Friday, May 12, 2017

The Secret Weapon Democrats Don’t Know How to Use

Look at the deep working class relationships that "Cheri on Shift" reflects. No hot air. Real class "consciousness".



The Secret Weapon Democrats Don't Know How to Use

M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO



No Democrat in the House of Representatives did what Cheri Bustos did last November. She wasn't the sole member of her party to win in a congressional district Donald Trump also took—there were 11 others—but she was the only one to post a 20-point landslide, and she did it in agricultural, industrial, blue-collar northwestern Illinois. In the kind of place where Hillary Clinton lost big last fall and where Democrats have been losing in droves for the last decade, Bustos has done just the opposite. A former newspaper reporter, the wife of a county sheriff and the mother of three grown sons, the 55-year-old third-term representative has won by wider margins every time she's run. And this past election, she notched victories not only in the urban pockets she represents—Rock Island and Moline of the Quad Cities, plus pieces of Rockford and Peoria—but in all her rural counties, too. If Democrats are going to wrest control of the House from Republicans, argue many party strategists, it's going to happen in large part by doing more of whatever it is Bustos is doing three hours west of Chicago in her nearly 7,000-square-mile district of small towns and soybean fields.

"We ought to be studying Cheri Bustos," Democratic consultant Mark Longabaugh, a senior adviser in Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, told me recently.

So twice in the first four months of this year, I traveled to her district to watch her work. In January, on a frigid Saturday the week before Trump's inauguration, I accompanied her in a silver, staffer-driven Ford Taurus, as she donned a yellow hard hat and installed an air filter in a locomotive in Galesburg (the latest in a regular series of appearances she calls "Cheri on Shift"), stationed herself in a grocery store produce section to introduce herself to customers at a Hy-Vee in Canton ("Supermarket Saturdays") and swung by a pub in Peoria to talk with a group of activist women. And last month, on a rainy Wednesday, I joined her again, when she put on a pair of safety goggles for a tour of an aerospace factory in Rockford and met with the mayor of Rock Falls, population 9,266



.
The Bustos blueprint, she told me in January as the Taurus dodged raccoon road kill outside a speck of a village called Maquon, is rooted in unslick, face-to-face politicking. She shows up. She shakes hands. She asks questions—a lot of questions. "Don't talk down to people—you listen," she stressed. When she does talk, she talks as much as she can about jobs and wages and the economy and as little as she can about guns and abortion and other socially divisive issues—which, for her, are "no-win conversations," she explained. And at a time when members of both parties are being tugged toward their respective ideological poles, the more center-left Bustos has picked her spots to buck such partisanship. She's a pro-choice Catholic and an advocate for limited gun control, but she has supported the Keystone pipeline and called for improvements to Barack Obama's "imperfect" Affordable Care Act. It's worked. She's the only Democratic member of the Illinois' congressional delegation from outside Chicagoland.

Rick Jasculca, a Chicago-based Democratic political consultant who worked in the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, told me he considers Bustos "the future of the party."

"She offers something the party needs, in a region of the country where it needs it desperately," said Robin Johnson, a political science professor at Monmouth College in Monmouth, Illinois, and one of Bustos' closest confidants. "If you're going to get back to a majority in the House, you're going to have to win some rural areas—and all this comes through the Midwest."

Democratic leaders seem to acknowledge this—that Bustos could help them build back a geographically broader electoral appeal. In the aftermath of the party's crushing defeats of 2016, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi chose Bustos to be a co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, after which she was elected by her peers. Her assignment is to teach other members of her caucus essentially how to talk to people like the shoppers she encounters by the bananas at the Hy-Vee. In some ways this was a confirmation of an existing though less formal role. Bustos, the single Midwesterner in House Democratic Leadership, already was a co-chair of the "Red to Blue" initiative of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and now she's ramping up her role in the organization's rural and heartland outreach efforts. Her national television and radio appearances have spiked. She's been dubbedone of the party's rising stars.

It remains to be seen, though, whether her party's most powerful shot-callers ultimately will actually implement key tactics of hers in time for the 2018 midterms. Democratic Congressman Ron Kind, who's won for 20 years in western Wisconsin in a district Trump won, too, talked in an interview of "a growing openness and willingness in the caucus" to incorporate some of what has worked for Bustos and others like her—Kind ran unopposed last year—but he worries, he told me, about his party succumbing to "the temptation to lurch to the left in response to Trump." Congressman Rick Nolan of Minnesota, another of the dozen Trump-district Democrats, lamented his colleagues' general lack of interest in tapping into the expertise of the few who have won in Upper Midwest. "I could count, easily, on one hand," Nolan told me, "the number of candidates for public office from the Democratic Party who've come up to me and said, you know, 'How did you do that?'" One of them, he added, was Bustos. "Democrats," said Denny Heck, the congressman from Washington who has worked with Bustos on "Red to Blue," "would very considerably benefit if they listened to her." Bustos recently met with new Democratic National Committee boss Tom Perez, which her office saw as "a starting point" in what she and her staff hope will be an ongoing discussion.

This is a moment, of course, of existential angst for Democrats. They're unified mainly by their antipathy toward Trump. Beyond that, they're grappling with the much more complicated calculus of whether to focus on stoking the Trump-hating base or re-embrace a more moderate approach and earn back the votes of traditional Democrats they've leached practically everywhere but cities and the coasts. Ben Ray Lujan, the New Mexico congressman who heads the DCCC, is clear about where he stands on this. "I can assure you," he said when we talked last week, "that the direction I'm giving is that we need to go back and re-establish trust and earn trust with people all over the country, including rural and blue-collar Americans." But what has made Bustos in particular so successful in her rural, blue-collar district is also what at times has caused friction and consternation in Washington. Not everybody she works with thinks she's a part of the solution for their party's woes.


"You better have thick skin after you're elected, because you're going to have members of your caucus who are upset with you that you're not voting straight party line," she told me not long ago in her office on Capitol Hill, sitting in front of a John F. Kennedy poster while drinking coffee from an Abraham Lincoln mug.

"I've had fellow members who are very upset with me," she continued. "I've had somebody say, 'Are you even a Democrat?'"

She wouldn't tell me who that was. She just said she told the person she's been a Democrat her whole life. "But maybe," she said, "I'm a little bit of a different kind of Democrat."

