This quick note comes from the Alliance for Retired Americans:
Republicans Say They Will Try to Repeal Health Care Law if They Return to Power
According to the Associated Press, if Republicans succeed beyond any current predictions and capture both the Senate and the House, some are planning the prospect of a government shutdown as a tool they would use to try and repeal this year's health care law. Republicans could also fall back on the "congressional power of the purse," denying the administration billions of dollars to carry out the legislation. The House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, (D-MD) dismissed the talk of repeal as wishful thinking. Hoyer said that he's confident Democrats will stay in charge, and even if Republicans win, "they can beat their chests and say they won't fund the implementation of the law, but I think the law is the law, and if you can't change it, then, frankly, you have a responsibility to carry it out." On "America Speaking Out," a website sponsored by the House GOP, the mantra, "Repeal and Replace" drove home the stated goal of what to do about the health care law. Still, Republicans would not have enough GOP votes to overcome President Obama's vetoes. Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) signaled a slightly different plan, saying to home state reporters recently about the law, "What can we do? We can make narrow targeted efforts to go after the cost problems. Without the president, we can't repeal it. But we can go after portions of it aggressively."
The opinions, views, thoughts, and ramblings of editors of PoliticalAffairs.net – and other stuff worth reading or viewing.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Friday, September 10, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
How to best strengthen/protect Social Security
As we battle to defeat the Republicans this fall, we should work with labor and other progressive groups to win pledges from Democrats to protect and strengthen Social Security. It is important that Democrats and the labor movement have made this a central election issue. Here is one way Social Security's long-term fiscal strength could be ensured without hurting retirees or other beneficiaries.
From the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare:
From the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare:
Raising the Social Security Tax Cap
According to the Social Security Trustees, the Social Security Trust Fund will be able to pay full benefits until 2037, and incoming payroll taxes will be sufficient to pay about 78 percent of benefits thereafter. Some are using this modest gap in long-term funding as a pretext to justify proposals for large cuts in Social Security benefits destined to reduce the federal deficit. Others have proposed closing the gap by increasing income received by the Trust Fund. One way to increase revenue is to raise the Social Security tax cap.
Social Security's Current Cap
Under current law, Social Security contributions and benefits are based on earnings that fall below an annual cap, which is $106,800 in 2010. In the past, the tax cap has been set at a level that covered about 90 percent of all earnings paid in covered employment. Currently, however, only about 83 percent of earnings are subject to the Social Security payroll tax. This erosion in covered earning largely stems from the fact that wages for the highest paid six percent of workers have been rising faster than wages for the vast majority of people who make less than the cap.
Restoring the Cap to 90 Percent
The extraordinary growth of income for those at the highest end of the wage scale was not anticipated by those who established the formulas that fund Social Security today. Wages for middle and lower income workers have remained stagnant for over a decade, despite the booming economy, while higher-wage workers have seen significant wage growth during that time. Restoring the tax cap to a level that would again cover 90 percent of earnings would reduce Social Security's long-term deficit over its 75 year solvency period by nearly one-third.
Eliminating the Cap
Some have suggested that the tax cap should be eliminated altogether. These options include proposals to provide reduced benefits to workers for their contributions above the new maximum, in addition to proposals which would provide no benefits at all for these additional contributions. While eliminating the cap without providing commensurate benefits to those making the additional contributions would eliminate Social Security's funding shortfall, it would also break the current link between a worker's contributions and the benefits received upon retirement. This would be a substantial departure from the contributory nature of the Social Security program and would undermine the broad public support Social Security has enjoyed for over 70 years.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Huge Rally in Rome Launches Communist and Anti-Capitalist Campaign for European Parliament
By Jim Genova
In a sea of red flags emblazoned with the hammer and sickle emblems of Italy's main Communist Parties, thousands gathered in Rome's Piazza Navona on 18 April to proclaim their unity and launch a campaign for elections to the European Parliament to be held 6-7 June 2009. Speaking at the rally, Paolo Ferrero, National Secretary of the Communist Refoundation Party (PRC), proclaimed, "We are defending the workers, unemployed, the vulnerable, and pensioners in order to come out of this [economic] crisis with more social justice." Oliviero Diliberto, National Secretary of the Party of Italian Communists (PdCI), told the enthusiastic crowd that after years of division, the Communist and Anti-Capitalist forces in Italy were united in their struggle for a new Europe, one that fundamentally transforms the political, economic, cultural, and social bases of the European Union. In response, the jubilant gathering broke into chants of "Unity! Unity! Unity!" followed by a spontaneous and raucous singing of the Italian Communist anthem, "Avanti Popolo!" during which shouts of "Bandiera Rossa! (Red Flag!)" wafted through the Piazza.
