Mediaboss Marketing

Last week Ryan Cooper set off a firestorm with an article in The Week entitled Why leftists dont trust Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick. It was a frank and straightforward assessment, in one sense, and a needless provocation in another, given that all three potential 2020 candidates mentioned are black, and there are plenty of other Democratic politicians leftists might not trust either. The combination of straight talk and insensitivity was a perfect embodiment of the Democratic Partys current chaotic state, which has echoed through responses and ongoing parallel discussions.

At Cosmopolitan, for example, Brittney Cooper (Get Off Kamala Harriss Back) characterized Ryan Coopers piece as a screed and ignored his more nuanced portrayal of Harris on the way to making a more broadly plausible argument:

Black women are not Jesus. Its not right to expect us to fix what white Americans are so committed to breaking. This debate, then, isnt about Harris, but about the emotional and political labor that black women are expected to do to save Americas soul.

Brittney Cooper went on to cite Rep. Barbara D. Jordans memorable speech calling for Richard Nixons impeachment, in which she said:My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.

Cooper continued:

There is a way that we always ask black women to do the labor of saving our democracy. And then those on the far left use this same labor that we do to save democracy to argue that we are too deeply invested in the establishment.

Its a plausible argument at one level, until you consider those on the far left who are black women. Women like Angela Davis, among other things a co-founder of Critical Resistance, whose mission is to build an international movement to end the Prison Industrial Complex, and whose work helped lay the foundations on which the Black Lives Matter movement was built. This stands in stark tension with Kamala Harriss career path as a prosecutor, and some specific issues on which grassroots activists have challenged her over the years issues cited in a Verso Books blog post by black feminist Zo Samudzi Dehumanization by Deification: On Kamala Harris and Black Women Will Save Us whose argument is similar to Brittney Coopers in some ways, but with a decidedly different thrust.

Samudzi a doctoral student in medical sociology at the University of California, San Francisco goes into detail about Harris prosecutorial record and why it is problematic in progressive circles. These were later echoed in a Twitter thread by the ACLUs Chase Strangio, who summed up, Kamala has been critiqued not from the Bernie left but from grassroots LGBTQ, prison abolition and racial justice organizers who saw her use her progressive position to further institutionalize insidious carceral policies.

Samudzis core argument was not about Harris herself, but about how she is being used by others:

There are critiques of Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton that simply reflect a contempt for women [of color], and those misogynies are of course unacceptable. But there is a duly irresponsible and unacceptable idea that an individuals politics are beyond reproach because they possess a marginalized identity (or multiple ones).

Dehumanization, whether through degradation or deification, reflects of bigoted regard for minoritized individuals or groups; it objectifies of the identities of women of color to suit ones politics.

Peoples real lives are not neatly segmented the way such simplistic accounts would have it. Samudzi goes on:

There seems to be an irreconcilable dissonance in this white liberal logic: how can Black women save us if the complexity and heterogeneity of our discourses, identities, needs, and humanity are ignored to make room for our superficial insertion into and tokenization within anti-left progressive arguments and shallow pandering by the Democratic Party during election cycles?

Its striking how similar Cooper and Samudzis core arguments are in one sense, but to quite dissimilar ends. It should be obvious from this single pairing that arguments over the future direction of progressive politics (both within and beyond the Democratic Party) exist within as well as between all manner of social subgroups. Arguing about Kamala Harris and the salvific role of black women is but one strikingly important, but hardly unique example.

Taking a step backwards, at Washington Monthlys Political Animal blog, David Atkins responded with Bernie, Kamala, and the Lefts War of Mutually Assured Destruction, arguing for a framework about how to avoid that war. He began with a frank look at how Ryan Cooper had raised legitimate concerns, but in problematic fashion: In targeting black candidates Booker, Harris and Patrick specifically, Cooper only gives further fuel to those who claim that Sanders-aligned economic progressives have racist motivations or at least that they are tone-deaf and poor allies on matters of identity and social justice. He goes on to argue there are both legitimate concerns and questionable actions on both sides:

Democratic socialists must avoid making the unforced errors of the Sanders campaign, failing to articulate an understanding that social justice is also a key component of economic justice, and that merely making advances in the class war will not resolve institutional discrimination on the basis of identity. Making an example of the top three African-American hopefuls in the 2020 field is a terrible mistake regardless of intent.