I asked if she feels like she's being listened to—if she thinks her model will be embraced and implemented elsewhere. Bustos, who's dispositionally cheerful, highly competitive and eager to share, did not respond with an unqualified yes.

"There's people who think we've got to just work on the base—right?—and get people fired up, and that's going to get us to 218. I don't," she said. "I don't think that's going to get us to 218. I think what's going to get us to 218 is to understand these tough districts where we have not done well."

She cited as evidence last month's special election in Kansas. The Democrat won Wichita but lost everywhere else. "That candidate bombed in all those rural areas," Bustos said bluntly. "If he just didn't bomb in those rural areas, we could've won that."

***

If you reverse-engineered a Democrat capable of winning in Illinois' 17th congressional district at this anti-elitist, politically volatile time, you couldn't do a whole lot better than Bustos.

She's the granddaughter of a hog farmer who was a state legislator, a Democrat from a small, out-of-the-way and predominantly Republican county in eastern Illinois. She's the daughter of the late Gene Callahan, a onetime political reporter for the Springfield Register—the afternoon newspaper at the time in the state capital—who left journalism to become a top aide to legendary Illinois Democratic lawmakers Paul Simon and Alan Dixon. Simon and Dixon, and a young Dick Durbin, too, were regulars at her house, talking politics around the kitchen table of her childhood.

Before she graduated from the University of Maryland with a degree in political science and from the University of Illinois at Springfield with a master's in journalism, she went to Illinois College, where she played volleyball and basketball and was picked as the MVP for both as well as the school's top female-student athlete. Her high school basketball coach told me Bustos was a ferocious rebounder thanks to a willingness to scrap and a knack for knowing where the ball was going to be.
She moved in 1985 to the Quad Cities to be a night-shift police reporter for the Quad-City Times. Her starting salary was $16,500 a year. She drove a white Plymouth Horizon hatchback and had a Goodwill couch and a dog named Kibble. Early on, the former Cheri Callahan met a young deputy sheriff named Gerry Bustos, a Quad Cities local, at a bar called the Lil' Cowbell. They married quickly, raised their three sons in East Moline and carved out Friday nights for family dinners at Frank's Pizza in nearby Silvis, where the walls are white cinder blocks and the only salad on the menu is a plate of iceberg lettuce.

After 17 years at the newspaper—she also covered city hall and was an editor and an investigative reporter who zeroed in on abuses allowed by the state Department of Children and Family Services—Bustos spent a decade working in corporate communications and public relations for a pair of major regional health care companies. Health care is "very, very complicated," she learned, but her time at Trinity and Unity Point Health was a tutorial in the sprawling, complicated sector of the economy that would come to be the core of the nation's bitter political fight.

"She works her butt off," said Bill Leaver, her boss and mentor at both companies.

"Until 9, 10 o'clock at night nearly every single day, and I mean that," said Gerry Bustos, who exercises at the Two Rivers YMCA every morning at 4:30—along with his wife when Congress isn't in session.

And in the winter of 2006 and 2007, for the first time in her life, Bustos ran for office—a bid to be an alderwoman in East Moline. The ground was so frozen during the campaign her husband used a drill to make holes for signs, while she wore long underwear and a thick brown down coat and knocked on every door twice—regardless of party affiliation. "Because why would a Republican not vote for me?" she said.

***

Illinois' 17th district over the last generation has leaned Democratic, buoyed by organized labor—but the linchpin manufacturing industries are stressed, dealing with reinvention or outright elimination. The local nexus of this painful, systemic change is Galesburg, where 5,000 steady, relatively well-paying jobs vanished when a Maytag factory moved to Mexico. That was in 2002. The town still hasn't recovered. Johnson, the Monmouth professor who is Bustos' friend and adviser, sees it as "ground zero in this battle over globalization." And the Democrats in Galesburg and around the area as a whole are not liberal in the least, he explained—"not latte Democrats" but "beer-and-shot Democrats," with pickup trucks with shotgun racks. A significant swath of voters in the district prize their independence and pragmatism and make their political picks based on the person rather than the party, said Chad Broughton, the author of Boom, Bust, Exodus, a book about Maytag, Galesburg and the region. "They want to hear from Democrats, but they generally feel like they've been abandoned by Democrats"—on trade deals, on bread-and-butter economic considerations and in a perceived shift to the left in the overall culture. And in the 17th District in 2010, a year in which more than two dozen centrist Democrats got voted out of Congress, Bobby Schilling, a pizza shop owner, rode the national tide and edged out the incumbent Democrat Phil Hare.

But the political reorientation didn't stick in northwestern Illinois—on account of Bustos. In 2012, she beat Schilling—because of redistricting that added parts of more Democrat-friendly Rockford and Peoria, because Obama was on the ballot and made for a more favorable national turnout, and because she was assiduous in talking about jobs, agriculture and infrastructure while steering clear of the flashpoint social issues. In her victory speech at the Rock Island Holiday Inn, she told supporters she intended to reach across the aisle in Washington. "People just want to succeed," she said, "and government can help."

In 2014, she beat Schilling again—and her margin went up, from seven points to 11. Then, last November, with Trump triumphing due to his pledges to bring back lost jobs, and with Bustos endorsing Clinton, she nonetheless tightened her grip on the district, trouncing GOP challenger Patrick Harlan. A fifth of the people in her district who voted for Trump also voted for her.

"She was getting white male voters when they were abandoning our party in rural America," said Doug House, the Rock Island County Democratic Party chair and the president of the Illinois Democratic County Chairmen's Association. "They were for Trump—and they were for her. She was connecting with them."

"The key in these districts," said Kind, the congressman from Wisconsin, "is you have to be able to connect with your constituents on a basic-value level, so they understand that you get them."

Joe Manchin, the senator from West Virginia who consistently has won as a Democrat in a state that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, told me Bustos has been able to win because of a certain "likeability factor" and an intangible authenticity. "Cheri's real," Manchin said.




Bustos sits on the House Committee on Agriculture and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. She toggles deftly between unions and chambers of commerce. She's been endorsed by the Illinois Farm Bureau, and the Illinois Sierra Club—"not easy to do," she said. She organizes an annual economic summit at Augustana College in Rock Island, and she spent last August trekking around her district on what her office titled a "21st Century Heartland Tour." Last fall, she was noncommittal about how she would have voted on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, but she called it a "tough one for me," given the state of industry in her district. "We have been hit very, very hard in this part of the state of Illinois, and in the state of Illinois," she told the Quad-City Times in 2015, "because of what I would call bad trade deals."