This was one of the more significant assemblies in recent Italian history, coming in the midst of a profound systemic crisis of global capitalism and in the wake of over tens years of "centrifugal" forces that have split Italy's once-powerful and now revitalized Communist movement. In preparation for Saturday's rally, leaders of the PRC, PdCI, Socialismo 2000, and the United Consumers party proclaimed that this united rally was not a "one-time expediency" for the elections. Rather, all pledged to use this as the beginning of a process of "political revival" based on "coordinated and united action among all the groups." The goal is to "reassemble the dispersed Communist and anti-capitalist forces ... on a strong programmatic basis." For months leading up to the gathering in Rome the leaders of the PRC and PdCI, which split in 1998, have been negotiating for the reunification of Italy's Communist movement. The Communist and Anti-Capitalist List launched on 18 April is the first concrete step in that direction. Ferrero and Diliberto shared the stage, along with Cesare Salvi, National Secretary of Socialismo 2000, and joined the crowd in singing "Avanti Popolo!," after which they they warmly embraced and raised a clenched fist in solidarity with the joyous crowd. The assembled masses in the Piazza responded with roaring shouts in scenes reminiscent of the Popular Front era of the 1930s.
In joint statements issued on 15 and 16 April by the PRC and PdCI, the Communist Parties noted that, "We are confronting a crisis of a systemic character. ... The crises of globalized capitalism." The statements continued, "[This crisis] is a structural product of actual financial-speculative capitalism ... based on the dominant interests of finance capital and the multinational corporations." In concluding their analysis of the crisis, the Communist Parties asserted that the economic collapse resulted from "[p]olicies that promote the accumulation of colossal profits by the big economic and financial groups, the formation of big monopolies and the deterioration of the living standards of workers and peoples." They see the current responses to the crisis by governments and central banks around the world as an effort aimed at the "refounding of capitalism" through "socializ[ing] the losses and that benefit the interests of the big economic and financial groups." However, the statement concludes, "[T]he very essence of capitalism cannot be reformed, regulated, humanized."
The PRC and PdCI joint statements assert that "It is through the workers' and peoples' struggle that one can respond to the situation and open the paths of the necessary change, rejecting that those who most suffer be the ones to pay for the effects of the crisis, and by demanding better living conditions, more democracy, cooperation and peace among peoples." Among their specific demands, the Communist and Anti-Capitalist List calls for "public control of credit and the nationalization of the banks," increasing wages and reducing the workweek, reversing the privatization of basic industry, an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reduction of global emissions of harmful gasses, promotion of renewable energy, and combating racism and xenophobia.
Ultimately, the Italian Communist Parties called for making the 21st century the "century of socialism" as the only answer to the systemic crisis of capitalism. The call ends as follows, "A vote for this [Communist and Anti-Capitalist] List is a vote for an alternative Europe: [a Europe] of equality and work, of peace, of social justice and welcoming [toward immigrants], of laws and of liberty." In addition to the two Italian Communist Parties, the French Communist Party, German Communist Party, Communist Party of Spain (and United Left), Portuguese Communist Party, Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (Czech Republic), Communist Party of Finland, Greek left coalition, Communist Party of Bulgaria, Workers Party of Cyprus, and Communist Party of Austria have signed on to the declaration for the upcoming European Parliament elections.
