You'll find a description of the Red/Blue workshop I'm attending, and an account of the organization's mission and work, at the Better Angels website, but here's what I understand so far. Better Angels workshops bring together progressives and conservatives, small groups with an equal number of “Reds” and “Blues,” for a day of moderated discussions and exercises. The intent: strip down our face-value perceptions and truly hear each other. Yikes. 

My sense is the exercises are designed with some simplicity in mind, providing opportunities to listen quietly and learn why folks on the other side personally, individually, hold their political views. I can do that. (Right?) I'll also get to state my own views to a political opponent without being interrupted or derided. Wonder what that feels like...

So, with a fair amount of apprehension, I'm going in. I have to. I think we're getting it really, really wrong in the country right now, and I'm trying to at least get a handle on why. I know one thing; we have begun to casually - or at least routinely - reject the possibility that reasonable people of good will can hold views we find detestable. Now, I have friends who would say that given the outright injustice of some positions, it is right to reject the notion that a well-meaning person could hold them. I really get that. It can be confounding.

But what if we start at a place that separates the actions and rhetoric of policy-makers and other public figures from the beliefs and opinions of individuals who don't hold power. Don't we then have a narrower problem to grapple with; one that shouldn't be tossed aside with the wave of a hand? We all get to our political views in part by way of emotion and personal experience. By the time they are fully formed, our opinions are deeply rooted. Mine are. You cannot tell me that my views on certain issues aren't based on objective moral truths. About them I am perfectly comfortable saying, "I am right." But if I feel only contempt for those with opposing views and default to a self-righteous scorn, I am no longer right. And you would not be either. You could argue that the integrity of your beliefs is so solid you have good reason - even an obligation - to denounce those who disagree, but I'll still say doing so is wrong. Because while evaluations of right and wrong can entail questions of morality and humanity, they can also examine whether something is constructive or destructive; realistic or myopic; effective or impotent. Your convictions may be right, but the condemnation is wrong, either morally, depending on your philosophical bent, or because it Just. Won't. Help.

My being guided by these principles doesn't mean I live up to them. It certainly doesn't make more appealing the prospect of listening to someone who thinks gay people shouldn't marry or that poor people just aren't trying hard enough. I can write about it but interpersonally it's much harder. I recently had an experience white people sometimes have, when another white person assumes you'll be able to connect on a racist level. "Black men don't take care of their children," she says to me. I didn't feel inquisitive, or kindly. I didn't want to break it down in civil terms and help her understand what she was getting wrong. I wanted her out of my sight. I made that happen, abruptly, and made changes in my situation to keep it that way. 

I have no idea if that's the sort of thing I can expect to hear at this workshop. I have no idea how I will react if I do. I hope not to walk away. I hope to be able to sit with it, and I'm not sure why. My gut tells me there will be a value in going to this thing, but my gut is also twisted in knots.
 
From what I've read, and picked up from their videos, Better Angels does not design exercises with the intent of any one participant converting another. The intent doesn't even appear to be about learning to respect the validity of a given argument. Good thing. Because I wouldn't want to go, and because I can't imagine it is uncommon to leave one of these cordial, day-long events still wondering, “How on earth can those people believe that crap??!” But from what I can tell, something happens. Some sort of humanizing, some sort of calming, some sort of renewing of hope... I don't know. 
 
My cynical friends (mwah) like to dub me the chick in the title of this post. And absolutely: I'm idealistic and optimistic. But I hope they'll credit me for embarking on something I won't be able to float through on a cloud of peace. I'm having to override the fear of being repelled by what I see in others, and maybe what I will see in myself. But y’all. If we really mourn the loss of the loyal-opposition model of governing and discourse, and recognize it ain't gonna stage a comeback on its own, what's the alternative? Fury won't change anything. Hand-wringing won't. Resignation won't. Shrouding ourselves in cynicism, however well-earned, won't change anything. The only alternative to going at it with this sort of work is to outnumber and overpower the other side. I know that feels like the right goal to some, who see the divide as intractable, who see real people getting hurt, and who authentically believe it's time to repudiate compromise and force a new paradigm. But if that's your goal, please stop crying about the toxic tone of our discourse, stop accusing others of power mongering, and remember that ultimately, a forced paradigm is a bloody strategy, and what you end up with is not be democracy. 

I'll stress again that as invisible as my humility and self-doubt may be in a lot of what I write, it is there. Yes, I'm proud to be taking this step, consigning myself to sit tomorrow and hear out people whose views, in my estimation, reflect misinformation, prejudice, fear, and callousness. And yes, I'm aware that I'm shamelessly issuing challenges to everyone in earshot to follow my lead. But I mean to describe ideals here, not accomplishments. I'm trying to hold myself accountable as much as anyone else. I mean it when I say I'm worried I'll bolt halfway through the workshop, tossing my rosy shades in the trash, muttering, "There are no better angels here." It's also just nerve-racking not knowing if your head is going to explode and make a mess in front of all those people.

My plan is to attend a couple of workshops as a participant and weigh a deeper involvement. Despite my doubts, I know there's every chance I will want to become a Better Angels volunteer. I'm so curious. 

I think normally I'd want to look at results from longer than one year in office. I don't have to tell you, Mr. President, that it takes time to get bills through Congress--really, to ramp up any sort new initiative. But you’re so excited about this it's got me excited too. Just... could you specify which of your policies has been most instrumental in dropping the African American unemployment rate? That would help a lot. At the moment I can't put my finger on what you've done to achieve it, and if I'm really going to school JAY-Z, I'll need details. Point me to a policy of yours with this sort of immediate, positive impact on the lives of African Americans and I’ll brag it up.

Also, we should probably provide JAY-Z with some context. A little historical perspective can be so effective in opening one's eyes to the truth. Maybe we should look over, say, the last ten years, and see where your administration fits in. 