Less than a month after her 2016 win, Bustos discussed this in an interview on NPR.

"We have been the party of working-class men and women for the entire history of our party," Bustos said. "My dad raised us to say if it weren't for organized labor and the Democratic Party, there wouldn't be a middle class. I believe that. But we've got to go where people are. And we've got to listen."

***

"Watch the pinch points," one of the workers told her at the locomotive repair factory in Galesburg in January, as Bustos gamely (but not quite successfully) attempted to insert the large air filter while wearing the yellow hard hat and an orange safety vest that paired awkwardly with her gold hoop earrings.

"What am I doing wrong?" Bustos asked.

An employee gave the filter a final necessary nudge and told Bustos she had done well for her "first time." The bright white gloves she had been given were black with soot and grime.

"Cheri on Shift" feels a little like a gimmick. In the most simplistic, play-the-game, political sense, it's a photo op. At this one, I wasn't the only reporter. There also was a local public radio correspondent. But what was different about this "Cheri on Shift" photo op was the patter of her questions. It was constant. She quizzed the supervisors leading the tour and the employees we encountered. What do you do here? How long have you been with the company? Do you like it? Can you support your family? Can you go on vacation? Who works here? Who do you like hiring? You guys like hiring farm kids? How long does it take to train for one of these jobs? Anything else on your minds?

"Being present matters"—that's how DCCC's Lujan put it when we talked. "Cheri gets that," he said.

It's more than presence, from what I observed. Bustos in essence "reports" the story of her district so she can better tell it back in Washington. In the Taurus, I asked her how she talks about the thorniest subjects for her, and for any Democrat in a district like the 17th of Illinois. How, I wanted to know, does she talk about the issues that her party sometimes thinks are most important—but that her constituents see differently?

I started with guns.

"I say, 'My husband carries a gun on his hip—he's the sheriff of Rock Island County. All my sons own guns. I own a gun. But we've got to be reasonable about this,'" she said to me. "I say, 'All I want to do is make sure people who are deranged or on a terrorist watch list don't have guns.' That's how I talk about it."

And abortion?

"I don't try to change their mind," she said. "I'm Catholic, so I understand their views. I'm pro-choice, but"—here she shifted the subject with me, the way she says she does with others—"that's not what most people are talking about. Most people are talking about jobs."

She talks, in other words, about these kinds of things by not talking about them much, because the people she represents, she says, aren't talking about them much, either, or don't want to.

"On these sensitive topics," she said—Black Lives Matter, transgender bathroom laws and so on—"I don't dwell on them."

Bustos has said to me several times that she considers members of Congress "independent practitioners," free in their districts to do what they think is best for themselves and their constituents. But the flexibility intrinsic in this approach butts up before long against the heightened rigidity of the expectations of the party nationally. Witness the recent occurrence of Perez, the DNC chair, endorsing a pro-life mayoral candidate in Omaha, Nebraska, only to backtrack after blowback from pro-choice advocates. Bustos, though she had been tapped to help the party in spots like northwestern Illinois, was not the pick to respond to Trump after his joint session speech at the end of February.

Robin Johnson from Monmouth watched former Kentucky governor Steve Beshear handle the Democratic Party's response—delivered from a Lexington diner, closed, darkened and quiet but filled with citizens set up at tables as stock-still props. The content of what Beshear said hit the appropriate populist notes on health care and jobs, but it elicited mixed reviews. Johnson, for one, was baffled not only by the odd dose of stagecraft but the selection of the person to deliver the message—an old name, not a new face.

"Why not Cheri Bustos?" Johnson told me. During Beshear's remarks, he said, he sent Bustos a text message. "I said, 'Jeez,' you should be the one giving this response.'"

***

Being a centrist doesn't mean being an enemy collaborator. In Washington in late April, in her Capitol Hill office, Bustos smiled, drank from her Abe Lincoln mug and verbally thrashed President Trump.

This was three months after I had watched Bustos at the pub in Peoria say in an interview with a local TV reporter that she would "give him the benefit of the doubt."

A week before our meeting in Washington, though, I sat in the front row of a panel at the Institute of Politics in Chicago and listened to Bustos say people in her district who had "tried" Trump—that's how she phrased it—at this point were expressing "a lot of concern." She didn't stutter when she pronounced his first 100 days "a disaster."

And the day before, in a news conference, she said the passage of the Trump-pushed health care legislation would be like "ripping out the beating heart of rural America."

Now, sitting across from me in her office, Bustos practically was taunting Trump.

"Man," she said, "if I were president of the United States in my first 100 days, I'd want to have a lot of wins—and, you know, I wouldn't want to have wins that I have to lie about." She scoffed at his multiple claims of unprecedented accomplishment in his administration's first few months. "It's like, 'Did you ever study history?'"

But the calamity of his presidency to this point, Bustos thinks, presents an opportunity for Democrats, confident and poised to make up ground, to get to 218 in 2018—but particularly, she believes, if they focus on winning districts like hers.

Could Bustos teach Democrats how to win again? Responding to that question of mine, she said she didn't want to sound "stuck up," but what she has done, she pointed out, has worked.

What she has done challenges the purity-test fealty that has defined this era of historic and increasing polarization in Congress. Paying attention to the messages she's getting on the ground as much as to the talking points from above, she might say, shouldn't make her a traitor in the eyes of her party. To keep faith with both her constituents and the Democrats' broader national aims is often less a question of the precise stance she is taking and more a question of how she puts it. In short, her blueprint for success is simply the freedom to make a call in the field.

"Mine is just one way of doing things," she said. "I'm not saying it's the only way or it's absolutely the right way. I'm not presumptuous enough or arrogant enough to think that I have all the answers or that mine is theway to go. I'm not saying that at all."

And yet …

"I'm just saying," she said, "that in a district that Donald Trump won"—and here is the closest the classically Midwest-nice native of Illinois came to a boast—"I won by 20 points."

The competitive college team MVP in Congress, one of the star players and power hitters in the annual Congressional Women's Softball Game, wants to help her side.

"That is what I want to share," she said. "This is what's worked for us, and maybe it will work for you, and here's how you can execute."