In a sea of red flags emblazoned with the hammer and sickle emblems of Italy's main Communist Parties, thousands gathered in Rome's Piazza Navona on 18 April to proclaim their unity and launch a campaign for elections to the European Parliament to be held 6-7 June 2009. Speaking at the rally, Paolo Ferrero, National Secretary of the Communist Refoundation Party (PRC), proclaimed, "We are defending the workers, unemployed, the vulnerable, and pensioners in order to come out of this [economic] crisis with more social justice." Oliviero Diliberto, National Secretary of the Party of Italian Communists (PdCI), told the enthusiastic crowd that after years of division, the Communist and Anti-Capitalist forces in Italy were united in their struggle for a new Europe, one that fundamentally transforms the political, economic, cultural, and social bases of the European Union. In response, the jubilant gathering broke into chants of "Unity! Unity! Unity!" followed by a spontaneous and raucous singing of the Italian Communist anthem, "Avanti Popolo!" during which shouts of "Bandiera Rossa! (Red Flag!)" wafted through the Piazza.
This was one of the more significant assemblies in recent Italian history, coming in the midst of a profound systemic crisis of global capitalism and in the wake of over tens years of "centrifugal" forces that have split Italy's once-powerful and now revitalized Communist movement. In preparation for Saturday's rally, leaders of the PRC, PdCI, Socialismo 2000, and the United Consumers party proclaimed that this united rally was not a "one-time expediency" for the elections. Rather, all pledged to use this as the beginning of a process of "political revival" based on "coordinated and united action among all the groups." The goal is to "reassemble the dispersed Communist and anti-capitalist forces ... on a strong programmatic basis." For months leading up to the gathering in Rome the leaders of the PRC and PdCI, which split in 1998, have been negotiating for the reunification of Italy's Communist movement. The Communist and Anti-Capitalist List launched on 18 April is the first concrete step in that direction. Ferrero and Diliberto shared the stage, along with Cesare Salvi, National Secretary of Socialismo 2000, and joined the crowd in singing "Avanti Popolo!," after which they they warmly embraced and raised a clenched fist in solidarity with the joyous crowd. The assembled masses in the Piazza responded with roaring shouts in scenes reminiscent of the Popular Front era of the 1930s.
In joint statements issued on 15 and 16 April by the PRC and PdCI, the Communist Parties noted that, "We are confronting a crisis of a systemic character. ... The crises of globalized capitalism." The statements continued, "[This crisis] is a structural product of actual financial-speculative capitalism ... based on the dominant interests of finance capital and the multinational corporations." In concluding their analysis of the crisis, the Communist Parties asserted that the economic collapse resulted from "[p]olicies that promote the accumulation of colossal profits by the big economic and financial groups, the formation of big monopolies and the deterioration of the living standards of workers and peoples." They see the current responses to the crisis by governments and central banks around the world as an effort aimed at the "refounding of capitalism" through "socializ[ing] the losses and that benefit the interests of the big economic and financial groups." However, the statement concludes, "[T]he very essence of capitalism cannot be reformed, regulated, humanized."
The PRC and PdCI joint statements assert that "It is through the workers' and peoples' struggle that one can respond to the situation and open the paths of the necessary change, rejecting that those who most suffer be the ones to pay for the effects of the crisis, and by demanding better living conditions, more democracy, cooperation and peace among peoples." Among their specific demands, the Communist and Anti-Capitalist List calls for "public control of credit and the nationalization of the banks," increasing wages and reducing the workweek, reversing the privatization of basic industry, an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reduction of global emissions of harmful gasses, promotion of renewable energy, and combating racism and xenophobia.
Ultimately, the Italian Communist Parties called for making the 21st century the "century of socialism" as the only answer to the systemic crisis of capitalism. The call ends as follows, "A vote for this [Communist and Anti-Capitalist] List is a vote for an alternative Europe: [a Europe] of equality and work, of peace, of social justice and welcoming [toward immigrants], of laws and of liberty." In addition to the two Italian Communist Parties, the French Communist Party, German Communist Party, Communist Party of Spain (and United Left), Portuguese Communist Party, Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (Czech Republic), Communist Party of Finland, Greek left coalition, Communist Party of Bulgaria, Workers Party of Cyprus, and Communist Party of Austria have signed on to the declaration for the upcoming European Parliament elections.
Friday, October 10, 2008
While McCain fights the Weather Underground, He doesn't Know which way the wind is blowing?
by Norman Markowitz
As Dow Jones drops to near 8000 today, losing around 30% of its value since the crisis began, John McCain continues to run against Bill Ayers, a "weather man" of four decades ago and Sarah Palin prepares to drop a Hockey puck in Philadelphia.