For its part, the establishment must stop treating class war activists as second class citizens in a Democratic Party whose greatest President of the 20th century was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not Bill Clinton.

In the end, Atkins concluded, The only path forward for both sides lies in mutual solidarity and respect.

Moving forward also involves understanding the past as well as broadening our thinking beyond a narrow focus on the presidency alone, to the overall health and strength of the Democratic Party and movements associated with it. The crude identity politics being used by some against the left is incapable of sustaining legislative majorities in Congress let alone state legislatures even if it can elect a president in 2020. At the same time, the economic populist politics of the left faces huge hurdles against the entrenched power of money, even if it were to succeed in electing Bernie Sanders in 2020. (Unquestionably a big if.) A synergy of the strengths and best aspects of both is necessary, if Democrats are ever going to govern coherently at the national level.

The burning question is how to bring this synergy about, and a large part of the answer to that lies in listening and learning from grassroots activists, from the Black Lives Matter movement (see their 2016 platform here) to the multi-racial, cross-cultural coalition of anti-pipeline activists in the upper Great Plains. A recent In These Times interview with Jane Kleeb, the newly-elected chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, whos been deeply involved in anti-pipeline activism, was primarily focused on how to overcome the rural-urban divide. Kleeb highlights how rural communities have many inherently progressive values that urban observers fail to recognize. In rural and small towns we may not use the word climate change in the first five sentences, she said, but everything were doing is talking about protecting the land and water and stopping these risky projects, which ultimately, obviously, impact climate change.

There is also a strong sense of community and caring for the land in places like Nebraska, Kleeb says, organically rooted in their way of life. Relying on your neighbors is the number one key to surviving. Cattle ranchers, without their neighbors, cant get branding done, they dont get their fences fixed, they dont find a stray cow. Theres a very strong connection to neighbors and the culture of helping out each other in small towns. We all know each other. Theres a very deep moral connection to the land and to the water.

On the flip side, Kleeb said, You know, small towns hate big corporations. Right, they hate big anything. They think Tyson is the devil, trying to consolidate markets and put chicken farmers under these really bad contracts. And so, there are lots of threads that Democrats should be talking to rural and small town voters on. And Bernie was obviously one of the best messengers for that.

This same theme was highlighted in a Washington Monthly article by Martin Longman, How to Win Rural Voters Without Losing Liberal Values, in which he wrote:

People in rural and small-town America know the dangers of industry consolidation better than anyone, having seen it strip away the livelihoods of independent farmers and local banks and merchants long before most city slickers even realized that corporate concentration was an issue.

All this points to a simple conclusion: Democrats should make fighting monopolies the central organizing principle of their economic agenda. This approach holds the promise of bringing together groups that seem inherently at odds: nativists and cosmopolitans, fundamentalists and secularists, urbanites and rural dwellers.

The strongest reason to think this could work is, quite simply, that it has worked before. A century ago, agrarian populists and big-city progressives united around a common opposition to monopoly, forming a movement that dominated American politics for decades and helped deliver a broadly shared prosperity. Because the economic landscape today is strikingly similar to what it was a hundred years ago, theres every reason to believe that the conditions are right for a similar alliance to arise again.

The key to making this work is the advancement of a coherent narrative and vision an ideology that will highlight, integrate and bring to the fore broadly popular ideas that can unite people across the particularities that have been used to divide them. This is what Democrats and progressives have been missing for generations. It takes an activist government taking peoples side to preserve the space for them to shape their own destinies. And it takes a sustained, coordinated effort to deliver this message and make it real.

