scaremongering? I suspect that the individuals who amass great wealth can't help themselves. They can't get out of the game. It's who they are. I suspect they really like wielding power in the halls of Congress and getting quoted and followed by the media and would feel impotent if they couldn't. Inquiring minds in the 99% want to know and the answers have much to do with our public policy.
5
If the Democrats in 2020 are seen as the party of "antagonism, indignation, anger," they will win all of 10 states.
115
The forces Mr. Bouie correctly describes, by-and-large, came from outside the established political parties. The parties were forced to follow. Political parties are about winning elections. The Democrats periodic accommodation to big business is to twin elections - not necessarily to further policy goals.
6
@Fred
If that analysis were accurate then the GOP should not have won any elections over the last 20 (30, 40?) years. They are nothing if not Antagonistic, indignant, and angry, with a healthy dose of self-righteousness thrown in for good measure.
36
@Fred As opposed to that Trump guy who was the face of cooperation, relaxation, and calm, that won back in 2016? Probably not. In fact, if Clinton had taken even a couple of pages from the "extremist" playbook, she probably would have won. Instead she demonized things like single payer healthcare and college access for all as pipe dreams (similar to how Pelosi appears to be playing the Green New Deal today)... it showed her hand as just another pocket-picker who didn't give a single rip about the working class and their problems.
20
We have already seen what happens when you elect a populist, with no political experience, as president.We also have seen, what happens when you elect a politician, with limited experience, as president.
What the country needs, in 2020, is a person who has a wealth of compromise, can work with both parties, can compromise and work in a bipartisan manner.
People may not like Joe Biden, but he certainly has House, Senate and Vice Presidential experience. He has worked with both parties. And, he has compromised in a bipartisan manner. He is not perfect, and certainly has done gaffes and taken some unpopular positions; however, if Trump's presidency runs to 21 January, 2021, by that time the country will need someone to put this country back together.
With who has declared so far, on the Democrat side, none of them have the wealth of experience, nor the desire to work in a bipartisan manner, or compromise. It was clear, at the State of the Union Address, how divided and far apart of parties truly are. That, with the great divider presiding.
While this will be hard to swallow for the far left, but Joe Biden is the logical choice to undo the damage that Trump has created so far, and will create over the next two years. I personally think, a less experienced candidate may not prevail over Trump, and his Tammany Hall style political machine.
8
What Biden, Schultz and Bloomberg all fear and hate is what used to be called "class consciousness". Namely, they can't bear the prospect that the 99% will come to understand the world as they themselves do. Meaning, money buys policy unless policy actively constrains money.
That dawning knowledge, the product of the Obama administration's absolute compliance to Wall Street,followed by the Trump campaign's exploitation of rage at that corruption, is a horrible prospect for most of Washington, just as it horrifies most of the op-ed contributors on this page and the Democratic party establishment.
Knowledge is a terrible thing?
5
The Democratic Media have fallen into echo-chamber. A line up of flawed and uninspiring candidates out-left the competition to get some press and a re-tweet. Viable people like Schultz and Bloomberg are knocked off because they are actually successful and experienced.. Biden, who should have been president right now, is derided as not woke enough.
From a historical perspective – we are looking at McGovern 1972. The Democratic party lost in 2016, and they will try to perfect that face plant in 2020.
5
Dystopian novels like Brave New World, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451 have become excellent educational texts for teaching forms of mind control.
We now have a society that will fight to the death to protect the most craven and indecent elites and their policies that enrich themselves. I can assure you that if Donald Trump can become President then he can also convince millions that we should burn all the books. Not to mention our willingness to worship 24/7 mind numbing and controlling blather coming from our large plastic boxes (Ray Bradbury again!) hung on every wall of the house and the portable one in our pockets.
All information is suspect. And remember: "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"
2
Sadly, Ground Zero of the moderate Democrat lies in the House and Senate Chamber with embers still burning from that vote on ACA back in 2009.
That's right.70 perfectly good moderate Democrats sacrificed at the altar of 'you have to pass it to find out what's in it' only to see themselves ripped and replaced in 2010 with 70 Tea Party types.
Republicans...having watched this lesson in political overreach..quietly built their majorities in national, state and local elections until the inevitable happened.
Democrats forgot.
And they nominated the candidate who was not only under investigation by the FBI, but who reeked of Establishment.
And in came Trump..not as a Republican but as an outsider anti-Establishment type forcing Democrats to forget once again.
They're complicity in Trump's election is quite apparent for anyone who is woke to politics. The failure to reconcile this with their plans going forward and lurching even further to the left is not only maddening; it's just mad.
I visited Occupy Wall Street camps in 2009 and Tea Party camps in 2010. OWS lost luster because Obama was in the WH. Tea Party got angrier and angrier and they finally got their guy by stealing Populism from Sanders and Nationalism from Pat Buchanan.
And now we revisit 2009 when the OWS types are now winning seats in Congress..and they have their Green New Deals...and moderates now have to choose between the cliff or the Jewish coffee billionaire.
I'm betting they go with the latte.
1
What a terrific column. I must start reading Slate.
The attempt to argue the relative merits of centrism vs. radicalism is a waste of time. To everything there is a season, and centrism is not in season. This is the season for radicalism, and greatness will be found within those who "get it".
We can return to compromise politics after the oligarchy takes some hits, and we'll know change is happening when they scream bloody murder.
5
Biden is far too close to Cheney's fracking salespeople, Obama and Clinton, who betrayed their supporters and everyone on earth, by doing exactly what we voted for them not to do and greatly accelerating the climate crisis. They created Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders the moment Obama said, "great new energy source".
1
"For Biden, you don’t need to demonize the richest Americans"
Here is a real radical alternative : Don't demonize anyone, ever.
4
Exactly. And why Biden, and probably Beto, will not get my primary vote. The battle lines have been drawn by Trump, the GOP and their backers,The 1% & Co. I want warriors, prepared and willing to fight, if necessary. Boule is right.
4
A Trump, an Ocasio-Cortez, and a Schultz can run for office any day of the week. That's the beauty of our democracy.
But with that beauty comes enormous responsibility: we must not elect the likes of Donald Trump into office for a second term because progressives or moderates stay home or vote third party to spark their ideological revolution. That's how Trump was elected.
In his first term, Trump has reshaped the Supreme Court for the next 40 years, and he has appointed more than 100 alt-right federal judges who will crush civil rights for decades. The cancers caused by Trump dumping toxins in our waterways and deregulating toxic chemicals will scar families and natural resources permanently. Trump's attack on women's reproductive rights will damage our economy and our family structure for generations.
That is not a revolution - that is nihilism.
We should all encourage healthy debate up to, and throughout, the Democratic primaries - but we must keep it clean and respectful, so that we can come back together as a party after the nomination to vote for the better of the two choices - even if you have to hold your nose because the candidate is not moderate enough or progressive enough for your standards. Otherwise, the very worst our country has ever seen, will continue to annihilate our country and our way of life.
5
If Mr. Bouie speaks for the black vote, then we are headed for another four years of Donald Trump. We are in a time of close elections with razor thin margins. The votes that make the difference are not young nor are they extreme. We had two black extreme left, Bernie-backed politicians run for governor in the Deep South. Both of them lost. The change in the house was caused by moderate Democrats that were able to flip former GOP seats.