As Dow Jones drops to near 8000 today, losing around 30% of its value since the crisis began, John McCain continues to run against Bill Ayers, a "weather man" of four decades ago and Sarah Palin prepares to drop a Hockey puck in Philadelphia.
There is also a new cop series on TV, Life on Mars, in which an NYPD cop from 2008 is transported back to 1973. I looked at it briefly yesterday, in between my sadly watching the Dodgers lose to the Phillies and happily watching McCain and his "angry" supporters make
complete fools of themselves as they denounced Obama for associating with Ayers and made audience participation Dr. Strangelove tirades against Obama, Pelosi, and the "socialist" government that will come to power in 2009 if Obama is not stopped.
Maybe all of these people should go back to 1973 and live their lives on Mars. In the series (I am not recommending it, since it didn't strike me as that well done) the cops were brutal, had no respect for civil liberties, and were pretty much all white. There was a female cop trying not to make waves. And Richard Nixon's picture was on the wall.
Even though Palin was nine years old at the time, she would probably feel comfortable in 1973. In fact, she might feel comfortable being nine years old. There were hippies and stereotypical radicals wandering around a slummy New York and for McCain's Republican "base," that is still the America that is threatening them, the America their Hollywood hero-leader Ronald Reagan, saved them from, now on the march again.
This Republican "base" has as much to do with serious politics, even conservative politics, as Al Qaeda has to do with even conservative Islam. To paraphrase a progressive Muslim speaker in Britain responding to such ultrarightists, what they are calling religion he calls mental illness. And those who are responding to the greatest stock market banking crisis since the depression with denunciations of "Barack Hussein Obama," gibberish about his being too weak to last a week in service academies, hysterical irrelevancies about Bill Ayers, are substituting psychopathology for political analysis, the kind of psychopathology that in many countries separates those who are regarded as conservatives from those who are regarded as fascists.
If that is McCain's base, it is a real threat to American security, American freedom as understood under the bill of rights, and what used to be called across the political spectrum, the American Standard of Living. In its ignorance and its chauvinism, it hasn't the foggiest notion about what patriotism really is, much less humanism, reason, or life on earth in an advanced industrial society.
McCain and Palin are completely irrelevant to this crisis and to American politics. Their supporters are, metaphorically not literally, like German Nazis in late 1944, thrashing outbecause they are losing the war, because their racist militarist ideology has put them in a situation where they have no way out except to make themselves into "heroes" by re-asserting that ideology, intensifying their war crimes, and in the process taking millions of their fellow Germans down with them. The only serious question the American electorate and people face today is this: will we follow the right Republicans blindly, permit them to regain political power, and go down with them in economic collapse.
We can win this political battle by voting the Republicans out of office on every level, making it clear that the Nixon-Reagan-Bush politics of division and hate have now boomeranged against their practitioners.
There are many things that can and should be done to contain the economic crisis. Repeal of much of the U.S. deregulation, international action to regulate "derivatives," investigate and
control hedge funds, even (this is my historian's suggestion) taking a leaf from Franklin Roosevelt's 1933 book by declaring a stock market "holiday," closing the world's major markets until there can be policies to create some stability. But all of that is irrelevant to the Bush administration and the McCain campaign, which is why it is irrelevant to the crisis we face today and we it must be decisively defeated if we are to survive that crisis.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
AFL-CIO and CtW getting to the table?
By Joel Wendland
New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse reported yesterday that the elections have the leaderships of the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win federation talking.
Here's what he says:
It is the need to defeat the Republicans in the November elections that has brought both sides together:
Greenhouse also reports that local union organizations from both federations have continued to work together despite the split on a variety of things from political action and elections to organizing campaigns.
The article goes on to cite labor leaders who believe that after the election struggle, talks may turn to reunification.
For once the big media hasn't tried to exploit differences among workers and their organized leadership. Good article, and important developments.
New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse reported yesterday that the elections have the leaderships of the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win federation talking.
Here's what he says:
In a series of dinners and meetings in Washington, the presidents of several breakaway unions and the presidents of several federation unions have been mapping strategies to help elect Senator Barack Obama and forge joint policies on trade and other issues.