She looked at me—really, though, she was looking at, and speaking to, the whole Democratic Party.

"Here's our blueprint," Bustos said. "You can have it."

--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, The EPIC Radio Player Stream, 
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Trumpism: It’s Coming From the Suburbs

https://shar.es/1FRGfS

This message was sent using ShareThis (http://www.sharethis.com)

Trumpism: It's Coming From the Suburbs

Racism, fascism, and working-class Americans. If you're looking for Trump's implacable support, Texas trailer parks and Kentucky cabins are the wrong places to find it. Fascism develops over hands of poker in furnished basements, over the grill by the backyard pool, over beers on the commuter-rail ride back from the ball game—and in police stations and squad cars.
Jesse A. Myerson
May 8, 2017
As the sun sets, a giant Trump campaign yard sign nearly dwarfs the Antico family, six-bedroom home in Wayland, Massachusetts, November 1, 2016.

 

Throughout the 2016 campaign, amid the shock of its results, and in the various recapitulations of its lessons, great swaths of the mainstream and liberal press have been consistent about whom they blame for Donald Trump and his ultra-right-wing administration: the white working class. "That's what Trump is playing to," The New Yorker's George Packer told NPR's Terry Gross days before the election. "It's a really dangerous, volatile game, but that's…maybe the biggest story of this election." In the weeks after the election, liberal-hotshot-of-yesteryear Markos Moulitsas found it appropriate to crow over retired coal miners losing their health coverage from his swanky office in Berkeley, California (median home value: $1,080,400). Even today, the contempt remains obvious: Self-appointed "resistance" leader and actual flag-wearer Keith Olbermann could find no better way to insult his fellow multimillionaires Sarah Palin, Kid Rock, and Ted Nugent than by calling them "trailer park trash."

Even according to pundits on the traditional right, one can find the reason for Trump's success festering in lower-income white communities, the enemies of racial and social progress, where reactionary politics and redneck racism run rampant. "The white American underclass," according to National Review's Kevin D. Williamson, "is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin." According to this analysis, Trump's fascism is merely a reflection of the debased preferences of poor people.

But scapegoating poor whites keeps the conversation away from fascism's real base: the petite bourgeoisie. This is a piece of jargon used mostly by Marxists to denote small-property owners, whose nearest equivalents these days may be the "upper middle class" or "small-business owners." FiveThirtyEight reported last May that "the median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000," or roughly 130 percent of the national median. Trump's real base, the actual backbone of fascism, isn't poor and working-class voters, but middle-class and affluent whites. Often self-employed, possessed of a retirement account and a home as a nest egg, this is the stratum taken in by Horatio Alger stories. They can envision playing the market well enough to become the next Trump. They haven't won "big-league," but they've won enough to be invested in the hierarchy they aspire to climb. If only America were made great again, they could become the haute 
bourgeoisie—the storied "1 percent."

Trump's most institutionally entrenched middle-class base includes police and Border Patrol unions, whom he promptly unleashed after his inauguration by allowing them free rein in enforcing his vague but terrifying immigration orders, and by appointing an attorney general who would call off investigations into troubled police departments. As wanton as their human-rights atrocities in the years leading up to the Trump era have been, law-enforcement agents are already making their earlier conduct look like a model of restraint. They are Trump's most passionate supporters and make concrete his contempt for anyone not white, male, and rich.

The Trump train: The candidate rallies with supporters in Manchester, New Hampshire. 
Reuters / Jonathan Ernst // The Nation
 

Always and everywhere, this sort of petit bourgeois constitutes the core of fascism. In The Mass Psychology of Fascism, his look at the German economy and ideology in the five years preceding Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Wilhelm Reich argued that this was largely because of the petite bourgeoisie's dependence on the patriarchal family unit, which he called the "central reactionary germ cell" of "the authoritarian state." As the "heads" of their families, small-business-owning men often exploited their wives and children and enforced a patriarchal morality on them in the interest of protecting their somewhat vulnerable enterprises. This oriented the petite bourgeoisie structurally toward reactionary politics.

If the petit-bourgeois American suburbs embody a sexist hierarchy, they exist in order to enforce a racist one. In the mid-20th century, white northern and western urbanites faced a choice: Stay in the cities where Jim Crow was driving a "Great Migration" of millions of black people, or flee to the new suburban residential developments, complete with racist exclusionary charters. The Federal Housing Administration made the choice easy: Its policy redlined neighborhoods where black people were settling as having low "residential security," thus making financial services inaccessible. In white-only suburban communities, however, the FHA was pleased to guarantee home mortgages. "There goes the neighborhood," said millions, and fled.

 

The lower you go down the economic ladder in America, the less likely an eligible voter is to go to the polls.

 

Their material security bound up in the value of their real-estate assets, suburban white people had powerful incentives to keep their neighborhoods white. Just by their very proximity, black people would make their neighborhoods less desirable to future white home-buyers, thereby depreciating the value of the location. Location being the first rule of real estate, suburban homeowners nurtured racist attitudes, while deluding themselves that they weren't excluding black people for reasons beyond their pocketbooks.

In recent decades, rising urban rents have been pushing lower-income people to more peripheral locations. As suburbia has grown poorer, the more affluent homeowners have fled for the even greener pastures of exurbia. Everywhere they turn, their economic anxiety 
follows them.

And yet, "among people I talk to, 'economic anxiety' has become kind of a joke slogan," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told CNN's Christiane Amanpour, by way of explaining Trump's rise. "I mean, there is real economic hardship. West Virginia is not a happy place. But…it's really mostly about race." Krugman and Amanpour's seamless transition from "anxiety" to "hardship" betrays the assumption that haunted the entire discussion: that the only form of economic anxiety is deprivation. To the contrary, the form of economic anxiety propelling the racism of devoted Trump supporters is associated with paying taxes; with jealously guarding their modest savings; with stopping black people from moving nearby and diminishing the value of their property and thus the quality of their kids' schools; and with preserving the patriarchal family structure that facilitates it all.

So where do white working-class people fit 
in? When I use the phrase "working class" here, I mean "in and adjacent to poverty." The first thing to understand about the political participation of these folks is that, as Bernie Sanders noted during the Democratic primaries, "poor people don't vote"—not only because of their alienation from politics, but also because of voter suppression, a lack of education and transportation, and all the other practical ills of poverty. The lower you go down the economic ladder in America, the less likely an eligible voter is to go to the polls. 