Don't worry Donald, I've got this one! I've got some charts and graphs here that really lay it out straight. With you so hyped-up about black unemployment, I'm assuming you've been focused on it for quite a while, am I right? So I’m not showing you anything you don't already know. This is for JAY-Z. 

The two graphics on top (1a and 1b) give you--uh, him--a couple of ways to look at data illustrating the severe rise and fall of the last decade's overall unemployment rates. That was a scary and painful period, wasn't it?
​
The graph on the left (1a) shows the percentage of unemployment (numbered along the left side) and the year (along the bottom). Next to that is a chart (1b) breaking the numbers down by month.  

Below that are two graphics (2a and 2b) showing numbers specifically for African American unemployment over the same period.

Clearly, Mr. President, you are right to make a big deal out of this. It's been a harrowing ten years. Devastating. You look at this data and get a stark reminder of what we Americans went through during the recession. It also makes clear--since you brought it up--how hard African Americans were hit, with unemployment topping out at a catastrophic 16.8% in March of 2010. 

Now, there's no overlooking the dramatic fall in these numbers that took place during the eight-year term of President Barack Obama. His administration cut unemployment by more than half, from 10% at it’s highest, to 4.7% when he left office. Over five percentage points. And nine percentage points were erased in unemployment for African Americans, down to 7.8%.

But we're not talking about him, are we, Mr. President? We're talking about you, and the policies you rushed through this year to bring that latter number down another point, to its current 6.8%. I’ll focus most on that last percentage point when I'm straightening out JAY-Z.

There’s one last piece of advice I need before I reach out to him. I pulled the numbers for these graphics from the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). No doubt, this is the correct, original source for these numbers. The BLS is the federal agency tasked with compiling and reporting the official monthly US jobs report. 

But you and your supporters, notably the folks at Fox News, spent those eight years deriding that monthly report as fraudulent. You urged us not to believe the reports, said the books were cooked, the numbers were made up, that the methods used to calculate them were deceptive. Each month, when the US jobs report came out, you urged Americans to disregard it. 

Well, your numbers come from the same report, Mr. President. The statistics are calculated the same way now as during President Obama's tenure. In fact, it is much the same, straightforward report that has been set forth by the Bureau of Labor Statistics since 1925. The only changes in methodology have been to improve their precision and scope.  

So guide me here; either Barack Obama managed to lead the country out of the recession and into a stable economy before you took over, cutting African American and overall unemployment in half, or we can't trust the numbers. Let me know how you want to frame that, in case JAY-Z mentions it.   

Oh – and I've thought of something sure to impress him. If you could . . . do some more policies, something to reduce that embarrassing disparity in unemployment rates by race, you might even score a shout out on his next album.  

​Awaiting your direction.

​The comments I got back were a mix of "thank you for saying that," and "we'd be crazy to overlook Oprah," and honestly, some of the latter ones were compelling. I was reminded of my feelings of awe, watching Winfrey deliver a soaring commencement address, and of how impressed I was with her founding of a leadership academy for South African girls. I think some of her most serious work can disappear behind her outsize personality and pop culture profile.
 
It also hit me that I should have focused more attentively on Oprah’s whole Golden Globe speech before popping off about public reaction to it. I’d only seen snippets and highlights. I sat down and watched it from start to finish and it stirred me. She centered our country’s current situation within the context of recent US history, using a perspective both social and personal. And she’s charismatic—she helped me feel we are strong and unified and can prevail. I understand better why it moved so many people.
 
Without question, Oprah Winfrey has decades of wide-ranging experience. Through her endeavors she has undoubtedly fostered positive change in the world. Her Golden Globe speech was powerful. But this is not a Winfrey For President post. On the other hand, it’s not an Oprah Don’t Run post either. When it comes to the next presidential campaign, we're still safely snuggled in the seat of hypotheticals, probabilities, and conjecture. I'm going to bask in that as long as I can. The job of carefully evaluating official candidates will come soon enough.
 
I think progressives share an unspoken sense of the responsibility we will have once that soon enough arrives. We do know this; the next election will be profoundly important whether or not Robert Mueller has made his way high enough by then to force a personnel change at the top. We know such a change won’t solve everything. No matter how far down the line of succession this current bunch has to go to replace their latest mistake, that great office will continue to be stained as long as they are in it.  
 
We'll have a number of concerns to juggle as we select our next nominee, and electability is a major factor. That is surely one reason for the clamoring for Winfrey to run. We have to win in 2020. The task of getting it right is daunting, our responsibility nerve-wracking.
 
But we have time, and the prospects are plentiful. If you don't see that now, remember, you don't have to yet. Relish that. When the time comes, let's see who steps up and listen to what each of them has to say. We will make the right choice, as long as we do a few essential things.
 
We must be extraordinarily patient and thoughtful as we’re deciding which candidate to support. As the campaigns start in earnest, we'll all have gut reactions, initial conceptions, early favorites. We can’t let those early impressions harden too fast. Let the information flow in. We must listen so closely to everything they say. These people are running for president. We have to demand more, better debates and town halls and in-depth interviews, with hard questions and time provided for real answers. Let’s show each sponsoring media outlet that we are willing to--want to--stay tuned and sort through the details.
 
We have to read. Please, people. Not just the blog posts and social media commentary but the articles. Not just their headlines and lead paragraphs, whole articles. We have to dig deeper. Go to the candidates’ websites and click past the neat little summaries of issue stances and on to more substantive policy statements. If a website doesn’t go that deep, ask for more, and pay attention to what you get back. Meanwhile look for more on their positions elsewhere.  
 
