Rejecting The Future, Demagogue Style

Political spectators had a rare treat over the last eight years to view the types presidential candidates fall into. Since 2008 we’ve seen three personalities emerge: The Leader, the Demagogue, and the Pragmatist.

The Leader offers us hope and a vision. The Leader will stand in front of us and tell us the truth. But that truth is offered alongside a vision. Bad news cannot stop us and good news means we’re soaring to new heights.

“We will succeed,” the Leader says, “because that is who we are.”

The Demagogue offers a type of hope, I guess. There’s certainly a vision. A fearful vision. A distorted vision of the present and a horrifying view of the future.

“We are failing,” the Demagogue tells us, “because that is what they want for us. We won’t succeed unless we upend society. They’ve stacked the deck against you and I’m the one to flip the table over. For you.”

                                                       

Of course, the Demagogue can’t do that. The Demagogue loses if the table flips because the Demagogue helped stack the deck. The Demagogue may change things but it won’t help the Demagogue’s followers.

Make no mistake, though. The Demagogue has created an “other” to face blame and those poor people will surely suffer. Getting rid of the scapegoats won’t solve the problems, of course. Maybe reality will set in among the Demagogue’s followers. More likely, the Demagogue will just change to some other unfortunate people and the cycle will begin again.

This is how the Demagogue stays in power.

Finally, we have the Pragmatist. The Pragmatist is honest and truthful. The Pragmatist will stand before us and tell us what is happening. While the Pragmatist lacks a soaring rhetoric, there is a vision. That vision and the Pragmatist’s passion are tempered, though, by a realistic plan.

In lieu of hope, the Pragmatist offers diligence. A Pragmatist will dream of things that never were and, instead of asking “Why not?” will ask “How can that come to be?” The Pragmatist wants to create that roadmap.

In 2016 we saw a Demagogue narrowly beat a Pragmatist. Despite my excitement for the first Madam President, I’m willing to admit Hillary Clinton rarely spoke to my heart. Hillary Clinton told us the truth. Despite popular opinion, she talked to us about jobs. She told us how she wanted to build jobs. She set out a roadmap for that future.

Unfortunately, some of us didn’t want that future. Instead, they bought a miracle cure from a Demagogue. Donald Trump offered us a miracle elixir to preserve the status quo.

“This oil doesn’t just cure the status quo,” he said. “No, this elixir will reverse history.”

Donald Trump went to coal country and sold a snake oil cure for change. He went to the rust belt and offered a magic pill that would claw jobs back from overseas and undo automation. He would undo history.

He sold us this cure for the future based on outrageous lies. He lied about the economy, he lied about crime, and he lied about Hillary Clinton. Most of all, he blamed every demographic group—except white people—for our faults and the coming catastrophes.

Demagogues can’t undo the past and there’s no remedy for the future. Only a Leader and a Pragmatist will plan for the future instead of pretending it won’t happen.

Change marches to the beat of profit margins. When history keeps unfolding and his followers are left behind, what will they do? They were spared the wrath of the Demagogue before. But a Demagogue leads through fear.

Eventually, his eye will have to turn somewhere.

Put Down The Scissors

Everyone should be talking about the House Progressives' budget proposal. Not everyone agrees that we need to cut, cut, cut to reduce America’s deficit.

America doesn't have a spending problem. We have an investment problem. Despite the popular trope, a government budget is not the same as a household budget. We need to stop thinking of it as grocery list and think of it as a form of mutual fund.

We as taxpayers pay the government and, in turn, the government invests money to produce a return for the taxpayers. The discussion should not be, “what to cut.” The discussion we need to have is, “what to invest in.”

"We have been here before." Graphic CC Sean Thornton

It's not a waste of money to invest in bridges, roads, and schools. Programs like WIC, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid contribute to the general welfare of the country. Bridge and road projects create jobs, contribute to public safety, and help spur business development in new areas. Schools can create the next generation of software programmers or engineers that can help America compete in a crowded global market.

Our investment in defense is wasteful. We invest more in defense than the next 13 countries combined. What return are we seeing on that? It’s wasteful to invest almost $4 trillion in a decade long war in a country that posed no threat. It’s wasteful to continue spending $1.5 trillion on an over-budget fighter jet that can’t fly without knocking out its pilots.