As Atkins said above, FDR was the greatest Democratic president of the 20th century, but while the government policies he implemented were both effective and popular in helping the vast majority of Americans, there was no comparable comprehension or level of support for his activist government approach as a whole. This was fclearly documented by public opinion pioneers Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril in their landmark 1967 book, The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion. They found that half the population was ideologically conservative, in the sense of preferring a smaller, more limited government, while about two-thirds was operationally liberal, in the sense of wanting to spend more on specifically identified government programs. In the last section of their book, The Need for a Restatement of American Ideology, they concluded:

The paradox of a large majority of Americans qualifying as operational liberals while at the same time a majority hold to a conservative ideology has been repeatedly emphasized in this study. We have described this state of affairs as mildly schizoid, with people believing in one set of principles abstractly while acting according to another set of principles in their political behavior. But the principles according to which the majority of Americans actually behave politically have not yet been adequately formulated in modern terms

There is little doubt that the time has come for a restatement of American ideology to bring it in line with what the great majority of people want and approve. Such a statement, with the right symbols incorporated, would focus peoples wants, hopes, and beliefs, and provide a guide and platform to enable the American people to implement their political desires in a more intelligent, direct, and consistent manner.

Such a restatement effort was never mounted, and never even seriously considered. Instead, as described by Matt Grossmann and David Hopkins in Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats (Salon review here), conservatives in the Republican Party have been overwhelmingly dominant in stressing ideology, while Democrats have remained focused on specific problem-solving, mediating the concerns of different interest groups they represent. Over time, this unplanned decision has had devastating consequences, as the backlash politics initiated by Richard Nixon have thrived on stereotyping and demonizing different interest groups, and playing them off against each other.

What has worked in the short run for Democrats trying to survive in this environment defending each group in turn, without fleshing out a broader coherent vision has allowed Republicans to gain an ever-widening political advantage, reflected most vividly in their hold on state governments. But, as Longman argues, and Kleeb attests, a monopoly-fighting focus could provide a foundation for reversing that, speaking to voters across all kinds of divisions thatotherwise loom so large. Whats more, that kind of unifying focus could catalyze a broader process of drawing people together.

The challenge for Democrats and progressives is to do what Republicans and conservatives have been doing for decades: Craft a coherent ideological narrative that makes sense of what people already feel. But for Democrats, its not just about vague free-market fantasies,or romantic longings for a past that never was. Its about concrete things people can do to empower themselves through government action, creating a future with more possibilities for all. Properly articulated, such a framework will thrive on diversity, linking our different struggles back to a shared commitment to expand Americas promise to all in the immortal words of Langston Hughes, to Let America Be America Again.

Read more here:
Overcoming the Democrats' civil war: We need both Kamala and Bernie, and everything in between - Salon

"We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia," Trump told reporters at his New Jersey golf course. "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides."

Trump made no reply to a reporter's shouted question whether he had spoken out strongly enough against white nationalists.

In a statement issued after the president's news conference, the White House defended Trump's use of "many sides," saying that he "was condemning hatred, bigotry and violence from all sources and all sides. There was violence between protesters and counter protesters today."

Prominent Democrats, civil rights activists and some Republicans said it was inexcusable of the president not to denounce white supremacy.

"Mr. President we must call evil by its name," Republican U.S. Senator Cory Gardner wrote on social network Twitter.

"These were white supremacists and this was domestic," said Gardner, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the group charged with helping to get Republicans elected to the Senate.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, said in a tweet directed at the president: "Repeat after me, @realDonaldTrump: white supremacy is an affront to American values."

Fighting broke out on Saturday in the city's downtown, when hundreds of people, some wearing white nationalist symbols and carrying Confederate battle flags, were confronted by a nearly equal number of counter-protesters.

The confrontation was a stark reminder of the growing political polarization since Trump's election last year.

"You will not erase us," chanted a crowd of white nationalists, while counter-protesters carried placards that read: "Nazi go home" and "Smash white supremacy."

Scott Stroney, 50, a catering sales director at the University of Virginia who arrived at the scene of the car incident just after the crash, said he was horrified.

"I started to cry. I couldn't talk for a while," he said. "It was just hard to watch, hard to see. It's heartbreaking."

The violence began on Friday night, when hundreds of white marchers with blazing torches appeared at the campus in a display that critics called reminiscent of a Ku Klux Klan rally.

David Duke, a former leader of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, was in Charlottesville for the rally, according to his Twitter account.

"We are determined to take our country back," Duke said in a video reportedly from the rally. "We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in. That's why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he's going to take our country back."

The rally was part of a long debate in the U.S. South over the Confederate battle flag and other symbols of the rebel side in the Civil War, which was fought over the issue of slavery.