This talk against moderation is ahistorical in Black History Month. Martin Luther King partnered with Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Southern Democrat, to pass the biggest social change legislation the last century. Reconciliation is the path to fixing what ails this country. Millions of blacks still live, work and are tied to the South. The real problem is that the race problem has two sides and black people never want to fix black people. Race is our biggest problem. Our unsolved racial issues are what is driving poor whites to vote against their own interests.
Prior to MLK, whites had no problem with welfare (government handouts) because they were for whites only. One of the biggest failures of 70s were the shouts of “freedom now!” That talk left the problems unsolved and with us today. Today’s freedom now talk is this anti centrist black talk. The Panthers and the NOI set us backwards Bernie gave us Trump and GOP governors in Florida and Georgia. It looks like there is a bunch of black people wanting to give us Trump for four more years.
4
" If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege."
Amen. Centrists will only prolong the status quo and delay real progress. The GOP has shown that centrism is not a path to victory as they have moved to the extremes and have won with that platform. Win or lose, a progressive Democrat will set the tone for a political discussion we've been afraid to have. Stop ignoring the elephant in the room, class divide is killing the world, say it loud.
Allow me to join in the chorus of praise for Mr. Bouie and his writings. I often question whether to cancel my Times subscription, Mr. Bouie has given me reason to hang in. Kudos
3
What a hopeless circle this piece subconsciously paints. Struggle against the powerful. Of course, then they resist back. Conflict ensues. One side wins and becomes more powerful. The other side loses and writes articles like this, talking about how they need to struggle against the powerful.
Those of us who claim to be moderate are simply more interested in peacefully finding some common ground for the betterment of as many people as possible rather than constantly waging war on the behalf of the extremes.
5
@htg I don't see anyone with any influence talking about waging war. The "radical left" is talking about restoring top marginal tax rates to their pre-Reagan historical norms to reduce the massive concentration of wealth we now have. The money raised by this return to historical norms will be used to improve the lives of those further down the economic ladder. Sounds pretty peaceful to me.
3
@Randy
Go ask any person in any conflict zone if they are waging war, and invariably they'll say "no, we are trying to return the land to our people" or "no, we are trying to throw off oppressive invaders" or "no, we are here to help someone."
But those are just reasons or goals. They're still waging war.
You did the same thing. You gave me a reason, not an action.
The extreme left and right are drawing battle lines, and have been for some time. Personally, I think the one's on the left look a lot more ethically based to me. But whatever the noble cause, it doesn't negate the fact that both sides are still just raring for a fight. And the other side is going to fight back, period.
It's the base of our system. Politics, law, negotiation: fight fight fight. Don't kid yourself. I don't kid myself: I might be a moderate independent, but I know it's pretty darn hard to change a system fighting to a system based on cooperation. Still gotta try.
1
We’d love to hear your ideas on just how to accomplish that, using those means.
I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I'm as far left as one can get when it comes to equal rights for all. And all one needs to prove to me is if your going to have a Medicare for All, tell me how your going to finance it.
And that's why Elizabeth Warren appeals to me, she has a plan to increase revenue by taxing the high income individuals to help pay for a national healthcare program.
4
I like Elizabeth Warren’s idea also. I just want to see the numbers.
@cherrylog754 I think you have hit on something: liberals never consider the fiscal side of what they propose. For them, money grows on trees, but that's ok, they are looking to get other people's money.
I hope you all are ready for Trump's second term. That is what a hard left, progressive/"socialist" agenda will bring. "Free" college, no private insurance, Medicare for all, 70% marginal rates will just not play across middle America. In some individual districts and in states like New York and California fine but not out here in "flyover country"
3
@Bob Every poll says you are wrong.
Capitalism focuses capital. That is it will be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Capitalism does not spread the wealth it centralizes the wealth. Redistribution of wealth is always confrontational. The unions fought for increases in wages and benefits. GM and Ford did not give the workers anything. The workers through organizing and striking forced the industrial corporations to improve wages and benefits. Capitalists gave way when their cause was lost.
Now there is no competitor, ideologically or in an actual state, against capitalism. If the middle class wants health care, free college and a safe environment, we will have to fight for it.
11
The case for serious action (and an end to decades of mainstream Democratic Party tokenism, waffling and endless caving) against economic inequality is compelling. As it has been for millennia, only more so now.
But do not let pseudo-socialist fantasizing run free of facts.
Even if the entire US population were somehow made exactly equal in incomes, wealth and economic opportunities, that would not alter these salient realities of OUR time:
1. America would still consume a disproportionately unfair and unsustainable share of the world's non-renewable resources.
2. The great economic boom, since the industrial revolution of the early 1800s, is slowing down one way or another. It has been largely based on a one-off exploitation -in a matter of centuries- of natural fossil fuel capital (which built up over hundreds of millions of years). The global economy has already overshot many ecological and resource limits, and efforts to force further overshoot will not bring us back to an age when the population was a quarter that of today, and available land, fresh water and other resources many times higher. Furthermore, global climate change is eroding many of those resources, and is almost certainly to accelerate in coming decades (somewhat less so if we take serious action, which we haven't yet).
3. Efforts to make economic growth faster will not only fail, they very likely will bring on a brave new world of technological mischief, Frankensteinian blowbacks, and oppression.
"Antagonism, indignation, anger — these qualities don’t diminish democracy or impede progress."
A little background for this comment. After Trump won the presidency in 2016, there were a number of articles pointing out that the left's heavy focus on negative reinforcement, demonization, and aggressive protest had alienated moderates and pushed America's middle towards Republicans.
Leftists were disgusted at this, as this suggests a core re-examination of the tactics they love. i daresay quite a few (esp. those from elite backgrounds) get a great deal of joy from that unearned sense of moral superiority that comes from "calling out" some minor violation of some unwritten and amorphous ethical code.
So, for the last few years, the left has been trying to convince us of the strategic value of "antagonism, indignation, anger", in order to squelch the idea that they would have to reconsider these preferences.
4
@MA
And the cries of "Lock her up!" and "libtards," and 90% of the commentary on Fox and am radio, are not angry or antagonistic?????
1
@Martin Some assumptions here. 1) That a criticism of the left does not apply also to the right, and 2) that liberals and conservatives respond to the same kind of proselytizing. In fact, there is a great deal of research supporting the idea that liberals and conservatives have totally different ways of thinking and respond to appeals very differently.
1
@MA These "radical left" tactics sure hurt the Democrats in the midterms.
I'm reading David Blight's new Frederick Douglas' book, and Cooper's writing reminded me of what Douglass spoke about people who were moderately opposed to slavery in the 1840s and 1850s:
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."
12
Yet it's "the powerful" rich who fund the overwhelming majority of those social programs. It's the rich whose state and local tax deductions were capped and are now resulting in a $2 billion budget deficit in New York that Cuomo can't close by taxing the rich.
I like Biden and Warren and I'm not opposed to higher tax rates on some, but perhaps Jamelle should give greater pause to the fact that the public image of people, generally, including the rich isn't reflective of the hard work and sacrifice of building companies that have vastly enhanced living standards for all of us. The same can't be said for journalists whose influence and advancement is so perversely insulated from public approval and frequently detached from risk-taking.
Jamelle wants a pluralistic society that agrees with him as to who the oppressors and oppressed are. He thinks anger and antagonism is healthy for a democracy but only if it's about the right things and people. This is not persuasive. It's a trite expression of political polarization.