Several union officials involved in the meetings said the leaders had also discussed overhauling the A.F.L.-C.I.O. to address the concerns of some breakaway unions, with the aim of persuading some to rejoin.
It is the need to defeat the Republicans in the November elections that has brought both sides together:
...eager for the Democrats to win the White House and increase their majorities in Congress, the union presidents are trying to maximize their political cooperation, especially in swing states where unions are strong: Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Greenhouse also reports that local union organizations from both federations have continued to work together despite the split on a variety of things from political action and elections to organizing campaigns.
The article goes on to cite labor leaders who believe that after the election struggle, talks may turn to reunification.
For once the big media hasn't tried to exploit differences among workers and their organized leadership. Good article, and important developments.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Live Blogging from the National Committee of the CPUSA
Notes on the report of the CPUSA political action commission (6-29):
There is a huge political shift taking place in the country because of the sagging economy and discontent with the war in Iraq. But this shift is taking place in attitudes on a host of other issues too: health care, immigration policy, environmental issues, workers rights, and so on. Also, barriers of racism and sexism broken in the Democratic primaries with tens of millions of people turning out to vote for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Anti-racism sentiment is growing and the class unity concept is taking hold.
New forms of political activism especially on the Web are more prevalent.
John McCain represents four more years of George W. Bush's administration. He favors privatization of public services like Social Security and Medicare and the never ending war in Iraq. He gets most of his financial backing and political advice from the military and oil sectors of the capitalist class – the most dangerous section of the capitalist class. His political strategists include Karl Rove and Charlie Black, who represent his ties to the Bush administration and to the ultra right. His "base" includes big oil, Wall Street speculators, military contractors, PhARMA, and the very rich.
It is not enough to be against one candidate. A landslide victory will require active involvement in building organization and thought patterns for a Democratic victory.
The labor movement is pivotal to building the unity of voters against McCain and for Obama and stronger progressive and Democratic majorities in Congress.
The Communist Party is planning a pamphlet on McCain to help educate voters.
McCain is targeting Latino, women, and Jewish voters. He is having difficulties on all fronts. McCain abandoned comprehensive immigration reform for the hard right policy of border fences and punitive actions. His opposition on women's health issues and fair pay policies have limited his outreach to women voters. And his efforts to target older Jewish voters in swing states like Florida will fall flat as they learn about his call to privatize Social Security.
The corporate media is aiding McCain by playing up the idea that white voters won't vote for a Black candidate.
There is a qualitative difference between Obama and McCain and the defeat of McCain and the Republicans represent a setback for the ultra right.
The People's Weekly World discussion on race to help educate voters and to bring clarity on some of the complex problems involving race.
Obama campaign is unique because of the strong independent character. We do not agree with Obama on every issue, more differences will arise, and we should not expect to agree on everything. The Communist Party will present its own election program.
The peace movement has a special role to play in helping to win large progressive majorities in Congress.
There is a huge political shift taking place in the country because of the sagging economy and discontent with the war in Iraq. But this shift is taking place in attitudes on a host of other issues too: health care, immigration policy, environmental issues, workers rights, and so on. Also, barriers of racism and sexism broken in the Democratic primaries with tens of millions of people turning out to vote for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Anti-racism sentiment is growing and the class unity concept is taking hold.
New forms of political activism especially on the Web are more prevalent.
John McCain represents four more years of George W. Bush's administration. He favors privatization of public services like Social Security and Medicare and the never ending war in Iraq. He gets most of his financial backing and political advice from the military and oil sectors of the capitalist class – the most dangerous section of the capitalist class. His political strategists include Karl Rove and Charlie Black, who represent his ties to the Bush administration and to the ultra right. His "base" includes big oil, Wall Street speculators, military contractors, PhARMA, and the very rich.
It is not enough to be against one candidate. A landslide victory will require active involvement in building organization and thought patterns for a Democratic victory.
The labor movement is pivotal to building the unity of voters against McCain and for Obama and stronger progressive and Democratic majorities in Congress.
The Communist Party is planning a pamphlet on McCain to help educate voters.