The violence is the latest clash between far-rightists, some of whom have claimed allegiance to Trump, and the president's opponents since his January inauguration, when black-clad anti-Trump protesters in Washington smashed windows, torched cars and clashed with police, leading to more than 200 arrests.

CNBC contributed to this report.

Read more here:
Republicans and Democrats speak out after Trump faults 'many sides' at white nationalist rally - CNBC

Nine months after being humiliated by Donald Trump, Democrats think theyre going to take back Congress by winning districts just like the ones outside Philly. Why on earth are they so confident?

Photograph by Clint Blowers

Ryan Costello is being a good sport. He really is.

The Republican Congressman is holding his second town hall this year in his suburban district. And its only April. (Compare that to Pat Toomey: Hes done nada, nowhere, since 2015.) Two hundred constituents slide into uncomfortable wooden benches at the historic Chester County Courthouse to participate in the airing of grievances; some have donned The Resistance uniforms. How about that t-shirt! Costello says to a light-haired woman in a Nevertheless She Persisted tee. And my sweatshirt says the Womens March! she shoots back.

Costello, an uncharismatic ex-commissioner with slicked-back hair, a lanky frame, and a closet full of suits that look too big for him, greets the crowd like a diplomat. There is a heightened element of activism by a lot of the constituency, he says. I think thats a good thing. The audience looks unconvinced.

Costello starts taking questions from residents and uses them as an opportunity to buck the party line. Building President Trumps wall is not the best way of enforcing the border. Protecting essential health benefits is extremely important. The Paris climate agreement is something hes leaning in favor of. When a man from Audubon says hes worried about Trumps austere budget, Costello replies, Me too!

Every once in a while, the Pantsuit Nation-friendly crowd applauds. But thats the exception. A jeer erupts when Costello reveals that at this moment he doesnt want to establish an independent commission to look into alleged ties to Russia. The booing rumbles louder when Costello says single-payer health care isnt appropriate for the United States. Were the only industrialized nation that profitizes health care! one woman says. If we cant have it, I want your health care! yells another. Over the next hour and 20 minutes, Costello is shouted at 10 more times.

Its this pent-up liberal rage in the Trump era in this exact corner of America, actually thats made Democrats believe they have a real shot at taking back the House in 2018. Costello represents Pennsylvanias Sixth Congressional District, or whats known to political junkies as one of the Clinton 23. These districts voted for both Hillary Clinton and Republican House members in 2016. If Democrats win them all next year, plus one more seat, the House is theirs. Costellos district is also home to tens of thousands of well-off, well-educated suburbanites who dislike Trump just the type of people Democratic leaders think they can win over.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has put three seats in Phillys suburbs, including the Sixth covering parts of Chester, Montgomery, Berks and Lebanon counties on its 2018 target list. Rahm Emanuel, who led the DCCC when it stole the House from Republicans in 2006, calls them among the most vulnerable in the nation. These districts tend to be mainstream in tone and interest, he said in a recent Atlantic op-ed. Thats a tough place to win the hand Trump has dealt Republicans of cutting student aid, denying climate change, and eliminating protections for pre-existing conditions.

Are anti-Trump moderates in suburban districts the answer to Democrats woes? Or is that just more wishful thinking? After all, wasnt the partys path to redemption going to be paved with Panera Bread stores? Wasnt Georgias Jon Ossoff supposed to be the suburban-mom whisperer?

Whatever the answer, one thing is certain: You, dear reader of Philadelphia magazine, will be inundated with a mind-numbing glut of campaign ads in 2018.

Shes just, like, a rock star! The chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee is talking about her as the strongest challenger in the entire country!

This June, a DCCC staffer gushes to me about someone named Chrissy Houlahan. Shes one of a handful of Democrats hoping for the opportunity to run against Costello next fall. But she stands out, this aide swears: Shes so accomplished. And a businesswoman. And a nonprofit executive.

A couple days later, Houlahan calls me while visiting Stanford for her daughters graduation ceremony. My first question is a softball wrapped in cashmere: Whats her campaign message? Im not a politician, nor did I ever intend to be, she replies. Im running because I really feel as though its time for representatives in Congress to really represent our values. She calls Costello a career politician who has no real-world experience. Shes different, she insists: I served in the military, built several different organizations in our community, and created hundreds of jobs.