The curious thing is that the progressive agenda would consolidate risk and concentrate an enormous amount of power and money in the federal government. Why shouldn't Americans question that as vigorously?
Candidates might run as progressives or tea partiers, but they moderate just as contemporary presidents have, including Trump, because we have a pluralistic society and a government that impedes central power and protects us from the righteous.
4
@R You assume that all extremely wealthy people got there by building companies. In fact, an enormous percentage of the great fortunes in this country are inherited.
4
With the sense of danger many feel in areas other than domestic affairs (such as renewal of nuclear arm race referred to in the State of the Union), I have felt, maybe incorrectly, that an appealing "moderate" or "centrist" democratic candidate would have the best chance of defeating President Trump in 2020. Is social reform yet the broad public preference that could win in 2020?
1
@Jeffrey Freedman What do you and this columnist mean by "social reform", exactly? I'm pretty sure the Democrats could win on a platform with plans for ECONOMIC reforms that favor working class Americans of all ages. The problem is that today's Democrats are either timid or completely recalcitrant on purely economic reforms that might benefit low income working class Americans (especially seniors), but aggressive/dictatorial about SOCIAL reforms designed to benefit specific ethnic groups, no matter the impact on other groups. In short, it seems to me that the Democrats should up their awareness of basic pocketbooks issues, while allowing citizens to conduct their personal/social lives and interactions as THEY want.
There is something more going on here. Schulz's views can only be thought of as Democratic or liberal because the relentlessly reactionary and demagogic trajectory of the Republican party has left people like him with nowhere else to go. He is no Democrat but as someone smart enough to have made himself a billionaire he can't imagine being a Republican as they exist today. I can see making room for him in the party but his views are really very regressive and I can't see a place for him in the party leadership. And I have to say that obsessive concern for the deficit and the idea that things like social security are "entitlments" that we have to watch have no place in rational political thinking.
7
I love the point that Jamelle is making, but I think this article does a disservice.
There's only one paragraph that gets to his core thesis:
But this is a faulty view of how progress happens. Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests . . . . If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege.
Everything else in the article either provides background, begs the question or sets up a strawman.
If he reads this comment, I'd love to hear more concrete details about why an antagonistic policy would be more successful. Comparisons to slavery and civil rights are painting in enormously broad brushstrokes...
1
What's false here (unsurprisingly) is your purposeful mischaracterization of centrists' ideas. Here's what Bloomberg actually said:
“If you want to solve income inequality, one of the things you have to do is you have to adjust just how progressive the tax rates are. I think you can question whether or not we have the right tax rates. There is a balance between getting people to pay their taxes or use gimmicks to avoid them. and making sure they still have an incentive to be productive and generate more revenue and income and wealth for everybody. We need a healthy economy, and we shouldn’t be embarrassed about our system. If you want to look at a system that’s non-capitalistic, just take a look at what was once, perhaps, the wealthiest country in the world, and today people are starving to death. It’s called Venezuela.”
And here is what McAuliffe actually said:
"Similarly, a promise of universal free college has an appealing ring, but it’s not a progressive prioritization of the educational needs of struggling families. We need to provide access to higher education, job training and student debt relief to families who need it. Spending limited taxpayer money on a free college education for the children of rich parents badly misses the mark for most families."
And they are both 100% correct. Instead of pie-in-the-sky ideas, they have ideas that will actually help people. Crazy idea, I know! Notice that the biggest weapon at the left is to lie about what people say.
5
@Mike Bloomberg is not 100% correct. Venezuela's problems are not rooted in socialist policy, but in the economy's over-dependence on a single commodity: oil. When the global oil market tanked, so did the Venezuelan economy. Bloomberg's reference to Venezuela is standard right-wing misdirection, and it is utterly false.
I do agree in principle with McAuliffe that programs and resources need to be allocated to where they are actually needed. The political problem with that approach is that such programs can then be demonized as "welfare" only benefitting "those people." That is why I oppose means testing retirement benefits like social security. Today it's just preserving resources, in ten years social security is welfare for lazy people that all patriotic, hard working Americans should oppose.
2
@Randy He didn't say Venezuela's problems were rooted in socialist policy. That's a fabrication by the writer of this piece. And an over-dependence on oil is only part of Venezuela's problem. It's biggest problem is that it is a kleptocracy/narcostate.
And I like your second point, but not a lot of your liberal friends will. They aren't much into nuance. And that's the problem here: centrism is about nuance, whereas liberalism is about unicorns. (Things that don't exist and never will)
@Mike With all due respect, I think you have that exactly backwards. My liberal friends, and the most outspoken liberal policymakers, are policy wonks who delve deep into the details. The self-proclaimed "centrists" think that they must be right just because liberals and conservatives both think they're wrong.
In just his first few columns, Bouie has made a real difference in what counts as publishable mainstream discourse. I'm so grateful for a voice that is sharp, historically rooted, and unequivocal in stating his own arguments and identifying the substance of opponents' arguments. Unlike some of his colleagues on these pages who couch their extremist opinions in wishy-washy 'centrist' language (I see you D. Brooks), Bouie speaks as someone for whom the stakes are not just intellectual. He's no pronouncing about social and economic issues from a cozy NW DC armchair. It's finally a progressive voice that's not begging for acceptance from the Brookings crowd.
59
@MW. "In just his first few columns, Bouie has made a real difference in what counts as publishable mainstream discourse. "
I assess it somewhat differently. I think it shows how the Times has continued to drift from mainstream democratic ideas to the fringe left.
Their investigative journalism is the best in the business, but their opinion pieces have taken a sharp turn to the shrill and self-righteous.
3
@Sparky Reread the column. The point is that most ideas of the "fringe left" are very popular with Americans of all political stripes – which means, these ideas are not "fringe" or "left" at all.
5
@Sparky
Obamacare was a classic mainstream idea; it even had Republican roots and was tried out on the state level by a Republican. The Republican Party has shown us what it thinks of such classic mainstream ideas. But pointing out their reaction to such mainstream ideas, they say, is shrill and self-righteous, and they talk people into calling it fringy.
1
I agree, but I struggle with the political question of how necessary or useful it is to "demonize" the wealthy in order to bring them back, forcibly if necessary, into the folds of cooperative society. Certainly people who buy their way into the White House, who spend billions on extremist propaganda, who bribe elected officials, deserve all the demonization you want. But I think a lot of wealthy people are well-meaning & patriotic; they're as much a victim of the Republican / Fox "helping the powerful helps the weak" propaganda as are the working people who vote every year to surrender their rights and benefits to the wealthy. However much wealth you have--a pocket full of change or assets around the globe, there is a natural feeling that you deserve it, simply because the law says it is yours. Of course it's easier for the people at Davos to focus on the nickels & dimes they (admirably) give away than to seriously contemplate a fair economy.
It often seems that 90% of the political discussion in this country (probably 99% on the right) consists of fear-mongering characterizations of the opposition. It obviously works, but it's a contest of volume, i.e., in our money-driven political system, financial power. If we're going to start winning battles I don't see it happening through out-shouting or out-demonizing or out-spending the right. It will be through reasoned argument--if the media will allow it.
1
The new norm of constant labeling and sweeping assertions is not helpful IMO.
What is a Moderate Democrat?
Economic issues?
Social issues?
Justice issues?
Here are three example profiles. There could be many other variations.
Who is who?
Person A: Against income inequality, favors taxing the rich, supports unions, pro-choice.