Keep remembering, these people are running for president. How much time will we make for this process, coming soon enough? This whole thing is up to us. How much work will we put in? I don’t mean canvassing for your candidate once chosen, or getting out the vote. Before that. Will we make enough time to truly hear out the folks who are asking for our votes? They must make their case. Let’s be slow to line up behind any one contender. This will be hard. I know I will probably have an early sense of where my support should go. But I can pledge to try to take it all in first.
 
There’s another thing we have to do if we’re going to set things right. I feel both the urgency of it and a dread that we won’t do it. We have to be nice to each other throughout the process. Does that sound trite? It isn’t. Should it go without saying? It doesn’t. Let’s hope we’ve learned our lesson. Paying attention to how we treat each other throughout such a trying, far-reaching endeavor is not shallow or banal, it isn’t automatic or easy, and this does need to be said. We have to do this together. We have to be patient, treat each other well, and keep our eyes on the prize when there is conflict.
 
So lower your voice - no really. Dude. Lower your voice. Breathe and wait before hitting send. Be nice. Cultivate humility. Walk things back. I made myself do that here, about the Winfrey speech. It's hard, but, as it turns out, not that hard. I bet practice will make it even easier. Let’s practice this stuff now before soon enough arrives.  

Is all this even possible??? I don’t know. These are the things we always say we will do. Will we finally do them? I don’t know. But we have to try.
 
So, Oprah 2020? Why not? Who knows? But she'll have to take one of hopefully many spots on the stage and set about convincing us. Who will be up there beside her if she goes? Who else is out there? Let's wait and see. Let’s ease into this slowly, let the field develop, listen hard, read everything, ask for information, make an informed, studied choice, and treat each other with kindness in the process.
 
Soon enough is coming.
 
Let's be careful out there.
 

​​House Speak Paul Ryan, (R-WI) promoting legislation requiring drug tests for anyone applying for federal unemployment benefits.

As you may know, GOP governors & legislators in several states have pushed for laws like this one, requiring drug tests for folks wanting food stamps, unemployment, and other forms of public assistance.

That hasn’t really turned out well for them.

Matter of fact, politicians who push for these laws get bit in the ass and abandon the requirements sometimes, because there’s this thing where applicants show lower rates of drug use than the general population.

A few Republican state leaders have admitted their surprise at results like this.  I think the reason they’ve been caught off guard is that, like Speaker Ryan, they have a vague image of those who apply for public assistance as low-life moochers on drugs, trying to scam the government.
That leads to their confusion.
 
Some of us are less surprised. Because we have a vague image of those who apply for public assistance as . . . regular people. In tough life circumstances. Doing the best they can. Sometimes so desperate they need help just to stay afloat. Sometimes finding themselves in the midst of whole generations of such desperation, wondering how to find their way out, only hoping in the meantime to keep the lights on and their kids’ bellies full, and something coming in to pay the rent with while they look to replace a job they’ve been laid off from.
 
Anyway. Everyone has their own perspective.

And hey, we could be the ones wrong.
But so far, the drug-test/social-experiments GOP leaders in a handful of states have done have indicated there might be more accuracy in our vague image than in theirs.
Just to mention.

But back to this new bill – the drug-test-before-unemployment-benefits bill that House Leader Paul Ryan is so giddy about being “another one head(ing) to President Trump’s desk.”

I'm curious. Why spend the money, after seeing Republicans at the state level deeming it a waste - even an embarrassment -  on legislation like this?  

Why now?

You don't suppose . . . could it simply be a device of some kind? Like, legislation as propaganda, designed to crystallize their vague notion in the eyes of the voter? Maybe in the run-up to the budget battle that lies ahead?

Because there's nothing like stoking suspicion about the very character of the poor to give folks a taste for axing programs that provide assistance to families for rent and heat, after-school programs, legal aid, and job-training.

And that’s the real Ryan goal, hardly hidden; the long game: tossing programs such as this, that coddle the poor, with hot meals for seniors, apples, grapes, and carrots for poor kids, and, you know, job training and such.

There are some moderate legislators who are aghast at the near-apocalyptic shades of the budget battles to come, shades provided by the president’s own austerity-on-steroids budget just released.

Some of these folks, even in the GOP, will need convincing. So let's see what kind of openings that gives us. Let's see what sort of convincing we might do. 
​
Why don’t we kind of keep an eye on the machinations ahead, as a contingent of Congress gets steely-eyed about pushing their heartbreaking agenda forward. It seems a little scary, what with the "vague notion" they are guided by. And they can be pretty smooth and convincing when they get stuck on  a theme.

​So let’s pay attention.

KNOW:
Where to vote, who’s running, and which way to vote. (Follow steps 1-3.)

1. WHERE TO VOTE: Search: "(your county, state) elections board". Examples: “Duval County, FL elections board” or “Clark County, Nevada elections board”. Here you will find the location and hours of your polling place, your state’s ID requirements, and your assigned congressional and judicial districts. You will also find a sample ballot. This can be enormously helpful for following the two steps below. 

2. WHO’S RUNNING: You may have decided which presidential candidate to vote for. But your sample ballot will list other elected offices you’ll be voting to fill. This year’s ballot may also include a local referendum, asking the public to decide an issue like whether to fund a new civic project, or allow certain development plans to go forward. Familiarize yourself with the questions, and use step three to find answers. Then you’ll enter the voting booth with confidence in your opinions.  

3. WHO AND WHAT TO VOTE FOR: it’s easy to locate trustworthy advice about unfamiliar races and ballot measures, even at the last minute.

  a. Search: “voter guide” or “2016 endorsements” on the websites of organizations you personally trust. Guided by the issues you care about, you can find voting recommendations made by advocacy groups from the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce to the NAACP. Look for endorsements made by newspapers and other news sources you find credible and reliable. Check the official website of your preferred political party.
  b. Search: "(your state) 2016 election endorsements (keyword)”. For keyword, plug in anything from an individual candidate’s name, to terms like “teachers”, “Christian”, "small business", or “LGBTQ”. You can find issue-specific endorsements for many races.
  c. Search: For background on ballot measures found on your sample ballot, search with the name of the referendum followed by “editorials” or “opinion”. 