An Air Force vet, a business leader and a non-politician channeling the countrys contempt for Congress? It aint bad. It also happens to be almost exactly what Democratic leaders are looking for at the moment. In a memo released after the partys bitter loss in Georgias Sixth District special election, DCCC chairman Ben Ray Lujn told his colleagues theres no doubt they can take back the House with atypical candidates: Lets look outside of the traditional mold to keep recruiting local leaders, veterans, business owners, women, job creators and health professionals.

But when I ask Houlahan which policies she supports, she responds with 42 words that could mean literally anything: My background reflects what it is that I care about and what I believe our community also cares about, whether its about security and safety, or whether its opportunity and employment and the economy, or whether its about education or the environment. Eventually, I figure out a little more: Houlahan doesnt have a position yet on single-payer health care and doesnt support tuition-free college, but she thinks expanding Medicaid and letting the government negotiate drug prices are good ideas. What shes very clear on, she adds, is that Trumps policies on education are harmful.

If that sounds familiar, its because Hillary Clinton ran an anti-Trump campaign heavy on platitudes about American values and light on ideas for improving lives. Per one study, Clinton aired fewer policy-focused TV ads than any candidate in the past four presidential races. Not that it hurt her in the Sixth: Even though registered Republicans outnumber Democrats in the district, Clinton won if only by .6 percent.

If Houlahan is the perceived front-runner in the Sixth Congressional Districts primary, with her kick-ass rsum and murky message, then Daylin Leach is the perceived primary front-runner next door in the Seventh with none of that.

Leachs CV isnt exactly made for the times: In an era in which voters look at political experience with severe side-eye, hes been a state legislator for the past 14-plus years. Parts of the district he represents in the state Senate are in the (gerrymandered) Seventh, which includes most of Delco and parts of four other counties and is another of the prized Clinton 23 seats.

But its pretty clear where Leach stands on the issues. He says he wants to fight three crises plaguing America: Trump, income inequality, and the erosion of democracy due to gerrymandering and an avalanche of campaign money. He supports the Berniecrat platform of a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All and tuition-free college. In virtually every article written about him, Leach is described as one of the most liberal lawmakers in Pennsylvania.

Leach is also routinely called one of the funniest people in Harrisburg, even by his conservative colleagues. The week I talk to Houlahan, Leach holds a press conference to celebrate the fact that Pennsylvania has issued licenses to 12 medical marijuana growers. He and a Lebanon County Republican introduced the bill responsible for that. As hes prepping, Leach turns to his aide. [The mic] is on, so we dont want to talk about anything important, he says. We can just talk about your love life.

Is Leach too liberal for the area, home to 63,000 more Republicans than Democrats? Some insiders worry he is. Others, like Democratic consultant Neil Oxman, are more concerned that hes too goofy.

According to Oxman, the DCCC is really happy with Houlahan. As for Leach, The question is whether the DCCC will embrace him or thinks hes the cartoon character he made himself into. (Leach claims Oxman doesnt like him because he fired his ad company after it briefly worked for him in 2008; Oxman says he doesnt think about Leach enough to like or not like him, and that and has heard a number of people say Leach is goofy.) Asked about the races, spokesman Evan Lukaske said the DCCC does not make endorsements, but will ultimately support and promote candidates who we believe fit their districts and are working hard to earn the trust of voters.

Nine months after Democrats squandered an election to Donald Trump, they still dont have an answer to the most basic of questions: What should their message be?

The partys leaders recently took a baby step toward solving theiridentity crisis when they unveiled a new slogan and economic platform, buttheyre still arguing over health care andsending mixed messages onabortion.

The fact that high-stakes Congressional races are around the corner is making this more difficult, not less. The defeat of Jon Ossoff, the carpetbagger in Georgias special election who promised lukewarm technocracy and no income tax hikes, further convinced the partys left wing that theres no future in selling centrism to Never Trumpers in the red suburbs. These Democrats tend to think the answer lies in a Sanders-like message that will excite young people and working-class voters, including some who cast ballots for Trump.

More establishment Democrats see things differently: They believe, as ex-Clinton aide Jesse Ferguson wrote in Politico, that their secret weapon is winning well-educated, suburban moderates who voted for both HRC and Mitt Romney.