But - favors immigration restrictions; is against marijuana legalization; is OK with gun ownership.
Person B: Favors marijuana legalization; does not believe in immigration restrictions; favors free college tuition; favors universal health care; expresses concern about the environment.
But - does not support unions; is a big user of exploitive corporate products like Uber and Chipotle; is a big/wasteful consumer of energy and garbage despite professed concern about the environment.
Person C - Concerned about social justice issues; favors taxing the rich; support legalization of marijuana.
But - not concerned about the environment; favors immigration restrictions.
3
I don't know why being a “moderate” has become such a bad thing these days. Just because we have a 2-party system does not mean there are only 2 answers/solutions to a problem. Political opinions in this country run the gamut of far right to far left and myriads positions in between.
I agree that struggle against the powerful is how America achieved some great social reforms. However, change rarely happens in leaps and bounds because rarely does one side so overpower the other that they can run roughshod over the other sides' objections. Change comes in small incremental steps but that is how change happens in a country that covers as many diverse regions and neighborhoods as this one does. Issues plaguing urban areas (pollution, high cost of living, etc.) are not necessarily priorities for people in rural areas. A San Francisco Democrat will likely have a different agenda than a rural Democrat but that doesn’t mean that the rural Democrat should be branded as a false progressive because he/she harbors more “moderate” positions than their San Francisco counterparts.
The truth is that the Democractic party is the large tent under which most people who don’t want to identify as Republicans gather. Pointing fingers at or looking down on “moderate” Democrats as something lesser than other members farther to the left is self-righteous and counterproductive to getting people to come together to push for change (small and large) that improve our country.
3
@EM It appears that large change also eludes the mass of people living under this moderate democratic party.
1
@EM "I don't know why being a “moderate” has become such a bad thing these days."
Because they want total conformity. The very existence of moderation suggests carefully considering different points of view; acknowledging strengths and weaknesses to both side, and maybe not always falling on one particular side of the spectrum.
The preference is for an environment in which one social, political, or moral view is "right" (ours) and one is "wrong" (theirs), and moderation should not be possible.
1
Actually there is another divide in this country that may distinguish between progressives, "moderates, and conservatives. That is the divide between those who believe in facts and history, and those who believe in myths and ideology. Here are 10 myths. Do you believe in any of them?
1. Significantly paying down the federal debt (10% or more) has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about 0.50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
13
@Len Charlap Maybe number 4. The rest are nuts but often repeated as if they have been proven.
1
@Ed - Ah yes, the Europe was rubble myth. Look at the graph on Page 60 of Piketty's book. It shows the percent of the world's output from the various regions, America, Europe, Africa, and Asia, from 1700 - 2012. During the the post WWII period Europe's percentage was constant at about 38%. America's went down from slightly more than Europe's to slightly less.
The chart is also at:
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/F1.1.pdf
English and French industries were largely untouched during the war. Of course it would have taken a miracle for Germany to quickly recover, but if you look up "German Miracle" or "Wirtschaftswunder", you can see that was exactly what happened.
2
The New Deal for all it’s mythical glory was mostly a failure. Very little of it remains today for good reason. The New Deal failed to address the reality that The Great Depression was largely the fault of the government and not as much the private, capitalist sector. Nevertheless, the New Deal was bailed out by the fact that Europe was decimated by World War 2 and there was little competition for American made goods.
The problem now is that there is lots of competition around the world and protectionism has never proven effective. Moderates and moderate action to move the needle slightly leftward is needed, however, substantial shifts will damage the economy and lower the standards for everyone, not just the rich.
1
This colum is a load of tripe, written only to sow discord.
Moderation, Mr. Jamelle Bouie, is a noble, and honorable thing; for you, an "opinion" writer to suggest otherwise is laughable.
There is a great need of moderation, and consideration of other's views in this nation. Those who can not see that are in fact, the problem we, as a nation, face.
6
@Paul
I ask a simple question : '' Moderation against what ? ''
If the planet has finite resources and we are using them all up, do we just slow down so that we become extinct in only 100 years instead of 50 ?
If there is extreme poverty and disparity, do we give millionaires and billionaires only a 3% or 5% tax cut so that we have maybe a little more to help but a fraction of the less well off ?
The idea of moderation in these examples (and so many others) really is obscene on the face of it, but that is what ''moderation'' for the sake of, really entails.
How would you fix these problems ?
4
@FunkyIrishman
Moderation in all things.....is simply to advise someone that it is best not to have or do too much or too little of anything.
It is not a matter of being "against" anything.
The maintaining of a particular viewpoint, and the utter belief that *your* view is the only 'right' one is the problem that moderation helps ameliorate.
I don't know the answer to all things, but I do accept that common ground, and a willingness to *honestly* consider the merits of another persons views is critical. Thus moderation is never "obscene" when viewed in that light.
As to your tax question, I view that as sophistry. You seem to wish to paint me into a corner, philosophically, regarding the 'right' amount to tax someone; all in the name of benefiting of another person.
Is it not better to have a measured, approach first? If it does not bring the desired results, revisit the nature of both the agreed goal and the process of what is done to reach that goal.
1
Required reading on this topic: "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" by Anand Giridharadas. You will see all the Democratic candidates in it, figuratively if not literally.
3
Trump derangement syndrome actually consists of the idea that we will nominate someone who will lose to the future unindicted coconspirator. Some of the "centrist" drive is based on that, rightly or wrongly. Economically and logically, you are spot on. Enjoying your perspective.
3
"Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how Americans produced the conditions for its greatest social accomplishments like the creation of the welfare state and the toppling of Jim Crow. Without radical labor activism that identifies capitalism — and the bosses — as the vector for oppression and disadvantage, there is no New Deal. Without a confrontational (and at times militant) black freedom movement, there is no Civil Rights Act. If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege." Indeed...but is there something new here, or is stating the plain and simple truth something readers of the NYTimes like to forget about? Go Bernie, Go AOC. Go BLM...go to the streets.
3
"What then makes a moderate, if not policies that appeal to the middle?"
How about non-ideological policies? How about policies that make sense? How about polices that are realistic?
Acting like "broadly popular" plans are necessarily good plans is silly. I'm sure most Americans would like a plan that gives one million dollars to every citizen. Doesn't make that a feasible policy.
When candidates talk about "free college" or "medicare for all" my eyes roll back. It's not clear to me that these "ideas" are affordable. Affordability aside, it is clear that these plans are unrealistic. The next president is not going to enact "free college for everyone". Sorry.
Moreover, I'm not thrilled about the constant vilification of "the rich and powerful". The world isn't that simple and I don't think people who perceive the world as that simple can be effective leaders. This is the appeal of "centrists". "Centrists" purport to have a non-ideological perspective that allows more nuance than "rich people are evil thieves, take their money and give it to poor people".
1
Jamelle Bouie, excellent work. Challenging piece. I'm afraid you are probably right. David Leonhard's telling recent piece, The Actual State of the Union Now, or whatever, has data to support this line of thinking. We are into a new Gilded Age. But more newsworthy, the earth is getting ruined by the pollution of 7.6 billion humans. What is missing from your writing, is an awareness of the Sixth Extinction, which is the really big story you keep missing and haven't even acknowledged yet. It is so last century to focus exclusively on civil and human rights. With such narrowness, we might be doomed, if the experts are right who say we have only 12 years to turn around the direction we are headed with regards to climate change. The good news is that the earth is fine. It doesn't care if we survive. Jamelle, I invite your to do a deep dive into the writings of two of my heros, Edward O Wilson, and Bill McKibbon. Also, take a look at the NYT magazine, stupidly undated. It has only one article, Losing Earth, Thirty Years ago, we could have saved the planet, by Nathaniel Rich. The copy I printed out from NYT.com has a date stamp of August 1, 2018.