DO: 
​Show up on Tuesday!

We are so fortunate in the US: Just by taking these small, doable steps every election, we each carry our own individual share of the burden of living in a free society. Consider the alternative! Vote!
 
 

By Julie Boler

Vice presidential candidates Mike Pence and Tim Kaine will debate next Tuesday night (10/4, 9pm). The debate will air on all major networks, so, bright lights, big arena. The VP hopefuls each have an opportunity to articulate their own ticket's vision. They can tamp down the extraordinary racket of character issues and controversy, and discuss foreign and domestic policy in serious terms. They can help voters make a less emotional, more informed choice on November 8th.
 
Or they can add to the noise.
 
No doubt, it'll be tempting to look for righteous standing in these character wars. And sure, evaluating integrity, comportment, and fitness for office is critical. But this electorate is, well, not at risk of being short-changed on fodder for that test.

On Tuesday, these two men will each have less than 45 minutes of on-air talk time. Substantive policy discussion appears to be MIA elsewhere. They should leap at the chance to prove themselves the sort of politician (lately described wistfully by other politicians) with whom one can disagree without viewing as a menace to democracy, or a joke.
 
Democrats never expected to feel that Mike Pence could win a measure of respect simply by stating germane viewpoints, without rancor or silliness. Republicans could not have foreseen the day when they'd be glad for a sane, on-topic performance by Tim Kaine. But that day has come. Supporters who believe in their candidate ought to see as a triumph any seized opportunity to lay out a comprehensible explanation of their ideas.

To be sure, watching an authentic, high-stakes battle of wits and political philosophy – especially so late in an election cycle - is normally a source of stomach-churning, nail-biting, partisan anxiety. But for those American voters who are decent, rational, and currently appalled, it would come as a relief.
 
What viewers should hope to see addressed in some form Tuesday evening is simple. The two parties are directly opposed in philosophy about five central issues; the economy, foreign affairs, social policy, the environment, and immigration.

• On the economy, Tim Kaine must make the case for stimulus spending, progressive taxation, and close regulation of macroeconomics. Mike Pence has to champion cuts in domestic spending, lower tax rates with a flatter distribution, and an ever-freer market. 
• Look to Kaine to define liberal social policy as guided by individual license and equal rights. Pence will want to share a rationale for social policy based on traditional Judeo-Christian values. 
• The hawk vs dove metaphor has outlived its usefulness in describing the foreign policy differences between the parties, but they remain stark. Listen for the Democratic candidate to expound on a complex approach to national security that emphasises relationships, strategic public communication, diplomacy and narrow military action. His Republican counterpart should seek to defend an approach more concrete and absolute, one that draws from the ideal of “peace through strength”, with a bent towards wider military action.
• The two major parties’ representatives should also be prepared to convincingly defend their widely divergent views on immigration and the environment.
• Questions about the tension between intelligence gathering and privacy might also arise. In contrast to clearcut right and left issues, this one has created bedfellows strange enough to beg that a nuanced stance be expressed by each candidate.

Raucous talk about character has truly interfered with voter ability to evaluate policy. Americans who intend to vote but remain undecided obviously believe that whatever the personal foibles of Trump and Clinton, either is still a viable contender. Our would-be presidents have a responsibility to re-center the dialogue now, regardless of what comes from their competition, or from reckless talking heads. If they are finding it hard to stick to that, the least they can do is delegate it to their running mates. The expectation from the top of each ticket should be that the VP candidates spend their time during this debate engaged in enthusiastic efforts to stand in proxy for their boss’s policy positions, rather than taking up arms in the ongoing, exhausting character clash.
   

One might point to such language when engaged in a dialogue about current levels of racism in the US, which often focus on overt events like Klan rallies or acts of violence by white nationalists. It's like the practice by some manufacturers of bras and pantyhose of calling their beige shade selection "nude"; or the fact that descriptors of race aren’t used in news stories except to differentiate people of color; or the observation, "You don't sound/act black." Such pervasive dismissals illuminate a constant undertone of undying racism.

Meanwhile, on he goes: Trump continues to use the "good ones" and "bad ones" terminology in his campaign. And it continues to hit my ear like the utterance of a sheltered, Southern thirteen-year old, or of a pretend-grownup fourth grader, on a playground in the 70's Midwest. ​

Obviously, we aren’t seeing that sort of campaign occur between Clinton and Trump. But honestly, Bernie Sanders didn’t appear to relish such a respectable match-up either. And I don’t know why that is. 
 
While trading worst-election-ever woes recently with a friend of mine - a Bernie fan - he said he felt the low moments of this thing started in the primary, when - as he put it - "the DNC was doing its worst to keep that damned Democratic Socialist out of the top seat." That prompted me to reflect on the primaries through the prism of what we're seeing now, and two things have occurred to me.
 
One, it's clearer to me than ever that Bernie Sanders beat himself in that race. No matter how pushy and entrenched you consider the DNC to be, their maneuvering didn't keep Bernie Sanders from being a competitive primary contender. The proof? Sanders was a competitive primary contender. He just didn't win.
 
My second thought is that he didn't win because for whatever reason, when faced with running for office against Hillary Clinton, he chose to run against the idea of Hillary Clinton, rather than against her political views and objectives. I wonder if he was even conscious of doing this. Was he more confident running against her reputation than laying his views out next to hers and selling them? That was my suspicion during the primaries; that he hadn’t fleshed out his proposals enough to challenge hers, and was relying on emotional rhetoric to win support instead. The worst part was that Sanders’ idea of Hillary Clinton was in sync with the conservative idea of Hillary Clinton.