Most of these debates happen 30,000 feet up. Look closely, and things get more complicated. For instance, the three Congressional seats in the Philly suburbs that the DCCC thinks it can win the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth are much more purple than red. Some of these districts went, not just for Clinton, but for Tom Wolf, Bob Casey and Barack Obama, too. And in Montgomery County, the Democratic Party dominates local government. Democrats argue that one of the reasons Costello and Philly Republican reps Pat Meehan in the Seventh and Brian Fitzpatrick in the Eighth (Bucks and Montco) are vulnerable is because they havent all been acting like theyre from swing districts: As of July, theyd voted with Trump 92, 87 and 81 percent of the time, respectively. Then again, Romney won their districts, and Toomey outperformed Trump in the southeast by nearly 80,000 votes. Again: Its complicated.

One thing the Berniecrats get right is that many party elites have taken it as a fait accompli that they cant win back blue-collar Democrats in Western Pennsylvania. Despite the fact that registered Democrats actually outnumber Republicans in the 12th and 18th Congressional Districts out west, neither seat is on the DCCCs list of targets. The same goes for Charlie Dents 15th District also home to more Democrats than Republicans which Casey won and Wolf lost by less than one percent.

DCCC spokesman Lukaske says this could change: Every day, more races are coming online for us. But that seems unlikely barring a major shakeup: Nearly every Democratic insider I spoke with argued that many Democrats in Western Pennsylvania love Trump, have been voting Republican for years, and merely havent changed their registrations. They also believe Dent, leader of the center-right Tuesday Group in the House, is too attuned to his moderate district to beat. Id bet 100 to one he keeps his seat, says former governor Ed Rendell. Hes just done a wonderful job [standing up to] Trump. Has he? Per FiveThirtyEight, hed voted with Trump 92 percent of the time as of July.

Matt Cartwright, who represents Lackawanna and Luzerne counties, is the states only Democratic Congressman who has held onto a purple seat since 2012. Trump won his district by 10 points. When I ask Cartwright why he thinks hes survived, he says, I dont think theres a secret sauce. You have to have a candidate who is really used to hard work. Cartwright describes himself as a Roosevelt Democrat and has co-sponsored a single-payer health-care bill because hes leaning toward it; hes also voted to slash funds from sanctuary cities.

There is one atypical Congressional race in Democrats sights: Lancasters 16th District. Its on the DCCCs list, and state party boss Marcel Groen thinks it can be won. But Christina Hartman, the Democrat who lost there by 11 points in 2016, says no one took the seat seriously until she started making inroads. That was off everybodys radar [because] its a seat thats primarily in Lancaster County, Groen admits.

You have to wonder how much of the partys strategy is rooted in cultural differences. Do Democratic leaders see the suburbs as winnable because many of them live there? Because they know some Clinton-Romney voters but dont know any Trump-Obama voters? Because a guy like Ossoff is so familiar but a less plastic, more progressive pol like John Fetterman maybe isnt?

If Democratic leaders have subjected themselves to the level of self-reflection required to answer such questions, theres no sign of it. The party still hasnt released an autopsy report on the 2016 election.

Despite all this chaos, many Democratic insiders are confident theyll taste victory in 2018. I think well steal the House, says Oxman. [Trump] has lost a quarter of the Republicans in the latest polls. Like 2006 was a way to say to Bush, Youre ridiculous, this is the only way to say to Trump, Youre ridiculous. Even Corbin Trent, co-founderof the anti-establishment progressive group Brand New Congress, told the Guardian, I think the tide is in our direction and were going to see a sweep election.

There are fewer than 500 days until the Congressional races. And hey, a lot could happen between now and then. Nancy Pelosi could be tossed overboard. Sanders could unleash his own party. Trump could fire special counsel Robert Mueller.

But the fact that party elites are talking about a wave election as if its inevitable the same way Brexits defeat and Hillarys landslide were inevitable almost seems to be tempting fate, doesnt it?

Published as Power: Battle for the Burbs in the August 2017 issue of Philadelphia magazine.

View original post here:
The Democrats' Battle Plan for the Philly 'Burbs - Philadelphia magazine

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Democrats may have a new opening to set boundaries on President Trumps authority over the investigations into his 2016 presidential campaign.