McCain is targeting Latino, women, and Jewish voters. He is having difficulties on all fronts. McCain abandoned comprehensive immigration reform for the hard right policy of border fences and punitive actions. His opposition on women's health issues and fair pay policies have limited his outreach to women voters. And his efforts to target older Jewish voters in swing states like Florida will fall flat as they learn about his call to privatize Social Security.
The corporate media is aiding McCain by playing up the idea that white voters won't vote for a Black candidate.
There is a qualitative difference between Obama and McCain and the defeat of McCain and the Republicans represent a setback for the ultra right.
The People's Weekly World discussion on race to help educate voters and to bring clarity on some of the complex problems involving race.
Obama campaign is unique because of the strong independent character. We do not agree with Obama on every issue, more differences will arise, and we should not expect to agree on everything. The Communist Party will present its own election program.
The peace movement has a special role to play in helping to win large progressive majorities in Congress.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
If Hillary Clinton was a white man
By Joe Sims
I was sitting with some friends yesterday and discussing the significance of the end of the Democratic primaries. One commented that the general election was going to be really difficult for the presumptive nominee who in his view had failed to get any bounce upon winning the nomination. I was a little surprised by his pessimism and sent him an AP poll in this morning's news that should put aside those fears. The AP news story says in part:
“The Gallup daily tracking poll Tuesday showed Obama with a 7 percentage-point lead nationally over presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, Obama's widest lead since Gallup started the general election polling in March.
McCain was leading Obama by 1 percent early last week, but Obama started to tick up in the surveys after he defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination.The latest reading from Gallup showed Obama with 48 percent to McCain's 41 percent. The poll was taken June 7-9, of 2,633 registered voters. The margin of error was 2 percentage points.”
My friend hasn't responded so far, however clearly he is influenced by the doubts about Obama's chances among the general electorate because of fears influenced by racism. The reasoning goes: if he can't carry the white working-class male and female vote among Democrats, how can he possibly do well enough to compensate among independents and moderate leaning Republicans in the general election?
The ideological fault line in this method of thinking is in its analysis of the white working-class vote. The problems lies in two areas; first in the very conception of the working class itself and with it a gross misconception of gender and class and the ways in which they worked themselves out in the Democratic primaries.
On the first issue, as Erwin Marquit points out in a recent article in PA, “Overcoming Unscientific Concepts of Working Class,” narrow views of productive labor act as theoretical brakes and lends to faulty analysis and action. Fact is, “middle-class” income brackets that voted for Obama, even if composed of academics and other professionals are largely working-class by today's standards. When this is combined with the “blue collar “vote of Black, Brown and white workers, Obama clearly held his own when compared to Clinton.
The gender issue adds to this in a unique way. The women's vote in general was pro-women's equality. The vote of white women was not anti-Obama in this sense, but rather for seeing a woman become president. In addition, it's a truism that women due to their experience of oppression as women tend to vote “better” than men on most questions and come down on the democratic side of the fence. And did I mention that most of those women are working class?
I asked my friend, “What if Hillary Clinton had been a white man?” He looked at me sort of dumbfounded. But think about it; clearly it would have been a very different primary. Why? Because first, as suggested above, Obama, would likely have won a majority of the women's vote, as the absence of a female candidate would not have drawn away the galvanizing force of the insurgent female ballots. As a result, Obama both because of the his qualities as a candidate and due to the nature of the political moment might well have won a landslide. As Bob Kerrey a Clinton supporter pointed out in a Sunday New York Times op ed, he even may well have won a landslide against Bill Clinton himself and any other Democratic candidate of the last 50 years. He wrote:
"If Barack Obama had been born 10 years earlier and had been a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 1992, neither I nor Bill Clinton would have defeated him...
The hard truth is that from the moment Mr. Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield, Ill., on Feb. 10, 2007, Mrs. Clinton was facing a candidate with greater skills than any candidate her husband had ever faced in his life."