 

Addressing America's deep economic inequality will require working-class unity across all categories.

 

Needless to say, there are many white working-class people fully on board with Trump's program. Even the portion who merely tolerate his racism and xenophobia, so long as he delivers contracts to build pipelines, present a major political challenge. But as we consider, post-election, who belongs in the "resistance," we are making a high-stakes claim if we regard working-class white people as so irredeemably bigoted that they should not be a part of it. Any political alignment capable of addressing the deep economic inequality that fortifies and exacerbates every other problem in American life will require working-class unity across racial, gender, and sexual categories, and around shared interests. While drawing working-class white people into this coalition requires a formidable political struggle, excluding them from it makes marshaling the numbers necessary to achieve and wield power impossible.

Whiteness itself confers a degree of property, as the legal scholar Cheryl I. Harris has described, and poor and working-class whites, who lack other forms of property, therefore have reason to try to protect it. This led W.E.B. Du Bois to observe: "So long as the Southern white laborers could be induced to prefer poverty to equality with the Negro, just so long was a labor movement in the South made impossible." America's original sin has thereby created an enormous hurdle to organizing black and white workers together. In order to do so, white workers must be convinced to give up one form of privilege—the one that's offered by the myth of racial superiority—in order to struggle alongside black workers. Solidarity, as a result, has been a monumental challenge, and white racism has often won the day. American history nevertheless offers us a variety of examples of workers choosing solidarity, often due to the leadership and perseverance of black workers and thinkers.

In 1894, an alliance between the poor white Populists and poor black Republican agricultural workers won control of the North Carolina legislature and started making reforms, including the appointment of black officials. Four years later, a white-supremacist election returned the legislature to the "planter class"–backed Democrats. Two days after the election, mobs of 
Democrat-aligned white people roamed black neighborhoods, shooting, killing, and burning.

During the Great Depression, Communists went to Birmingham, Alabama, to organize for economic rights among the unemployed working class; they initially thought white workers would step up, but predominantly black workers did, and they ended up organizing black and white together. Making a national cause of the 1931 Scottsboro case, in which nine black teens were falsely accused of raping two white women in Alabama, the Communists formed a series of organizations. These included the Southern Negro Youth Congress, which prefigured the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and a sharecroppers' union that at its peak boasted 12,000 members, including white ones. As commissioner of public safety, Bull Connor waged war on them in the 1940s, and though he was able to crush the Alabama Communist Party, he couldn't crush the groundwork it had laid for the civil-rights revolution against Jim Crow—including Rosa Parks's early political action. 

In the late 1960s, both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton assembled interracial coalitions of lower-income people. In 1967, when initiating his Poor People's Campaign, King suggested that since "the economic question [is] fundamental for blacks and whites alike, 'Power for Poor People' would be much more appropriate than the slogan 'Black Power.'" Hampton didn't shy away from "Black Power," but he paired it with other forms: "White Power to white people, Brown Power to brown people, Yellow Power to yellow people, Black Power to Black people, X power to those we left out and Panther Power to the Vanguard Party." For their efforts, both were murdered, Hampton by the Chicago Police Department and the FBI, and King by a "working-class white" assassin that his family and associates maintain was a pawn in a conspiracy involving the Memphis Police Department, the FBI, and others.

 

War on Poverty: The Poor People's Campaign at the State Fairgrounds in Ohio, May 13, 1968.
AP Photo // The Nation
 

In all of these cases, the racism that destroyed these efforts did not come from the white working class, but from affluent whites and law enforcement.

To be sure, the white people who participated in these coalitions were not free from suspicion of and contempt for black people, but they were not so incorrigibly hateful as to be blind to the important points of unity they shared. These working-class whites were able to see working-class black people as teammates.

This is key: People find ways to warm to those we perceive as teammates. Historian Judith Stein, for instance, cites the case of Jim Cole, who recalled of his time working in the CIO-organized Chicago yards: "I don't care if the union don't do another lick of work raisin' our pay, or settling grievances about anything, I'll always believe they done the greatest thing in the world gettin' everybody who works in the yards together, and breakin' up the hate and bad feelings that used to be held against the Negro.

"Egalitarian racial sentiment," Stein concludes, "is often the consequence, not the cause, of unionization."

Pathologizing the white working class as inherently bigoted serves two functions: It discourages working-class organizing across racial lines, and it provides white liberals with a convenient scapegoat who, being white, can't charge racism. As Malcolm X cautioned, "If you aren't careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

If you're looking for Trump's implacable support, Texas trailer parks and Kentucky cabins are the wrong places to find it. Fascism develops over hands of poker in furnished basements, over the grill by the backyard pool, over beers on the commuter-rail ride back from the ball game—and in police stations and squad cars.

To overcome fascism, we will have to stop fetishizing the middle class and start uniting the working class. To that end, the Movement for Black Lives' platformprovides a blueprint for the emancipation not only of black people but the working class at large. With an emphasis on divesting from law enforcement and incarceration and investing in guaranteed human rights to income, housing, health care, education, and a healthy environment, the agenda provides a broad umbrella that can accommodate the visions driving several of our recent period's social movements: Labor, environmental, peace, and immigration groups, among many others, have already endorsed it.

As the beneficiaries of systemic racism, white people have a special obligation to organize toward the realization of this program, and to acknowledge that black people's reluctance to work with those who hold bigoted attitudes is understandable and that the need for independent black organizing is pressing. Still, the only political force capable of advancing the Movement for Black Lives' agenda will be rooted in the shared interests of the working class. The failure to follow the lead of Fred Hampton and Martin Luther King and engage working-class white people in the fight for socialism and black liberation will only continue to undermine that struggle and sacrifice those same people to the cul-de-sac brownshirts and the revolting demagogue at their helm.

[Jesse A. Myerson is an activist and writer living in New York City.]

Copyright c 2017 The Nation. Reprinted with permission. May not be reprinted without permission. Distributed by PARS International Corp.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription to The Nation for just $9.50! 

Predatory Lenders Making American Nightmares From American Dreams [feedly]

Predatory Lenders Making American Nightmares From American Dreams
https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/predators-making-american-nightmares-from-american-dreams/

Yes, Donald Trump is President, and he accomplished this upset in part by shattering the working-class firewall in long time Democratic, heartland strongholds of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. We cannot respond only with resistance.  An effective defense, in the Rust Belt or anywhere else in the country, requires a deeply rooted offense focused on the traditional Democratic working-class base, and that requires organizations and organizers who will to listen and offer meaningful responses to real pain being felt by so many at the grassroots level.