For the past week, Trump and his allies have been hammering away at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over the GOPs failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Trump has mocked McConnell and his lieutenants on social media for abandoning the health-care effort. Coupled with Trumps recent attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the rift between the president and Senate Republicans is growing.

Now the question is whether Democrats can seize on these moments and extract actual results in putting up barriers between Trump, the Justice Department and special counsel Robert S. Mueller IIIs investigation.

So far, Democrats have devoted most of their time to forging a new policy agenda to show voters next year what they would do if given power. They want voters to know the party would do more than just investigate Trump and focus on scandals.

Senate Republicans have tolerated Trumps controversies. His treatment of Sessions is different.

That focus has left a void in their messaging regarding the Russia investigation. It sometimes leads to a cacophony of voices and ideas shouted into the winds of the Internet every time theres a new revelation about Trumps campaign and ties to Russia.

Some Democrats want to forge a broad bipartisan coalition to put the brakes on Trump, even if it means setting aside policy disputes for the time being.

Were going to need a temporary alliance of progressives and conservatives to save the country, and then we can get back to fighting over the size and scope of the government, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said in an interview before Congress left earlier this month for the August recess. This is a national emergency, and were going to have to lay down our arms on some of these public-policy issues long enough to reassert that there are, in fact, three separate, coequal branches of government and we are a country of laws and not men.

But others suggest that investigations by Mueller and the House and Senate intelligence committees are well underway and that Democrats need patience.

Were seriously into it, and I have to say that the Republicans, theyre not obstructing anymore. They are all moving forward and they all understand how serious this is, said Sen. Angus King (Maine), an independent who caucuses with the Democrats and serves on the intelligence panel.

This Democratic dilemma was captured the night that Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) posted an excerpt from his new book, Conscience of a Conservative, criticizing congressional Republican leaders for not forcefully confronting Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Three top Democratic strategists reacted completely differently to the Arizona Republicans criticism of his own party. Brave and well argued. I hope both sides have his back, Robby Mook, the 2016 campaign manager for Hillary Clinton, tweeted.

Im much more concerned with his actual voting record. Writing a column is a lot easier than voting against TrumpCare, Guy Cecil, head of the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA, tweeted.

Brian Fallon, a top press aide in the Clinton campaign, called the Flake book the equivalent of just a bunch of tweets [u]ntil it is matched by any real action.

For now, there has been little to no effort by Democrats to define any real action. Do they expect Republicans to vote against Trumps policy positions because of the shadow of the Russia investigation? Do they want to push for impeachment proceedings? Do they want Republicans to join Flake in a chorus of Trump criticism?

Senators unveil two proposals to protect Muellers Russia probe

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wants Republicans to start backing up their critiques of Trump with legislative action.

After Trump tried to implement an entry ban affecting several majority-Muslim nations, Murphy introduced legislation to block the executive order and hoped for bipartisan support, given how many Republicans criticized Trumps call for such a ban during the presidential campaign.

I heard a lot of Republicans vigorously complain about the Muslim ban, but none of them were willing to move legislation to stop it, Murphy said.

He applauded Republicans for joining Democrats in approving new sanctions against Russia, overwhelmingly passing legislation that also tied Trumps hands if he tried to waive those penalties.

A good first step for Democrats might be pressuring more Republicans to support proposed legislation that would restrict a presidents ability to fire a special counsel, considering two high-profile Republicans are already supporting such an effort.

Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have each joined Democrats to offer bills that would require a panel of judges to sign off on the firing of Mueller or any special counsel. This would limit the presidents and the attorney generals ability to shut down the investigation.

Given Senate Republicans current feelings toward Trump, Democrats might be able to get many Republicans to sign on to one or both bills, sending a warning shot at the president.

Schatz said those are the sort of actions that he is looking for in Republicans, hoping that more of them would publicly declare that one of the bright lines that Trump cannot cross would be firing Sessions or Mueller.

Schatz, firmly in his caucuss liberal wing, dismissed his allies who are critical of Republicans for continuing to vote in a conservative direction. He does not expect Republicans to start opposing conservative legislation or nominees such as Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch just because Trump is president.