Interpersonally, Sanders and Clinton treated each other with mutual respect, often even apparent warmth. They both made note often of the places where their politics overlapped. But mentally scrolling back through the content of his case against Clinton, it's hard to find Sanders charging her with anything other than moral failure.
 ​

I hate to reduce the Bernie Sanders campaign to unpreparedness, but his trouble can’t be chalked up to the DNC. There is no support for the hapless underdog argument that Sanders was strong-armed out of the nomination. A look back at the hard-fought, noisy, brightly-lit 2016 Democratic primaries hardly yields a picture of a David and Goliath scenario. There was no silencing of an upstart; no sense of pressure (obviously!) for Democrats to fall in line quietly. Bernie wasn't forced to campaign from the fringes with homemade signs while Hillary stood alone, center stage. In fact, Bernie’s supposed outsider (!) status gave him more currency than it did disadvantages. There were several dozen high-profile, nationally-covered speeches, town halls, rallies, and interviews, and of course, the debates. The campaigns both had equally well-funded ground games and air time, and equally high-end trappings and accouterments, like slick and attractive websites, ads, slogans, logos, etc. 

Sanders may have started out a seeming long shot, but he quickly blew past O'Malley and Chaffee and Webb and fired up what was for many millions a breathtakingly exciting movement. It should still cheer his supporters to note how he didn't allow money in politics and a powerful party structure to keep him out of the running. Sanders was an unexpectedly strong candidate - a powerful adversary to Clinton. He showed a dazzling ability to raise competitive funding through individual small donors.There is no case to make that he would have won with a big enough platform - he had one, and was able to stay in contention to the bitter end. If it was the intent of the DNC to use Establishment muscle to keep Sanders out of the running in the 2016 Democratic primary, they did a lousy job. 

The only thing that kept him from being truly competitive against Clinton was that his strengths were more rhetorical than policy-based. That's it. He simply did not demonstrate a breadth and depth of knowledge in the areas pertinent to the responsibilities and opportunities of leading the executive branch. And in place of that knowledge, he ran on casting doubt about Clinton's character.
 
His expressed foreign policy ideas, especially regarding Syria and ISIL, consisted mostly of the proposition that "Muslim countries need to get more involved." He never said "more involved" than what: he didn’t offer assessments of what Jordan was doing compared to what Turkey was doing compared to what Lebanon was doing. He addressed the dynamics of the various competing factions inside Syria in this way during one debate: “...you have this side fighting with that side, that side fighting with this side..." While there are a number of groups with complex alliances, much reporting has been done about who they are and what their objectives are. Up to date, insightful information about the status of these conflicts is handy. Sanders appeared content describing the situation as “a mess”. Listening to him talk about foreign affairs, I frequently felt I knew more about things than he did. I'm a blogger. I don't want to know more about foreign affairs than the president. 
 
Meanwhile, his responses on this topic, as shallow as they were, always managed to include a characterization of Hillary Clinton as a hawk. He didn’t challenge her by practice and plan. For example, he didn’t vocalize objections to her positions on drone use. He couldn’t; when forced to be specific, he granted that drones are a tool that we need to have. He said, like Clinton, that what needs addressing in that regard is policy and transparency. He didn’t describe alternative solutions for international crises which he said Hillary had approached with a heavy fist. For example, he would criticize Clinton as a regime-change enthusiast when referencing the air strikes she supported in Libya, but he wouldn’t say what he would have done in her position. He couldn’t; he has granted the complexity of weighing such a decision when a hostile foreign leader is imminently poised to commence genocide. But immediately coinciding with this acknowledgement of the lose-lose nature of the dilemma, he was unrestrained in casting Clinton as less committed to peace than himself.  

In terms of financial sector reform, the real differences between Sanders and Clinton boiled down to some approachable disagreements on strategy, tactics, rules, terms of measurement and assessment, concentrations of authority, even language. Their values around these issues are shared. They both proposed ways to use the leverage of federal regulation and the courts to continue efforts to defang Wall Street. There are legitimate cases to be made for one regulatory tool over another. Instead of acknowledging their shared goals, and arguing over strategy, Sanders chose to question Clinton's integrity and motivation. Her proposals were consistent with her voting record in the Senate, and they were too detailed to be dismissed as lip service. So it is shocking to remember how, instead of comparing her ideas to his, and saying his would work better, Bernie said, in effect, “She’s trying to trick you. She has no intention of doing any of this. She’s lying when she says she wants to help you.”
 

Between this innuendo, and his full-throated sloganeering, Sanders gave Clinton a run for her money:
 - "Break 'em up!" temporarily edged out “Dodd-Frank doesn’t go far enough because it doesn't touch hedge-fund management or insurance."
 - "Free tuition for all!" garnered more excitement than "We need means-testing for tuition and student debt forgiveness so that everyone who wants to go to college can afford to."
 - "Single payer!" was more of a draw than "Let's build on the ACA and fix its problems, with an eye toward ultimately making a successful sell of universal healthcare to the American people."

Now, politics matters, and there's a lot to be said for charisma. You have to inspire people. And it is legitimate to compare policies in terms of reach. But there was no reason for Sanders and his campaign to meld legitimate political challenges into dark questions about Clinton's idealism, her altruism - about her very motivation. It’s extraordinary, in retrospect. ​

​The Democratic Party primary voter is a savvy animal. Bernie wasn't silenced. Hillary won on the merits of her arguments. Bernie lost because his campaign, weak on substance, bought in to the concept that instead of waging a contest of ideas, one way of running for office against Hillary Clinton is to engage in relentless, nebulous, negative commentary.

​Let’s hope that works for Trump about as well as it did for Sanders. 

Chaotic primaries and quixotic donations aside, nothing is inherently wrong with Bernie Sanders’ choice to stay in the primary race to the convention.