Amid repeated promises from the White House and Republicans to cut from healthcare, Medicare, and other elements of the already tattered safety net, there are few issues so stark, or so predatory, as the credit desert that keeps working families from securing decent and affordable housing. This is a problem the Real Estate Developer-in-Chief should well understand.

Since the 2008 Great Recession, the devastation of foreclosures, for individuals and communities, has become well-known.  Less appreciated has been the banks' response. As the subprime market ended, many lenders now demand higher credit scores, larger down payments, and higher minimum loan levels for mortgages.  Marginal financial institutions, specializing in predatory products, moved in, reviving instruments that had largely disappeared from urban home ownership markets with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, laws that also ended redlining in minority communities.  Contract-for-deed, installment land purchases, rent-to-own, lease purchase, and other deceptively-named transactions lured families into hoping for affordable housing and home ownership into agreements that exploited them instead.

Worse, much of the housing stock involved was had been acquired from Federal National Mortgage Authority ("Fannie Mae") auctions of foreclosed properties by hedge funds, Wall Street, and vulture financiers pyramiding one injury on top of another.  Companies like Harbour Portfolio embraced contract "sales," while others, such as Vision Property Management, repurposed thousands of homes using rent-to-own scams.  More well-known operators, like Goldman Sachs, bought more than 26,000 homes to satisfy securitization settlements with the government, while Apollo has specialized in similar flip-and-trick in Memphis and other cities.  The National Consumer Law Center estimates that there are more than six million contract buyers in the United States now.  More shockingly, more contract sales were recorded in Detroit last year than traditional mortgage transfers.

Organizers with ACORN  and the Home Savers Campaign  have spoken with lower income working families in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Akron, Detroit, and other cities as diverse as Memphis, Little Rock, and New Orleans. These conversations reveal huge issues that bring this emerging housing crisis into tragic relief and demand action and response.   The stories are heartbreaking.

A Harbour Portfolio buyer spoke to us from her couch, where she was recovering from a fall on a faulty stairway in Pittsburgh.  In Akron, another Harbour Portfolio purchaser told us about the ceiling in the shower falling on his sister, leaving her unable to work.   A Vision Property Management family in Pittsburgh told us of moving into a house after signing the papers only to find that it had no plumbing or electricity. They were forced to "camp" in their house for six months.  Vision's callous indifference to the deplorable condition of the housing stock meant that one Youngstown family had been forced to move to a second Vision house because their first was ordered demolished by the city!  Many of the buyers were on Social Security or Veterans payments.  Meanwhile, one Harbour buyer was having problems getting the contract in his name — even though the payments were made from his pension.

Sadly, this story from Philadelphia is typical, as the organizing team's notes reveal:

Maria Rodriguez and her husband "purchased" the house at 917 Sanger St., in the Frankfort section of Philadelphia for $65,500, almost 4 years ago.  They both worked:  he as a landscaper and she worked at a hotel doing housekeeping. . . .   They put down $2000, plus $465 as the monthly lease payment, $105 for real estate taxes, $30 for general liability insurance, or $2600 as an initial payment and $600 a month. The contract runs until August 2020.  $57.06, +2000 initial option, of the monthly payment is credited toward the purchase price.  Maria and her husband have put about $25,000 in the property because of huge issues like unpaid water bills, no heating or electrical system. They believed that at the end of the contract, in 2020, they would own the property and get the deed.  Instead, they will have paid $6,793 toward the $65000 house price.  On Aug 30, 2020, they have 3 options:  give Vision a check for $58,206, walk away, or convert to seller financing with a new contract for the remaining $58K.  Like all the Vision properties people we've talked to, this was a total surprise.

At the end of our visits with working families, we often left people enraged by anger salted with tears.

Laws to protect would-be buyers vary state-to-state, and many are weak. Are these "buyers" tenants, or are they owners without a deed?  Many they cannot connect utilities or get contractors to work on their houses because of the confusion.  Although contracts are required to be filed, they usually are not.   In Green Bay, Wisconsin Vision whistleblowers told television reporters that they were instructed not to pay sales taxes or transfer fees.  The city of Cincinnati sued Harbour for $335,000 of uncollected fines and penalties.

Some cities have taken action. Toledo passed an ordinance requiring contract sellers to obtain a certificate of occupancy and habitability before a contract was executed and a potential buyer allowed to move into a property. Lorain, Ohio, required the same, but only at the point of sale, which sadly may never happen.  In Pennsylvania, lawyers believe there is an "implied warrant of habitability" that should force sellers to make repairs before occupancy.  Other lawyers argue that none of these agreements can be valid contracts because their terms are "unconscionable" on their face.   The Uniform Code Commission is debating offering state legislators a model law to clarify some of the mayhem.

As the Home Savers Campaign and partner organizations get their arms around this issue, one thing is clear: these contracts are misrepresented and rarely understood by working families desperate to obtain affordable and decent housing with the opportunity of home ownership.  Millions of families are now caught in this dilemma. For them, the American Dream turns out to be an American Nightmare.

As our campaign against these predatory practices gains traction and the raw exploitation involved becomes even clearer, and as more working families demand justice, it will be harder for anyone or anybody to deny the exploitation at the root of these transactions.

Real estate is perhaps one thing that President Trump does understand.  The fight needs to move from these houses to the White House.

Wade Rathke

Wade Rathke is best known as Founder and Chief Organizer of ACORN from 1970-2008, and continues to serve as Chief Organizer of ACORN International working in 13 countries.

Special thanks to Gary Davenport, former community organizer and currently with Mahoning County Land Bank for assistance in Youngstown work.  We'll have more to say about Youngstown as we assemble the data later this summer!


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Is it Time for the American Dream to Die? [feedly]

Is it Time for the American Dream to Die?
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/11/05/2017/it-time-american-dream-die

Is it Time for the American Dream to Die?

Paula Serafini - 11th May 2017
Is it Time for the American Dream to Die?

Paula Serafini explores the paradox of Trump's wealth, the lack of social mobility, and voting patterns in contemporary America.