Kerrey may overemphasize individual skills and suffer from a "great-man-in-history syndrome." Still the qualities of the candidate, along with the nature of the political moment is such that a combination of the working-class vote (which by way is black, brown and white, male and female), the democratic upsurge among women, African Americans and Latinos, the addition of huge numbers of new voters to polls combined with the anti-right-wing sentiment among the broad public will result in a decisive victory in November. Need it be said that white men in general and white working-class men in particular are part of this upsurge? (Lest anyone conclude as some on the left do, that white working class men are somehow the source of the problem. The Virginia primary should have disabused anyone of that notion). Today states that formerly voted Republican are now too in play. The man has met the moment and helped create a new movement: and it's here to stay.
I was sitting with some friends yesterday and discussing the significance of the end of the Democratic primaries. One commented that the general election was going to be really difficult for the presumptive nominee who in his view had failed to get any bounce upon winning the nomination. I was a little surprised by his pessimism and sent him an AP poll in this morning's news that should put aside those fears. The AP news story says in part:
“The Gallup daily tracking poll Tuesday showed Obama with a 7 percentage-point lead nationally over presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, Obama's widest lead since Gallup started the general election polling in March.
McCain was leading Obama by 1 percent early last week, but Obama started to tick up in the surveys after he defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination.The latest reading from Gallup showed Obama with 48 percent to McCain's 41 percent. The poll was taken June 7-9, of 2,633 registered voters. The margin of error was 2 percentage points.”
My friend hasn't responded so far, however clearly he is influenced by the doubts about Obama's chances among the general electorate because of fears influenced by racism. The reasoning goes: if he can't carry the white working-class male and female vote among Democrats, how can he possibly do well enough to compensate among independents and moderate leaning Republicans in the general election?
The ideological fault line in this method of thinking is in its analysis of the white working-class vote. The problems lies in two areas; first in the very conception of the working class itself and with it a gross misconception of gender and class and the ways in which they worked themselves out in the Democratic primaries.
On the first issue, as Erwin Marquit points out in a recent article in PA, “Overcoming Unscientific Concepts of Working Class,” narrow views of productive labor act as theoretical brakes and lends to faulty analysis and action. Fact is, “middle-class” income brackets that voted for Obama, even if composed of academics and other professionals are largely working-class by today's standards. When this is combined with the “blue collar “vote of Black, Brown and white workers, Obama clearly held his own when compared to Clinton.
The gender issue adds to this in a unique way. The women's vote in general was pro-women's equality. The vote of white women was not anti-Obama in this sense, but rather for seeing a woman become president. In addition, it's a truism that women due to their experience of oppression as women tend to vote “better” than men on most questions and come down on the democratic side of the fence. And did I mention that most of those women are working class?
I asked my friend, “What if Hillary Clinton had been a white man?” He looked at me sort of dumbfounded. But think about it; clearly it would have been a very different primary. Why? Because first, as suggested above, Obama, would likely have won a majority of the women's vote, as the absence of a female candidate would not have drawn away the galvanizing force of the insurgent female ballots. As a result, Obama both because of the his qualities as a candidate and due to the nature of the political moment might well have won a landslide. As Bob Kerrey a Clinton supporter pointed out in a Sunday New York Times op ed, he even may well have won a landslide against Bill Clinton himself and any other Democratic candidate of the last 50 years. He wrote:
"If Barack Obama had been born 10 years earlier and had been a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 1992, neither I nor Bill Clinton would have defeated him...
The hard truth is that from the moment Mr. Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield, Ill., on Feb. 10, 2007, Mrs. Clinton was facing a candidate with greater skills than any candidate her husband had ever faced in his life."
Kerrey may overemphasize individual skills and suffer from a "great-man-in-history syndrome." Still the qualities of the candidate, along with the nature of the political moment is such that a combination of the working-class vote (which by way is black, brown and white, male and female), the democratic upsurge among women, African Americans and Latinos, the addition of huge numbers of new voters to polls combined with the anti-right-wing sentiment among the broad public will result in a decisive victory in November. Need it be said that white men in general and white working-class men in particular are part of this upsurge? (Lest anyone conclude as some on the left do, that white working class men are somehow the source of the problem. The Virginia primary should have disabused anyone of that notion). Today states that formerly voted Republican are now too in play. The man has met the moment and helped create a new movement: and it's here to stay.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Sen. Hillary Clinton, a New Gay Icon?
She's got fabulous hair and (sometimes) fabulous outfits, but there may be more to why lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are lining up with Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, according to a recent survey conducted at Hunter College in New York.