​The Clinton campaign will survive. In the abstract, even where a primary candidate’s efforts might compromise a likely nominee’s odds in the fall, if the candidate is still winning states and challenging the front-runner’s ideas, there shouldn’t be an automatic expectation to withdraw.
 
Concern that Sanders’ criticisms of Clinton will be snagged by the other team and used against her are understandable, but unnecessary. No general election candidate ever beat an opponent by quoting barbs thrown during the primary. A 2016 undecided voter (?!) won’t be drawn to Trump over Clinton because Sanders accused Clinton of being too moderate. And Trump didn't need Sanders’ complaint that Clinton isn’t trustworthy to get him started on that - he was already in line with the rest.
 
At this point, there is also no onus on Sanders to unite the party. His thought is to reform the party, and we’re still in the primaries. For now, it’s a false analogy to judge Sanders as a Nader-like spoiler. So far, (that's as of 5/17/19, for the record) there’s no indication he’d do anything to sabotage a general-election Clinton campaign – in fact he’s explicitly promised to help defeat Trump.
 
There is, however, a glaring (disturbing actually) reason why Sanders’ persistence does no service to the electorate, and may be doing harm. The entire Bernie Sanders for President campaign is based on a false premise.
 
It’s a premise that feeds the worst kind of political cynicism, typified by the misguided disappointment some on the left heaped on Barack Obama once he was in office.
 
It’s a premise whose central theme has gone largely unexamined by millions of voters. It’s routinely accepted by town hall hosts, debate moderators, and the anchors of Sunday morning news shows, who congratulate themselves for challenging Sanders’ assertions with a followup question or two.   

The fundamental proposition of the Bernie Sanders campaign is that Bernie Sanders is a radical. That he is a revolutionary. That he is preeminently prepared to effect major reforms in US governance.

It’s a premise that says Sanders’ proposals are so unfettered by the constraints of conventional thinking, his vision so soaring, his supporters so enterprising and committed, he is poised to forge a previously inconceivable transformation to our current system. 
The Sanders campaign submits that the chief means of reform,
more important than experience or expertise,
more important than depth of knowledge or painstaking policy development,
is the courage to discard orthodoxical thinking and reject a philosophy of cumulative progress and incremental change. This premise insists that a combination of radical thought and political moxy can provide the locomotion necessary to overcome practical barriers to change, and that Bernie Sanders is uniquely qualified to employ such power effectively in the Executive Branch.
 
Intoxicating stuff.

But here is the problem.
There is nothing ground-breaking or original about Sanders’ ideas. He is not a pioneer. He is not a revolutionary.

None of Senator Sanders’ overarching goals set him apart from the liberal mainstream. They can all be found in the Democratic Party Platform, policy positions of freshman to senior members of Congress and the legislation they have toiled over and pushed and sometimes passed: access for all to college, healthcare, and a living wage; the overturn of Citizens United; codified, enforceable solutions to environmental problems; and, absolutely, robust regulation of Wall Street.
 
Certainly, Sanders’ preferred models for these ideals in practice do sit to the left of what the country has so far supported. He wants single-payer health insurance, free college tuition across the board, a $15 federal minimum wage, a carbon tax and a ban on fracking. He hasn’t revealed how he is equipped to advance such policies in our current political climate, but his message is clear: liberals fail to achieve greater progress because of a lack of imagination and a shortage of political courage.

Meanwhile, though, throughout the years, across the Democratic party, many Presidents, presidential candidates, members of Congress, and other progressive leaders perennially raise and scrutinize such ideas. In a case where any one of them believes any one of these models to be ideal, they push it forward and fight for it.
 
There are no new ideas coming from the Sanders camp. And the barriers to liberal progress are not reticence or dispassion.
 
The most conspicuous weakness of the Sanders premise is exposed by his failure to articulate concrete proposals in areas of his central focus. While Sanders can passionately spell out all the ways Wall Street has devastated our economy and vow to dismantle the framework of power held by financial institutions, actual strategies never materialize. In the absence of detail, his approach can’t be evaluated. And where he has occasionally shared rough ideas about how to move forward, Sanders does not differentiate himself from the average Democratic party leader or elected official, and certainly not from his opponent.

​Elsewhere in America, Hillary makes plain her plan for Wall Street reform. Even within the constraints of interviews, debates, and speeches, she has provided more detail than Sanders, and has ensured easy access to the details of her financial reform positions by publishing them on her website. On the Clinton site, while the first thing you find on her "Issues" pages are the brief, fairly canned, requisite policy summaries, at the end of the summary you also find a link to her detail-rich elaborations, laid out on supporting Fact Sheets that are accessible without being reductive. The voter may embrace Clinton’s positions or not, but will find the means on the Fact Sheets to make a judgement based on Clinton's appreciable output of information and analysis. On Sanders' site - even on this, his cornerstone concern - content is limited to the aforementioned brief, fairly canned, requisite policy summary on an "Issues" page.

At least their disagreement about whether or not to reinstate Glass-Steagall has made for lively debate. Here’s how that’s gone, paraphrasing minimally:
 
Sanders: The big banks must be broken up! We need Glass-Steagall to prevent another economic disaster!
 
Clinton: Glass-Steagall no longer addresses our post-recession needs. It separated commercial banks from investment banks, but it didn’t provide deterrents to or consequences for exceptional risk-taking by either sector. It will take more than any one piece of legislation to prevent another economic disaster. I propose we introduce risk-fees tied to the size and type of loans and investments made by either sector; and better exploit the provisions in Dodd-Frank to empower regulators to identify which banks threaten to grow “too big to fail”, then force them to downsize, reorganize, or disband. And we need new legislation that provides for oversight of financial industries like insurance, mortgage lending, and hedge fund management, which - with the backing of big-bank funding - actually created the recession.
 
Sanders: The big banks must be broken up! We need Glass-Steagall to prevent another economic disaster!
 