Thats a misunderstanding of who Jeff Flake is; hes a conservative, Schatz said. We cant expect them to become Democrats, but we want them to be small-R republicans, and we need them to help the president understand what the boundaries are in a republic.

Read more from Paul Kanes archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

More here:
Rift in GOP gives Democrats an opening to put up barriers between Trump and Russia probe - Washington Post

As I was running out of space in my column last Sunday, I suggested without elaboration that the Democrats need an honest, hopeful approach to future campaigns. Some readers quite reasonably found that glib. But Im the wrong person to sketch a platform for Democrats, because, as an independent, Im not one. (Admittedly, that hasnt stopped Bernie Sanders.)

Will Marshall is a Democrat, well known to insiders for his long, sometimes lonely, battle to save his party from its suicidal left wing. In the 1980s, he joined Al From, Bruce Reed and others in an effort to drag the party toward the center after three epic defeats: Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush won the electoral college by a combined 1,440 to 174.

Their New Democrat movement found its face in Bill Clinton, whose upbeat centrism made him the first member of his party to win multiple terms since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Barack Obama went to school on Clintons rhetoric of optimistic pragmatism.

But memory can be short. The familiar pull from the left, personified by Sanders and his socialist surge, has steered Democrats back into the ditch. Since 2009, when Obama took office amid trumpet blasts of progressive glory, the party has lost the White House, Congress and more than 900seats in state legislatures.

On Wednesday, Marshall launched his latest rescue project, called New Democracy and aimed at making the party competitive again in the vast countryside between the coasts. Founding members include Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and former senator Mary Landrieu (La.), along with mayors of such cities as Tucson, Denver, Houston and Pittsburgh.

Recognizing the deep dysfunction in Washington, Marshall aims to build from the grass roots on a foundation of practical problem-solving rather than cultural division. And he seeks to plant his party on choice political turf abandoned by extremes in both parties: the high ground of optimism.

Its shocking, really, how darkly pessimistic our politics have become. From the presidents American carnage inaugural address to the apocalyptic fevers of the alt-right, the Republican Party is captive to the sort of rhetoric that drives people to fill bunkers with freeze-dried goulash and homemade bullets. The Democrats, meanwhile, are in thrall to a fashionable gloom in which Americas past is only a litany of sins, its present a horror of injustices and its future an uninhabitable hothouse.

The deep pessimism that hangs like a pall over America is an anomaly, Marshall reminded me when we spoke about his endeavor. Its not the norm.

Theres no denying that the United States faces challenges, many of them as new and perplexing as the technology that drives them. How do we create broad prosperity in an economy that demands, and enables, relentless efficiency and cost-cutting? How do we meet the needs of longer lifespans in a time of shrinking birthrates? How do we create community and shared values when communication is radically personalized and targeted? These questions, and others like them, are vast and urgent but are best answered incrementally and experimentally.

But the United States has always faced problems, and the good news is we still have a knack for meeting them. Ill give you an example. On the left were told that only fundamental changes to our lifestyles and economy can prevent an environmental disaster. From the right we hear that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will impose ruinous costs. Neither is necessarily true.

A huge share of greenhouse gas emissions some 40 percent in the United States come from buildings: our homes, offices, factories and so on. As recently as 2005, government scientists projected that emissions from this sector would rise more than 50 percent by 2016. Instead, building-sector emissions were 16 percent lower last year than in 2005, even though new construction had added more than 30billion square feet. These amazing efficiency gains are saving U.S. homeowners and businesses hundreds of billions in lower energy bills.

According to the Climate Trust, Americas state and local governments, along with its world-beating private sector, can meet the goals of the Paris climate accord regardless of what happens in Washington. Indeed, they may well find their progress accelerating. These are the forces, after all, that have brought us energy independence, a widespread drop in crime rates and sharply falling water consumption, to pick just three thorny problems for which Americans are finding solutions.

Marshall is correct when he says, There is a huge vacuum for Democrats to reclaim a language of hope and progress. And Republicans might want to move in the same direction. The Americans I meet are tired of whining and blame games and itching to tackle the future.

Read more from David Von Drehles archive.

See the rest here:
I can't sketch a platform for Democrats. This man can. - The ... - Washington Post