Commentators tend to agree on two main reasons for the rise and presidential victory of Donald Trump. His defiance of convention at a time when the institutions of democracy were (and still are) in crisis is often mentioned. Equally so his successful manipulation of the public's emotions at a time of financial insecurity, anger, and disappointment.

But precisely because times are tough and many in the US are affected by unemployment and lack of prospects, it is still baffling to some that a billionaire — and quite an ostentatious one for that matter — could win the sympathy of large sectors of the working class. Did Trump win the elections because of – or in spite of – his wealth?

Contrary to Hillary Clinton, who like many in the educated elite publicly acts as if embarrassed of her wealth, Trump flaunts it. Wealth is a part of his image (think dramatic entrances in luxurious escalators and golden lifts). Despite the fact that he was born into wealth, Trump positions himself as a "self-made man", the epitome of the American dream. In fact, one of Trump's selling points was that he would "make America great again": this meant bringing back the American dream.

The American dream, a term first coined in 1931 by historian James Truslow Adams, is the idea that anyone, regardless of their background and standing, can aim for a more prosperous life for themselves and their children. This dream has for some time been in crisis, and Trump himself went as far as bemoaning the dream's death. And overall, Trump's policies do not favour social mobility for the working class. How was it then that a billionaire who favours corporations and the rich was able to emerge as a champion of the American dream?

The rejection of intellectualism

A few years ago, anthropologist David Graeber wrote about wealth and status in relation to the motivations of white working class voters in the US. He argued that the white working class votes for rich Republicans and not for leftist Democrats because, despite the fact that Democrat discourse tends to advocate policies that are (somewhat) more to their benefit, white working class people don't identify with leftist, intellectual politicians.

Higher education in the US, he said, is no longer a channel for upward mobility for white working class voters due to increasing fees and lack of financial aid. Therefore, universities and the intelligentsia that emerges from them are seen as sites of exclusion (although universities are still seen as channels for upward mobility for other sectors of society, such as ethnic minorities and migrants).

Becoming an intellectual is, for most of the white working class, not an option any more. This is a fact that has been linked to rising anti-intellectualism and the rejection of experts in the US as well as in the UK. It was also seen during the Brexit campaign. And it is why, as economic sociologist Wolfgang Streeck argues, "the election was as much about Clinton losing as Trump winning". As Graeber suggested:

'If people vote against their obvious economic interests, then it can only be because one cannot, really, separate the economic issues from social and cultural ones.'

Republicans and the rich CEOs they defend and represent, on the other hand, do not stand for the intellectual class (even if they are, in fact, Ivy League graduates too). A working class voter therefore identifies more easily with the wealth of the Republican than with the intellectualism of the Democrat because the agonising myth of the American Dream still tells them that wealth is something their children can hope to achieve (if they work hard, if they are lucky, if an opportunity presents itself).

Imagining the dream

In Trump's hands, therefore, wealth becomes something to be flaunted. He similarly flaunts a combination of other attributes and values, such as patriotism, strength, boldness and virility.

This aspect of Trump's image is important because patriotism is widespread in US American working class culture. The American dream of making it financially is tied to a set of patriotic cultural values, ideas and images. These are reinforced in cultural events such as the hard-to-forget musical performance of the "USA Freedom Kids" which featured excessive use of the Stars and Stripes, the repetition of words like freedom, and the allusion to the US as a world leader and military power. The idea of the American dream is built on the combination of "wholesome" US American values and military prowess.

Perhaps the combination of factors making up Trump's appeal is best represented in the epic USA-on-steroids image by artist James Heuser. This over the top image (which the artist claims has no political agenda), features Trump on a tank with golden fixings, cash being thrown around, and an eagle with a machine gun. The image was adopted by Trump fans, but could as easily be seen as a parody, or perhaps, as a representation of the American dream in the age of Trump.

The success of Trump and his unashamed, extravagant display of wealth is the defeat of the claim "we are the 99%", the slogan of a dream for equality that emerged with Occupy Wall Street. A Trump-like kind of wealth only comes at the expense of the lacks of others. Trump's status as a poster boy for the American dream legitimises the idea that this dream implies inequality, as well as reinforcing individual progress, a cult of the military, and anti-intellectualism (which in turn feed other elements of Trump's agenda, namely racism and islamophobia).

The question is: can this American dream-turned-apocalyptic-nightmare be redefined? Or must this pervasive myth be binned in order to strive for post-capitalist practices of equality, community and interdependence, in the US and beyond?

 


Paula Serafini, Research Associate, CAMEo Research Institute for Cultural and Media Economies, University of Leicester. This post first appeared on The Conversation.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Against the Subjective Theory of Knowledge [feedly]

EconoSpeak is a Left Econ blog featuring Kevin Quinn, PGL, Peter Dorman, Michael Perelman, Econoclast, B. Rosser, Sandwichman, and others -- articles are often unsigned


This an interesting post, and one that presses the question, perhaps only half-consciously,  of the absence of an  objective theory for knowledge as a vital player in the failures of the Left, more or less across the world, following the decline and collapse of "scientific" socialism in the USSR and the retreat to a mixed system in China. While I  am skeptical  of "theoretical errors" driving history, the author's review of the weaknesses of excessively subjective approaches is compelling. Without a convincing -- including objectively argued -- national narrative on altering the class relations in the US, and the world,  its likely none of the more subjective, identity oriented movements can lead the big shifts to victory.

Today, in the era of data, "objective" does not require a materialist philosophical stance -- only  a commitment to evidence based analysis. The Marxist and the Empiricist can finally shake hands. Still, real life includes the fact that most decisions are made not scientifically, or by evaluation of objective evidence, but quickly with only subjective experience and intuition, or "gut" as a guide. Trump is an example of "gut" gone loony and dangerous. 


Against the Subjective Theory of Knowledge


http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/05/against-subjective-theory-of-knowledge.html

The story begins in France, post-1968 and post-decline-and-fall-of-the-French-Communist-Party.  The legitimacy of power in France, the country of the Grandes Écoles, historically depended on claims to expertise, and the Communists had offered a pole of opposition based on "scientific" Marxism.  When Communism collapsed, how could the French left oppose power?  The response was to refound the movement on a posture of radical subjectivism: the experts' claims to truth, derived from their so-called master narrative, would be refuted by a deeper truth derived from the subjective experience of the oppressed.  Their subjectivity would no longer be reduced to a chunk of data to be processed by the ruling experts; no, being the very substance of truth, it would be available only to those who had actually lived this experience and would have precedence over all external claims.  Take that, technocrat!