David Lindsay Jr. is the author of “The Tay Son Rebellion,” and blogs at TheTaySonRebellion.com and InconvenientNews.wordpress.com. He performs folk music and stories about Climate Change and the Sixth Extinction.
3
It is people like this that are going to give you 4 more years of Trump - at best. Keep it up and you can throw 8 of Pence on top of that as well. The United States does not want socialism. Give it up.
@Stuart
Polling data consistently says otherwise. It is not about pitting me against you, it is about ALL of us partaking equally and Progressively in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Do you not want to be happy friend ?
2
@Stuart M
The American people really DO want social programs, just with a different brand name. The ACA was wildly popular, but everyone hated ObamaCare. Americans hate those government checks until one regularly comes to my house. Sure, everyone hates that word. Been trained that way by the One PerCent.
2
@Stuart M
Really? Is that why Trump lost the election? Is that why, despite gerrymandering and voter suppression, Democrats ate the Republican's lunch in 2018? You people need to stop claiming some sort of mandate. You have to cheat to stay in office and now it is beginning to unravel. Give it up.
2
These centrists are for keeping our corporate overlords at the center of power.
5
I suppose if you asked every American if they would like the Government to give them a million dollars they would overwhelming approve. I'm no economist but I suspect it would be a pretty stupid idea even though - to use Mr. Bouie's apparent criteria for determining public policy - it "is very popular".
@John
No one is advocating giving away a million dollars to any one individual. What is being advocated is that if you make more money. then you should be paying taxes Progressively upwards back into the infrastructure that allowed you to become ''rich'' in the first place.
It is a matter of equality, and does indeed, poll well.
5
This endless fixation with "centrism" or "moderation" or "bipartisanship" has allowed the Republican party to run roughshod over the entire country for decades, while dragging it ever further to the right wing. Refusal to fight back and push progressive policies has given us enormous income inequality, half-a-loaf solutions to the healthcare crisis, paltry movement on climate change, the loss of labor unions, soaring costs of education, voter suppression, and gerrymandering which has given us both a right-wing Supreme Court and two presidents in the last 20 years who lost the popular vote.
Centrism is nothing but a cowardly submission to a toxic and unequal status quo. We can't afford that any longer.
589
@Dominic I consider myself a centrist but also am dedicated to many of the same things those on the radical left are - increased minimum wage, healthcare for all, a social safety net, etc.
What we oppose is the shrill intolerance found on left and right - a refusal by both sides to take into account what about their approach (and reality) might be lacking and to change accordingly; and to see what might be right about some of the things the other side is proposing.
The "middle" is mischaracterized in this piece and elsewhere as an accommodation of the status quo because the middle is a threat to the polar extremes' default way of doing things. The extremes don't want to self reflect and change. They want to keep deluding themselves into thinking they're right. And that's how we got Donald Trump for president.
46
@John G If you (like most people) are in favor of increased minimum wage, healthcare for all, and a social safety net, why do you use the word "radical"? This is one of the points of the column. These ideas are not radical left, they are centrist. They are what the majority of Americans want. Although I reject your false equivalence, any "shrill intolerance" on the left comes from the fact that Republicans refuse to govern. On the off chance they do something, it is the opposite of what the people want them to do. If that does not deserve some shrill intolerance, I don't know what does.
79
@Dominic
It seems so strange that moderate is to become a dirty word on Democratic politics.
6
Perhaps my age is having an effect, but both the Clinton administration, and, in many ways the Kennedy/Johnson years were moderate in many ways, and THINGS GOT BETTER! (Not perfect, but better)
By all means let's start the 2020 by attacking our own, I mean look at What Bernie's rants did in 2016, and who can forget Madera contributions to Gore's election
What ever the extremes of the two parties may think, the vast majority of both sides is closer to the middle.
Nominating a firebrand of the left will likely result in a replay of the McGovern travesty.
23
I think Edmund Burke espoused the same principles. Great article for one's consience.
3
The people in my corner of the world, the high-tech industry, are mostly libertarian or centrist Democrats. It's easy for me to think politicians should just adopt moderate positions and offer voters the choice between this and the clownishness of President Trump. But my corner of the country may not be representative.
Do the numbers really show the broader population wants more socialistic policies? That doesn't seem true to me. Next to President Trump's mean-spirited antics, any policy looks good. He won by a fluke of the electoral college. As soon as a more normal, moderate figure leads the Republican party, many people will chose that over Democratic socialism.
1
@Charles
In any given election there are over 100,000,000 potential voters that sit out. Are they that apathetic, distrustful or annoyed with the goings on ? Do they wait for a true Progressive that is going to fight for and talk to them ?
I think you are going to be surprised.
2
None of them are moderates as they're all millionaires. They're out of touch with budgeting in government as they get highly paid to waffle on and nothing gets done in the real world. Critical analysis of the internal spending by politicians needs doing so the public can expect them to show where government savings can be made. For a start they don't need taxpayer funded private jets to travel in. In NZ the politicians use public transport and the media can scrutinise politicians spending by getting information under the Official Information Act. Also, they prattle on about anything except being introspective about their own spending and big business spending and mistakes that the government has to pay for. One example is the 2008 crash when the government had to bail out big business and the government debt ballooned and the rich got richer. No accountability whatsoever! If you look at statistics from 2008 economic crash you'll see the stats show the wealth of the rich climbing and the government debt synchronised to climb with it. It's called Corporate Welfare and is a burden on all moderates in the USA as the government is subsidising low wages that are not a living wage.
8
I am quite liberal about a lot of things. I would bet I'm to the left of you on many things. Here is how I differ. I don't insist on the immediate adaption of my program. I am quite happy if I can feel that we are reliably moving in that direction. Consequently I am willing to negotiate with those who, perhaps utterly irrationally, are frightened or put off by my program. There is no more tiresome cliche, no more soggy piece of lazy and ultimately unjustified intellectual laziness than to believe that the middle position is somehow magically virtuous. But I want to leave intellectual space in the hope of broadening and enlarging the Democratic electorate. That means a certain restraint and an attempt at intellectual respect for some of these middling types. You need to do this to win.
20
@Bill H - I am sorry. I cannot have intellectual respect for those who believe stuff that has been shown to wrong by history or data. Here is an analogy from arithmetic.
Suppose you believe 2 + 3 = 5. The other folks say why introduce a new character like "5". Let's set 2 + 3 = 23. I not only to do not respect them. I do not respect the moderates who want to compromise on 14 since it is halfway between 5 and 23.
I do not want our bridges to fall down.
12
@Len
Excellent analogy. I concur. One cannot ''compromise'' on faulty data that is hurting too many, and quite soon could wipe us all out. (via climate change)
8
@Bill
Democratic Party "willingness to negotiate" (and doing so with scant evidence of backbones or consistent policy advocacy), has not been a "winning" strategy for most of the past 30 years, and certainly not for the past 10.