To be fair, when pressed, Sanders has mentioned some of the same ideas Clinton has proposed, but he hasn’t challenged her stance on Glass-Steagall besides saying he’s in disagreement. If he has a plan to address the questions Clinton raises, a more progressive and hard-hitting alternative, he might oughta produce it before June.
 
Sanders’ credibility as Top Minimum-Wage Champion is also in question. Both candidates have lauded the work of the Fight for 15 advocacy group, and supported efforts on state and local levels to raise their own minimums to $15 an hour. But on the federal level, Sanders' ostensibly hyper-progressive demand for a $15 minimum is deceptive.

Last year Secretary Clinton joined with President Obama in throwing support behind the most coordinated and widely-supported Congressional effort to push through a raise on the minimum wage in years. In April of 2015, 303 US Senators and Representatives came together and signed on to new legislation that proposes a raise for a federal minimum wage that the GOP has kept locked-in at $7.25 since 2007. This high-profile, popular bill provides for an increase to $12 per hour by 2020. Hard to say whether Republicans in Congress will budge, but the hope (and strategy) is that this groundswell of unified Executive, Congressional Democratic, and advocacy group support will finally overcome some opposition. You'll be hearing a lot more about this bill as it moves forward, so keep an eye out. It's called the Raise the Wage Act of 2015. 
 
But wait, guess what, more to the story. Less than three months from the introduction of said Raise the Wage Act, Senator Bernie Sanders, apparently finding the dogged work of 303 of his colleagues and the support of the POTUS pale proof of concern for beleaguered workers introduces a competing (with his fellows) bill, the Pay Workers a Living Wage Act of 2015, which proposes to raise the wage to $15 by 2020, rather than $12 by 2020. He's tired of pussyfootin' around it seems, these people need $15 by 2020, and I can make that happen! His secret weapon – the thing that will propel his bill past the widely-supported, endorsed by the president one, and right on through Congress?

Well, he doesn’t say. Presumably the thinking is this: contrary to the collective judgement of hundreds of Democratic Senators and Representatives, including the most experienced and successful veterans of Congress, the only useful tool in the negotiating toolbox that will break through and make headway - on this issue, at this juncture - is the use of a Sanders for President truism, “If you start by asking for a full loaf of bread, at worst you’re gonna get a half loaf. [? At worst, you get nothing.] If you start by asking for a half loaf, you’re going to get crumbs. [Or you could half, depending.]”

This strategy doesn’t signal that Bernie is more progressive than Hillary, or that he cares more about American workers. It's no sign that he understands better than Hillary the egregiously insufficient level of income provided by $12 an hour: she has been at pains to iterate that even $15 would not be a living wage. Sander's decision to go out on a limb by taking a "let's overbid and bargain down from there" approach is also not evidence that he has the chops and experience (and connections, there's the rub!) to get a wage raise pushed through. On the contrary, unfortunately. Slapping down a counterproposal to his own team's proposal robs him of the connections, wide-support, co-signers and votes he needs to make anything happen. Doesn't that signal a President Sanders would be less collaborative than a President Hillary, that he'd operate in the realm of theatrics rather than the realm of results, actually impeding progress towards a living wage? 
 
These are just a couple of examples of the story behind the Sanders campaign's underlying premise that a President Sanders would conceive and execute reforms far more advanced than those of a President Clinton, leaping over her proposed baby steps to swiftly overhaul our system of government. 

The premise is false.
 
Now, why again is all this so important? How can erroneous claims made by a primary candidate who is no longer numerically competitive do harm? Senator Sanders’ ongoing proclamations that he provides a bold, viable alternative to Secretary Clinton’s purposeful, measurable objectives are fodder for deep disenchantment by a whole contingent of voters on the left. They are a perfect fuel for the type of energy spent by true believers decrying and dismissing all practical efforts, even the good fight waged over hostile turf. They help grow the evergreen far-left inclination to malign liberal politicians who govern, passionately, as facilitators, collaborators and diplomats, rather than as activists, agitators and zealots. These claims delay again the learning of lessons from our collective experience shifting from the heady exhilaration of the 2008 campaign to the realities of executive branch administration in a time of extraordinary Congressional opposition. They certainly beg the question of just how a Sanders supporter would view the sort of adjustments and concessions a President Sanders would have to make in order to function in the Oval Office. Just like every president before him. Just like the next Great Left Hope.  
 
Of course the follow-up premise to the one that says Bernie Sanders is a revolutionary, is the one that says Hillary Clinton is a bureaucrat who embraces a style seen by some as - at best - grounded, pragmatic, and content with small gains, and at worst, cautious, complacent, and reflective of a watered-down social vision.

But a thoughtful review of the Clinton point-of-view on our country's future reflects absolutely no lack of conviction, failure of imagination, or fear of conflict! Read her editorials and thought pieces; listen, not just to her stump speeches but the quieter, in-depth remarks; rewatch her interviews and debate performances. And really tune in to the writings, policy remarks, and debates to come. Know who this woman really is, the person you may end up glad to support in her hopeful journey to the Oval Office. Decide for yourself, obviously, but there may well be some pleasant surprises there. There may be evidence that it makes sense to challenge previous conceptions about the motivations and intentions of Secretary Clinton.

In a way, in the context of our current political climate, incrementalism might be said to require more conviction and passion than would a revolution. Incrementalism requires a coupling of such moral ambition with the level discipline and patience necessary to bear through periods of heavy opposition, suspended action, and fallen-through deals; and remain on a path towards progress.