The survey shows that 63% of LGB voters (this survey, funded by the Human Rights Campaign, did not include transgender individuals) support Sen. Clinton, while 22% back Sen. Barack Obama, and 7% support John Edwards. LGB voters also have higher rates of political interest and awareness than the general population and place "gay rights" high on their list of priorities, the survey results indicate.
Only about 4 in 10 LGB voters see John Edwards as "gay friendly" (only slightly better than Rudy Giuliani), while 7 in 10 view Sen. Clinton as such. This may very well have to do with Edwards' cultivation of a Christian evangelical image (appearing recently on Pat Robertson's 700 Club, yuck!) that obscures his record of supporting most current issues of import to the LGBT community, such as expanded funding for health care needs, support for domestic partnerships and civil unions and the like.
Overall, to expose the Democratic Party's "gay agenda," 9 in 10 LGB voters say they will vote in the Democratic primaries.
In sum, though, candidate analysis conducted by the Human Rights Campaign as well as public statements on key issues show that all of the Democratic candidates share similar positions on gay rights. Two candidates stand out: Rep. Dennis Kucinich is alone in supporting full marriage equality. Gov. Bill Richardson has been caught making offensive statements about LGBT people, but contradictorily has a policy and legislative record of supporting equality.
Because all of the Democratic candidates share strong pro-equality values, why do LGB voters support Sen. Clinton in such numbers? I suspect that her husband's record of being the only president in US history to be open to talking about the LGBT community and its needs puts Sen. Clinton by association into a class of her own.
Sen. Clinton has also refused to shy away from speaking for equality (up to full marriage equality), despite the nastiest and most hateful invectives from the ultra right.
To be sure, a concerted effort by Sen. Obama and Mr. Edwards (and the others) to reach out to the LGBT community and to specify the kinds of policy changes they would take the lead on could significantly alter these numbers.
After all, as the survey's analysis of the political awareness and activism of LGB voters indicates, Sen. Clinton won't just get by with great hair and outfits. She's got guts, and soon the other candidates are going to have to show they've got guts too or sit down.
The survey shows that 63% of LGB voters (this survey, funded by the Human Rights Campaign, did not include transgender individuals) support Sen. Clinton, while 22% back Sen. Barack Obama, and 7% support John Edwards. LGB voters also have higher rates of political interest and awareness than the general population and place "gay rights" high on their list of priorities, the survey results indicate.
Only about 4 in 10 LGB voters see John Edwards as "gay friendly" (only slightly better than Rudy Giuliani), while 7 in 10 view Sen. Clinton as such. This may very well have to do with Edwards' cultivation of a Christian evangelical image (appearing recently on Pat Robertson's 700 Club, yuck!) that obscures his record of supporting most current issues of import to the LGBT community, such as expanded funding for health care needs, support for domestic partnerships and civil unions and the like.
Overall, to expose the Democratic Party's "gay agenda," 9 in 10 LGB voters say they will vote in the Democratic primaries.
In sum, though, candidate analysis conducted by the Human Rights Campaign as well as public statements on key issues show that all of the Democratic candidates share similar positions on gay rights. Two candidates stand out: Rep. Dennis Kucinich is alone in supporting full marriage equality. Gov. Bill Richardson has been caught making offensive statements about LGBT people, but contradictorily has a policy and legislative record of supporting equality.
Because all of the Democratic candidates share strong pro-equality values, why do LGB voters support Sen. Clinton in such numbers? I suspect that her husband's record of being the only president in US history to be open to talking about the LGBT community and its needs puts Sen. Clinton by association into a class of her own.
Sen. Clinton has also refused to shy away from speaking for equality (up to full marriage equality), despite the nastiest and most hateful invectives from the ultra right.
To be sure, a concerted effort by Sen. Obama and Mr. Edwards (and the others) to reach out to the LGBT community and to specify the kinds of policy changes they would take the lead on could significantly alter these numbers.
After all, as the survey's analysis of the political awareness and activism of LGB voters indicates, Sen. Clinton won't just get by with great hair and outfits. She's got guts, and soon the other candidates are going to have to show they've got guts too or sit down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)