Democratic "willingness to negotiate" on slavery, workers rights, and cleaning up government did not work in the 19th century either. The result by 1860, after 40 years of Democratic majorities in Congress, was the worst war in US history, ushering in an almost unbroken half century of Democratic minorities, and the Robber Baron era. Progressive reform when it finally came was more a result of non-partisan efforts, and the Republican Party under Theodore Roosevelt, than anything done by the Jim Crow, Anti-Chinese, Tammany Hall Democrats.
America now can ill-afford continued abject sleepwalking through that sort of disastrous "negotiating" and "restraint."
America's past successes have long been in spite of (not due to) political parties, and that absolutely includes both wings of the now irreparably decrepit and dsyfunctional duopoly albatross.
4
"Antagonism, indignation, anger — these qualities don’t diminish democracy or impede progress. Each is an inescapable part of political life in a diverse, pluralistic society. And each is necessary for challenging our profound inequalities of power, wealth and opportunity."
If this is the way you feel, do not be surprised when the rich and powerful try as hard as they can not to improve conditions for the downtrodden in this country, and don't be surprised when they pick up their marbles and go to Canada.
You can either appeal to your political opponents' humanity to try to get better, or you can try to slam them in the floor. It is obvious what your preference is. Count me out.
7
What seems to link all of these "moderates" is the desire to maintain the status quo that has worked so well on their behalf. Working Americans have been on the losing end of that since Regan sold his trickle down, taxes are bad, philosophy to an unenlightened group of Democrats back in the 80's and we are still trying to recover from that con. By the way, many of those Regan Democrats were in Macomb county, Michigan. Which brings me to my correction-Fred Upton is a Republican congressman from Michigan who won last year by a few percentage points. He is also very wealthy. Too bad Biden couldn't remember what party he belongs to.
32
Include here campaign finance reform. Unlimited money in elections from corporate and wealthy mega donors are infecting our democracy, and defining what's moderate vs extreme, what's left/right/center.
Ex president Jimmy Carter said we veer to oligarchy since it takes so many millions to run for any office in the US.
Politicians dependent on big money internalize the values the big money demands. They spend time calling rich donors and hearing their requirements for donations. Average citizens can't compete, so we get little representation for our taxation.
Our moderates will pretend to, or even try to work for the citizen majority's needs---the whole reason for democracy. But, they still must stay within policy limits the big donors set. This then becomes a political NORM. Then true representation of the citizen majority becomes defined as LEFT WING.
That's why the US is the ONLY modern nation still without affordable health care for all, that other countries achieved in the 20th Century. And why our students are in huge debt after college. And a small group of elites own most of US wealth.
Other democracies don't turn their elections over to the 1 percent elites for financing. They actually ban the paid campaign ads on media that flood our voters and need huge private money to pay for.
Columnists need to get into national discussion how to rebalance our unbalanced political power by using more public financing with strict limits on private elections money.
8
@Meredith
Excellent points. We need to make voting mandatory by paper ballot and via mail. There needs to be independent commissions drawing districts based solely on census data. There needs to be publicly financed elections of no more than 8 weeks. There needs to be re-implementation of the voting rights act, and there needs to be a reversal of Citizen's United. There needs to be an elimination of 501c'4s and the elimination of tax subsidies to all religious organizations that have morphed into political ones. There needs to be a national holiday to vote.
Implement all this, and we MIGHT ...might have a chance to take back Democracy.
2
I knew a wealthy (from inheritance) conservative gentleman who, decades after the New Deal, was still complaining that FDR had been a “traitor to his class.”
Positive social change will necessarily upset those who feel personally threatened by it. Their reactions, however, should not prevent the rest of us from working toward a better society for all.
82
"Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how Americans produced the conditions for its greatest social accomplishments like the creation of the welfare state and the toppling of Jim Crow."
Mr. Bouie's above premise is in error.
He confuses protest with compromise, bigotry with generosity of spirit, and centrist politicians with populist extremists.
There is little doubt that protest can lead to awareness, be it the Civil Rights struggle or healthcare improvements.
But the burning of American urban centers over the years brings merely new useless commissions, not the advent of lasting social change with prosperity. If you doubt that, you did not grow up in my neighborhood; Jersey City and Newark, New Jersey. MLK, Jr. was a "centrist."
Lasting social change requires hard work, and compromise. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society Programs grew from such compromises and reached millions. For all their faults, those programs aided millions as a safety net, no different than farm subsidies have prevented the bankruptcy of American farming.
Another problem with Mr. Bouie's impatience with "centrists" is that the great politicians were centrists. Like Henry Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. They understood the value of a mosaic of interests making up the democratic party, and refused to cave to the anti-Semitism buried just beneath the surface of either party; something today's Dems fail to do.
Only the Dem centrist wins my vote.
21
@Jubilee133
You make a very reasoned argument, except for one omission. They lived in very different times.
Since that time a generation ago, the political spectrum has been pulled so far to the extreme right by republicans that the center no longer exists.
Even when Democrats TRY to implement an idea that is a republican one to begin with (and is still very much right of center) then republicans lambaste that person as some type of Socialist. (see President Obama implementing a republican originating health care program)
A so called ''centrist'' in today's terms is essentially allowing the status quo (giveaways to millionaires and billionaires through subsidized tax theft) while trying to hold the line on social programs that are going bankrupt, because not all are contributing into them.
It is not sustainable.
21
@FunkyIrishman
You in turn make a reasonable point about millionaires and billionaires.
Perhaps we can agree that the "centrist" candidate has yet to arrive. And, indeed, may never arrive.
But I'm gonna keep hoping.
3
@Jubilee133
Please do, and of course keep on fighting for principles where we all partake in society fairly. (and of course keep on voting)
The trick will always be to work on the inside of the party, instead of being on the outside or at home sulking.
We all saw how that worked out.
7
Excellent commentary....too often, centrism is passed off as reasonableness and therefore a rebuke to other views. In fact, accommodation of the interests of the financial and energy industries ....a chief characteristic of the centrist politicians....has resulted in policy and regulation that has brought the country and the world to their knees.
The concept that corporations rule the law, and that is henchmen, perhaps, are above the law, have typified recent administrations...both Republican and Democrat.
With impending disaster on hand, a full rebuke of false reasonableness is a gift.
28
While it doesn’t change the argument one bit, Upton is from Michigan whose residents are rarely are complimented by being confused with Ohioans.
1
"If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege."
Such a powerful statement! And quite accurate. The idea that some of the wealthiest American citizens in history are going to abandon the paradigm of hyper-capitalism due to their commitment to fairness, and preservation of the social order, is absurd. In capitalist systems, money is power and power is never willingly relinquished; it must be taken by protests, civil disobedience, and/or rebellion.
We are in another Guilded Age, and without serious political action, the United States will remain this way until the bubble pops. Plutocrats can only tell the masses to eat cake for so long before things implode.
6
@DeeSmitty Pardon, the word is "gilded", gold-plated. Your word "guilded" strongly suggests "unionized", as in trade guilds, which we greatly need much more of . :-)
When people or corporations have more money and power than the government, the government no longer serves the electorate.
Governments serve the most powerful whether that is the largest voting bloc or the largest donors and propagandists. Our government serves the most wealthy and least democratic and least sustainable interests.
Oligarchy, by definition serves the few and abuses the many. Whether or not we are already in or merely approaching an oligarchy, we'll find out November, 2020.