​The ultimate premise, that Clinton - intentionally or obtusely - has opted for a harder road and gradual progress; while Sanders has the clarity and fervor it takes to strike out on a more defiant yet somehow equally viable path - that is the least supportable proposition of all.
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

​by Julie Boler

Constitution-loving Americans across the political spectrum should be horrified by the way some members of the NC General Assembly have interpreted their lawmaking role. When asked last year by local filmmaker Eric Preston why he favored getting rid of Sunday voting during the NC Early Voting period, NC House Representative Bob Steinburg blithely explained that he based his position on his own religious beliefs. He is opposed to voting on Sundays, he stated, just as he is to hunting on Sundays, because, according to his faith, Sunday is a day of rest.

Of course, nobody is asking Steinburg to vote on Sunday. And as Preston pointed out, there are folks in the state who have very different religious beliefs, and that in fact, there are African-American churches who actually make the voting process a part of their ministry. 

As Preston expressed to Steinburg, "The Sunday before elections, (these churches) take church buses full of people to vote, which makes it easier for them." He then asked Steinburg, "Do you feel they shouldn't have that opportunity?"

Steinburg: "They have six days a week to get everybody out to vote. On Sundays, that's the Lord's day. They can be celebrating the Word and so forth, but I don't think that's a day to be traipsing people to the polls...if they've got the will, there's other days they can do it. They can meet at the church on Saturday. Or on Friday. Or Wednesday, or Tuesday; whatever the case may be. But Sunday? No."

It's hard to argue with that. There are six other days of the week on which we could all vote; days that wouldn't offend Representative Steinburg's personally held religious tenets.  And he gives some great suggestions. There's Friday, as he mentions, and you've got those perfectly good Tuesdays. How hard could it be to find a day of the week to traipse to the polls, that wouldn't offend Representative Steinburg's religious sensibilities?  
But for some reason, I just decided to look for one of the Early Voting sites in my county that still have some Sunday hours. I'm going to head over there tomorrow and vote. May God have mercy on my soul.

I had desperately hoped to see a sign from this President, as he weighed the question of whether or not to initiate strikes against Syria, that he is the exceptional leader I have consistently felt him to be.  As he spoke in the Rose Garden today, explaining the two elements of the way he feels we should move forward, I was amazed to observe that he has the ability to surpass even my very high expectations.  

His two-pronged approach to the issue, as described in his remarks today, are one, to communicate his resolve to apply harsh consequences to the Assad regime for the murder of over a thousand of its citizens with poison gas, consequences in the form of missile strikes; and two, to acquiesce to demands that he bring the US Congress into the decision-making process.  

You may not agree with the first part.  Obama's position is that actions taken by Assad in Damascus, using chemical weapons against Syria's own civilian population, including hundreds of children, constitute crimes against humanity so horrific and unique from other types or levels of warfare, that they cannot be ignored.  The President was clear he believes we have an imperative to respond to these actions, separate altogether from any consideration of intervention in Syria's civil war, and separate from the question of regime change.  

You may feel otherwise.  But his decision to withhold an executive order to strike unless and until he has the full support of Congress is beyond reproach.  For those of us who feel on the one hand both skeptical and disempowered by the prospect of another American president making a case for military action, but on the other hand cognizant that what happened in Damascus cannot be ignored, Obama has presented what is perhaps the only acceptable proposition:  if we're going to respond to this somehow, let's decide how to do it together. 

How else would you want a president to resolve a question like this, other than each of us meeting personally with him at the White House to explain exactly what we want to have done? 

Reports from behind the scenes at the White House tell us that over the last 24-48 hours the debate between the President's Cabinet members, national security team and other staff and advisers has been robust, and there was significant sentiment against seeking the support of Congress before taking action. I've read about similar processes occurring in this administration's Oval Office and Situation Room deliberations during the couple of days leading up to the decision to start air strikes over Libya, and before giving the "go" to authorize the operation to get bin Laden.  This President apparently demands a frank diversity of opinion, and afterwards may make a decision flouting the advice of even his closest advisers.  In this case it appears there was much agreement about the need to go forward with strikes against Syria, but a variety of points of view about how far to bring Congress into the process.  Obama went with the approach that relinquishes ultimate control of the final decision.  It should be noted that since Congress does not reconvene until September 9, and he is not asking them to return early to address this, he has chosen not to cheapen his argument for consequences for Assad by implying there is a crucial need to act immediately.  He has also clearly not agreed to seek the approval of Congress as a way to shrink from stating his OWN opinion - his point of view could not be clearer: we should launch missiles at military targets in Syria in order to enforce international norms against the use of chemical weapons.

Whatever you think of that, now your argument must go to Congress.  And make no mistake, members of Congress do read your letters and emails, and do track your phone calls.  Whether the legwork is done by staff, and commentary is sorted into piles of rough agreement, or your communication is discovered to be so compelling, articulate or pertinent that it lands on the Congressperson's desk, none of them are ignored (see my post "Yes, They Do Read Your Letters!" 11/19/11.)  Cynicism about whether they do that to inform campaign messaging or whether they actually care is understandable.  But the argument "they don't care what I have to say" is drastically undermined if you don't say anything.  Over the next ten days, you can spend many hours debating this on Facebook, at the dinner table, or in your own head, but remember that the "representative" part of representative democracy doesn't work without your direct participation.  So take ten minutes out of your facebook time between now and the 9th to contact your Senators, www.senate.gov, and another ten to weigh in with your Representative at www.house.gov. 

MSNBC correspondent Chuck Todd, coming on camera to comment after the President's statement, pointed out how extraordinary it is for Obama to make a decision to seek the approval of Congress before taking action.  Todd noted that for roughly 40 years, since Dick Cheney was pulling strings in the Ford administration, Presidents have continuously sought to concentrate ever more power in the Executive Branch.  The fact that Barack Obama just took a stand in another direction reminds me once again that we are watching a presidency with deep historical significance.

From today's remarks, "...but, having made my decision as Commander in Chief...I am also mindful that I am the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.  I've long believed that our power is rooted, not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

 - Julie Boler