We need jobs. We need well-paying jobs that provide people a living wage. We need to make sure people can afford health care. We live in the richest nation in the world. There is no excuse for children to go hungry or die from preventable diseases here.

People are a good investment. People are the smartest investment America can make. But it’s a responsible investment that the "party of fiscal responsibility" doesn't believe in.

Fiscal responsibility isn't about cutting spending and being afraid of taxes. It's about using our money in ways that will do the most good. We can get a solid return on our investments. But only if we choose the right priorities.

Cheap Marie Antoinette Reference

It's almost comi tragic to look at the VERY SERIOUS debate about the dueling budget proposals in Congress.

Like, here's the lowdown.

We cut taxes a whole bunch cuz it's popular! We did that for 30 years. We cut them for everyone, of course. But, we let the rich get the biggest slice of the pie cuz why not. Maybe they'll take pity and toss some to some poor people.

Hey, while we cut taxes, we can slowly let businesses creep in and expand their control. We spend 30 years letting business make more and more money without significantly raising wages. Workers are barely keeping up with inflation. Brilliant!

We earn less and less but, don't worry, we cut taxes so we don't notice as much. And, hey, we can slowly destroy the safety net. We spend 30 years snipping the cords. Lose your job in 1970, you'll get a significant chance to get back on your feet. Come down with a debilitating disease in 1970, there's a good chance you'll be able to live with modest dignity.

Lose your job in 2008? lol! Good luck. Need social security disability in 2007? Early onset Alzheimer's keeping you outta work? Well, look at it this way. At least you won't remember how miserable the two year wait for benefits was.

30 years later, we wake up on the tightrope. We waged two massive wars without raising taxes and passed unfunded mandates. Shit, we actually kept CUTTING taxes, we have no money. Plus we had to give piles of money to the banks when they shit the bed!

Shit, we can't raise taxes, the stagnant wages we cultivated will demolish anyone making less that $100k.

And, look--Christ--the businesses took advantage of us, fucked up the economy, and now we need to pay for all these people out of work, retiring into poverty, or working two jobs while in poverty!

Goddammit, what do we do?

Somebody call Paul Ryan. We need to cut this debt. Tell him to cut spending. We can't raise taxes cuz the rich asked us not to.

The poor? Let them eat cake.

Image from Flickr user DonkeyHotey

The "Race Card"

There's this thing referred to as the "race card" that gets a lot of play from Very Serious People.

The same Very Serious People who tut tut liberals and conservatives for not compromising simply for the sake of compromise.

The race card, itself, is merely an illusion. A way to dismiss racial concerns, no matter how legitimate.

People are quick to dismiss racism. It's unpleasant. People seem to forget that racism doesn't need to be racist in intent. Policies and actions that disproportionately affect minorities are still racist.

However, once someone points that out, the race card has been dropped and the Talking Heads begin to cluck their tongues disapprovingly.

Never mind the history of our great nation. We forget that the railway system was built by minorities during a time of legal segregation and outright contempt for minorities in America.

The expression the "wrong side of the tracks"? That's not a coincidence.

The interstate system built in the 50s separated the inner cities from the burgeoning suburbs. Further establishing suburbs as isolated escapes from poverty. Poverty that--as a result of generations of de jour and de facto segregation--disproportionately affects blacks.

Legal segregation only ended in the 1960s. Barely one generation ago.

•••

Now, today, I believe that racism is less a motivating factor than a side effect. Poor whites are hurt by cuts to entitlements and social programs just as much as poor blacks. That's classism, not racism.

However, intentional or not, these policies still disproportionately affect blacks and other minorities. That's racist.

The threat with classism is that poor whites begin to use intentional racism as a justification. A crutch. As if to say, "This isn't the way things are SUPPOSED to be. There must be a reason." It's good old White Privilege. And, to anyone who rejects the notion, I challenge them to refute the endless literature and documentation on the subject.

Surprisingly poignant are studies of poor whites in the Antebellum South. This is precisely the sentiment that lead to continued racial resentment in the south today.

We can't be too quick to reject race. The effects of race in American history are simply too resonant to ignore. The southern strategy, still successfully used by conservative politicians today is deliberately built on racial resentment.

There is no "race card."