6
There is no such thing as a moderate or centrist Democrat. You either fight for what you believe in or step aside for someone who will. There is no moderate positions on having clean air, healthcare for all, decent living wages, a woman's right to choose, the right to vote, gun safety, etc. Republicans believe in gerrymandering, suppressing the vote, dictating to a woman how to choose, no gun safety(most have not read the 2nd amendment and understanding what it truly means),no regulations, which lead to a whole host of immoral deeds. as anyone read the contract from cable company, cellphone, credit
card and a whole host of others. You have no rights. When average income Republicans do their taxes for 2018, they will be in for a rude awakening. The bottom line is there is a disproportionate share of average Americans who believe they belong to an imaginary class and vote Republican against their interests as well as ours.
7
Jamelle Bouie is a fantastic addition to the NYT editorial page. I wish there were more voices like his and Thomas Edsall on the staff.
46
Socialism is going to bankrupt the country. Because 22 Billion in debt from the Democrats and Republicans isn't bankrupting the country. This argument about socialism would work if either the republicans or democrats could say look at us, we balanced the budget and paid off the debt, but that doesn't happen. The debt goes up no matter who is in power.
4
@Darryl
ANY type of government goes bankrupt when you spend more than what you take in. The problem (of course) is that the United States is the currency to the world and prints its own money. (and keeps on printing, and printing, and printing.)
It also doesn't help when the MIC gets what it does to have 20 times over more than the next 12 countries combined.
If the government truly worked of the people, by the people and for the people, then there would not be inequality as there is. People would be paying Progressively into a system that would benefit all, and not just all of one kind. IF you make more, then you should be paying more taxes Progressively upwards -not less.
After that, call the type of government whatever ''ism'' you wish, because it will not matter at that moment.
6
@Darryl B. Moretecom this is selective amnesia if I ever saw it. Just google bill clinton and budget deficit. Near the end of Bill's term we were running budget surpluses and was forecasted to pay off the entire US debt in 10 years.
4
@Gignere Thank you for remembering that. Strongly progressive tax hikes are one of the most progressive things any politician can do.
1
The last three Democratic presidents were horrible for the Democratic Party. Jimmy Carter embraced globalism and used it as an excuse to turn his back on organized labor when he didn't have to (See Germany). He also kowtowed to corporations by proposing large corporate tax breaks.
Bill Clinton deliberately moved the party to the right, declaring that "the era of big government is over". His welfare reform and criminal justice reform were both disgraceful. Both were a sop to the right wing.
Barack Obama let Wall Street completely off the hook for destroying our economy, and his Justice Department left Wall Street criminals completely alone. His health care bill was actually a Republican plan that originally came from the Heritage Foundation.
The Democratic blueprint was written by FDR, Harry Truman, and LBJ. All were passionate liberals, completely unafraid of their political enemies, and not afraid to call things like they were. The new generation of Democrats seems to understand this, which is why the GOP is so obviously terrified of them.
Liberals and liberal policy created the United States middle class. Carter, Clinton, and Obama, abandoned it. It's time for the Democratic Party to return to its liberal roots; the sooner the better; and the more terrified the centrists and the GOP are, the better.
311
@Vesuviano, I largely agree with you. I would add that those former Democratic voters who became disillusioned have become wary of candidates' promises, and in many cases need to be won back. It is possible that a purely progressive platform will accomplish this, and it is also possible that it will drive them further into the embrace of the Trump lie machine. (or whichever Republican candidate emerges.)
People want change, but they also want things to stay the same. We have seen the results of this paradox for the last two years. The most repeated meme about Obamacare is, "you said we could keep our doctors." I no longer underestimate the power of illusory security, and the Republicans are masters of illusion.
8
@Vesuviano
"Jimmy Carter embraced globalism and used it as an excuse to turn his back on organized labor"
HUH?
Apart from the fact that the term "globalisum" didn't really exist in the 1970s as an economic concept, it's hard to see how Carter "turn his back on organized labor"? (Especially in the context of his successor, "Fire the Airline Controllers" Reagan!)
And by "globalisum" do you actually mean engaging with the world and trying to collaborate with other nations in the world on things like peace, human rights, and democratic values? We could use some of that sort of international perspective and respect for other nations now! Not more jingoistic go-it-alonism!
And for all the shortcomings of Carter, Clinton, and Obama, FDR, Truman, and LBJ, do you -- or anyone -- really think the Republicans somehow did *anything* (good) for working people or the middle class?
Because the more people bicker about the "shortcomings" of the Democrats, the more likely it is that we'll get more more "voodoo encomics," "trickle-downism" from an empty spigot, and "companies are people, my friend" economic depredations by the Republicans, driven on by their extreme right!
19
@Vesuviano I wouldn’t include Obama in with Clinton and Carter. For most of the 8 years he was in office is was trying to avoid another Great Depression. For 6 of those years he was dealing with Republican majorities in one or both houses - no way those guys were going for prosecuting Jaime Dimon (or whoever).
As for Bill Clinton? Yes, economically he was a very mild Republican.
13
Speaking from the other side of the political aisle, there is some truth in what Mr. Bouie has to say. Political progress, no matter in what way it is defined, comes with friction attached. His examples of 'free college' or 'medicare for all' are not particularly good ones, because every poll ever taken will produce a result that says, 'if something is free, and good, and there are no attendant costs, then of course we want it.' That would be equally true if a poll were taken about how many Americans want free chocolate milkshakes. Everyone likes free - the friction comes when it turns out something isn't really 'free.' It just gets paid for the federal government, which assesses taxes, runs deficits, and then administers the program from Washington. 'Antagonism, indignation and anger' are things I feel about social issues like abortion on demand. Feeling emotion alone doesn't carry the day for either side, on any issue.
8
@Tom
I think you are being disingenuous when you say ''free''. When the polling is done, it is always including the statement would you want '' X" through higher taxation. (and still the answer is yes)
Friction is only coming from a select few (at the top) that do not want their wealth and power taken away. They use that wealth and power to convince enough people (through buying ''free'' speech and through their corporations - also buying off politicians) to convince just enough people that ''other'' is coming to take away their things too.
Round and round we go, but we are going to have to stop the merry go round right quick.
15
@Tom Wolpert Your examples of college education and medicare for all being free and therefore consumed profligately are wrong. College costs a lot of hard work, sweating to make the grades, if college lives up to its reputation. All-nighters cramming for a circuit theory or advanced nursing exam don't feel free. And people don't go to doctors just for jollies. They go because they are sick. If one has insurance, that makes going to a doc feel free, but people don't generally go get a spinal tap for recreational purposes. These so-called freebies are public goods that benefit the country in economic growth and more productive lives.
8
@Tom Wolpert - The reason we want Medicare for all is that it would be vastly more efficient of anything we have tried. It would get better care to EVERYONE at much lower cost.
There is tons of data showing this. For example Canada has Medicare for All. They get BETTER health care as measured by bottom line public health statistics.
And they save a fortune doing so. According to the OECD, in 2017, Canada spent $4,753 in PPP dollars per person for health care. We spent $9,892. CMS says we spent $3.5 TRILLION on health care in 2017. 4753/9892 times 3.5 is about 1.7 TRILLION which is what we would pay for health care if out system were as efficient as Canada's. That would be a savings of $1.8 TRILLION each and every year. And as costs go up, that savings would increase.
7
The United States of America has become a class-driven society, just as it was in the 1920s. 0.01% of the population has manged to get control of OUR governments and they have destroyed the regulations, laws and tools that allowed ALL Americans to get ahead.
WWII ushered in a new era of enlightenment because men from across America got to see other parts of the world and the unspeakable carnage and destruction war causes.
Men got free education when they came back. Women who had worked in manufacturing and other important jobs that were described as "men's" work refused to just go back home and be good, obedient girls. Public education expanded. Our country was growing and changing for everyone.
Then came the backlash from the greediest. Reagan gutted affirmative action and other programs meant to elevate minorities and women. The attacks have been relentless ever since.
As the Women's March the day after the sham inauguration and other marches against The Con Don's regime showed us, shouting and destroying are not necessary. Deep anger is very useful when it's turned into positive action.
We must not digress into chaos, bitterness and fighting. That is exactly what the 0.01% want. NOW is the time to be vigilant in what we say and believe - vigilant against propaganda meant to divide us. We must not let the 0.01% divide and conquer again.
88
Men also got affordable VA loans to buy homes when they came home from the war, giving average Americans a road to wealth.
THOSE were the good old days.
10
@njglea
Regarding the "new era of enlightenment after WWII"--certainly the enlightenment was partially stoked by fear. The militant socialist labor movements of the 1930's were a major concern of the elites, and they "saw the light" and decided to buy labor off rather than provoke it or give it too much leverage against private enterprise. Today we face a similar crossroads.
1
@njglea
Reagan and the GOP right did everything they could to destroy labor unions in favor of the bosses. Labor unions for decades gave working people power to demand safe working conditions, pensions and a living wage - basically all things that are now just relics of the past.
4
Bravo for this column and I am delighted to see your writing for the NYT (having read and enjoyed your material at Slate for a long time). You get to the nub of the matter. While it is easy to play right/left/center, it is just as important to view it in terms of those with wealth that are protecting it no matter what the party.
Sad that so much is being determined in that bubble, while those of us well outside of the bubble end up getting buffeted and hurt by protecting the rich.
Watching the wonderful sea of white at the SOTU, I am encouraged that at last, change is possible. A bright possibility in a very, very dark time.
111
Howard Schultz suggesting that billionaires be called “people of means” is a grotesque demonstration of how far from ‘moderate’ his views are. The world has enough billionaires.
There is a very simple calculation that each of us must make; is having a society worth maintaining a social contract? It seems fairly self-evident to me that the answer is ‘yes’.
73
@ubique, being "of means" is a moderately anachronistic trope. When I was growing up, I learned that was how the seriously wealthy (old money) referred to themselves. It also carried an implied rebuke to the immodest ostentation of the nouveau riche.
2
It's not pleasing to see all the media outlets owned by wealthy people rolling out story after story about so-called moderate Democratic candidates and trying to puff them up in front of viewers in the hope that real progressives will get lost in the crowd, be affected by the so-far-mild media attacks and make the nomination of an ineffectually moderate Democrat more likely. To heck with that. Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, that Hispanic lady whose name I haven't yet memorized, and even Governor Jerry Brown would beat the heck out of the people the media is boosting, who all seem to be in hock to large ripoff corporations. Booker, for example, has already sold his soul to Big Pharma.
67
@Garlic Toast
Governor Jerry Brown is an unimaginative centrist, with a very carefully cultivated image.
In a recent interview he had absolutely no concept of wealth/income inequality, and was clearly comfortable with his lack of awareness,
2
@Lucy Cooke
well he'd fight for climate justice at least, presumably, so at least we'd still have a chance as a species
5
Not the last we'll read on this topic. Romantic intellectuals dreaming of a big swing to the left, forgetting they have no real message the working class people who voted twice for Obama, then once for Trump. We'll have to see if you can score in the polls without support from the 'deplorables'. In the meantime we'll be listening to moderates and romantics alike, and making up our own minds.
15
@Mark Brennan Anyone who uses the word "depolorables" is someone who was too intellectually lazy to see how it was used:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?
The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
5
@Mark Brennan
You people just don't like what was offered to the people. You want your capitalism and to be protected from it. You want help from the government, but not if you have to share it with brown people. You want safe food with no regulation. You want to be able to breath but also to drive your big vehicle. Most of all you want what you think the 1950's were, not what can realistically be given to you.
3
Name me ONE ''extremist'' on the ''left'' that is an independent or within the Democratic party ? - I will wait.
We cannot keep throwing out false equivalencies (done even here in the first paragraph) because what most people want (shown through polling) is continuously being called extreme or radical.
Singe Payer health care is available in one form or another in every other industrialized nation. Higher education paid for by the sate is also available. Marginally higher tax rates are the NORM for many other countries, and they thrive, take care of more of the population and STILL have billionaires.
No one is calling people extremists and radical in those countries, but they still try and take care of many more people that may be falling through the cracks. In the United States it is getting to be that HALF of the population is now falling through the cracks.
All of this inequality is unsustainable, because as we squabble over the scraps and try to even have a discussion about paltry 2 or 3 % tax rates on millionaires and billionaires (where it should be 70-90%), our planet is dying. - the finite resources are disappearing as are whole species in nature, and nature itself.
We are WAY beyond radical and the terms of false equivalency. You are either for human rights and equality or not. You are either for saving our planet and environment or you are not.
There is no longer a middle ground friend .
423
@FunkyIrishman
Well said. Democrats are in a tricky position because they have to walk a fine line between reassuring their own wealthy patrons that they won't REALLY change anything, and convincing average voters that there's hope.
Republicans don't have this problem as they just lie and their false-information voters lap it up.
The idea of "extremists" on the "left" in this country having any shred of power or influence is laughable and only illustrates how far to the right we have been pulled over the last 40 years.
135
@FunkyIrishman
FYI the 2% tax is an annual tax on wealth, not income, much like the property tax on your house.
Since obscene income creates obscene wealth, the tax on wealth creates huge total yearly tax burdens, equal to the amount of a 70% margin income tax rate.
But the best part is that is it's a wealth tax that keeps on going even after the obscene yearly income goes away after retirement.
11
@Harlan
Indeed. I understand the metrics between income and wealth and what the taxes that some are proposing are all about.
I believe that any one person or family having a billion dollars is obscene in general, and having multiples there of, even more so specifically. (especially in relation to income disparity and reduction of finite resources of our planet)
How can only 26 people have the same amount of ''wealth'' as HALF of our planet, (3.5 BILLION people) and people are ok with this ?
By the time that all of the coasts are underwater, the natural disasters wipe out so much more, and there is no longer any potable water, then it will be already too late and zeroes in a bank account will become worthless.
We have a sliver of a sliver or amount of time to reverse course, and moderation is not going to get it done.
Our choice.
50
Alright Jamelle, since the goal apparently is the "greatest social reform" and you don't appear to consider the costs attendant to achieving that, let's just have a civil war. Civil wars are pretty much guaranteed to create significant social reform (good and bad).
10
@Jay Orchard
Verbal conflict, Jay. No one is advocating Civil War. If we do have another one I guarantee it will be caused by Trump supporters when he is ripped out of the White House for being the criminal that he is.
11
@Jay Orchard To tell a black political journalist at the top of his profession that he hasn't considered "the costs attendant to achieving" great social reform, and then ironically calling for a civil war, takes a lot of chutzpah.
5
Freedom is a fundamental ideal in America, and it must include the freedom of citizens to substantially change economic structures and political institutions.
11