This radical subjectivism was smuggled into the United States, wrapped in innocent-looking volumes of cultural criticism, where the context was different.  Elite claims to power in the US are not generally based on expertise in the French manner, and in any case there had been a deep debate between Left and Right over the question of democracy versus technocracy in the 1920s, Dewey against Lippmann.  The US Left, in the decades following this debate largely adopted the optimistic view that radical democracy could embrace expertise, and the belief that science and political radicalism are compatible can still be seen in current activism over climate change, among other topics.  (True, a minority current on the left appeared in the 1970s which challenged scientific claims to knowledge, and it still exists, but it has little political influence.)

Initially the subjective theory of knowledge presented itself in the American context as a more radical assertion of freedom and personal difference.  It fed a pre-existing expressive conception of what it means to engage in political action, which has always had an appeal in the US, but before long it attached itself to identity politics.  According to the new subjectivism, racism came to be understood as the result of a discourse grounded in white non-experience of racial oppression, and so also sexism, a product of male discourse.  Such oppression, it was believed, could be challenged only by counterposing to these discourses of exclusion the truth inhering in the experience of people of color, women and other marginalized groups.  In this process the critique of expertise became a critique of rationalism applied to issues involving identity.  Rationalism was regarded as a rigged contest, a fig leaf for the dominant discourse, against which resistance could be grounded only in direct personal experience.  If you didn't have the experience of oppression, no matter how cleverly you argued, you couldn't know, and if you had it no one could tell you otherwise.  Voice was not a means for putting forward evidence; voice removed the need for evidence.

To be very clear, I am not arguing against subjective experience as a basis for knowledge.  Experience is real, and so is the meaning we attach to it.  An examination of racism or any other social problem would be seriously incomplete and probably misguided if it didn't take account of how this condition is experienced subjectively.  I am not making a case for a supposed "objective" approach to understanding (a false ideal), nor for categorically putting externally observable data above subjective self-report.  That would be extreme.

Nevertheless, two types of problems have arisen from adhering to the opposite extreme that privileges subjective experience beyond all other forms of knowing, one at the individual level and the other collective.

The individual problem is that our experience, and the inferences we draw from it, is often a poor guide not only to the external world but also ourselves—who we are, what motivates us, and how we interact with others.  Cognitive psychology is nothing if not a litany of human foibles.  Autobiography is valuable, but not necessarily more truthful than biography written by others.  Your friends can tell you things about yourself you scarcely imagined.  A foreigner can often observe aspects of a culture that are invisible to those immersed in it.  Knowledge from within is valuable, but so is knowledge from without, which means radical subjectivism is lousy epistemology.

This problem has practical consequences.  In the 1980s America went through a period in which the subjective reports of children concerning possible child abuse were privileged over virtually any external evidence, and the result was the persecution of many innocent daycare workers and a wave of dubious "repressed memory" denunciations of parents.  Of course, many children were and are abused, and many adults are culpable, but the categorical privileging of child testimony or memory over all other forms of evidence clearly resulted in gross injustices.  The same critique can be applied to recent formal and informal determinations of violation and oppression on the basis of gender and race that privilege the self-reports of the (presumably) violated and oppressed.  When Rolling Stone messed up in its false exposé of "A Rape on Campus" two years ago, for instance, it had clearly been led off the rails by its assumption that the rape testimony of a woman possesses an existential truth that normal journalistic evidence-gathering cannot evaluate—but testimony can be wrong, even if it is offered in all sincerity.  Again, this is not to devalue what people say they have experienced; personal testimony is always crucial evidence.  But it can't be the only evidence, or even the evidence that overrules all other.  Us humans are simply too fallible.

The collective problem exists because individual experiences vary.  It's one thing to hear the testimony of a single voice describing what it means to be oppressed, but when issues like racism and sexism are discussed at a social level, how can the subjective experiences of thousands or even millions of individuals be combined into a composite voice to settle issues in dispute?  After all, if each experience is its own truth, without some further processing you would have a very large number of different truths, many of them contradictory.  There's no escaping the need for an organization that offers its own voice on behalf of the many, so the rest of us can learn this composite truth.  But who gets to do this, and what experiences do they incorporate or set aside?

The politics of this representation is always fraught.  Sometimes open competition breaks out between different groups that each wish to express the general subjectivity but selected and combined according to different criteria.  Even when groups giving voice to identity are united there is often tension between individuals whose subjectivity is downplayed or ignored and the groups that claim to speak for them.  Given the underlying philosophy of radical subjectivism, there is no basis for individuals to contest the selection process that may have excluded them, since there are no criteria for selecting subjectivities, which in any case is not supposed to happen.  (No group openly states it performs this role; their rhetoric is always universal.)  Thus identity dissidents are effectively expelled from the entire framework.  Conservatives actively seek to locate these individuals, offering them support so they can draw them into their network.  The biographies of many black conservatives, for instance, fit this pattern.

As much as I respect the role that subjective knowledge needs to play in everyday life and social science, I think the extreme version, which holds that subjective experience is immune from challenge by any other mode of knowing, is causing great damage to the left.  The first step in freeing ourselves from it is to recognize it for what it is.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

A Climate of Capitalist Dominance [feedly]

A Climate of Capitalist Dominance
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/05/a-climate-of-capitalist-dominance.html

We've now had a chance to see Stephens #2, the second column on climate change by the new NY Times voice on the right, Bret Stephens, and unlike the first (which reasoned—sort of—back from its conclusions in true hackish fashion), this one isn't so bad.  He argues that government action on climate change has done as much harm as good, pointing to the biofuels fiasco and shortcomings in the European (Carbon) Trading System (ETS) and Germany's Energiewende as cases in point.  I agree.  What he says about these programs deserves to be said, especially since too many self-styled progressives won't.  There's a lot of really sketchy climate policy out there.

So what does he miss?  The first omission, and it's an important one, is that he considers only the failures of government, not those of business and the market.  Above all, the continued operation of, and even investment in, a fossil fuel-based economy in the face of what we know about climate risk, is a massive fail, greater than every error committed by governments.  That doesn't justify bad policy, but it puts government malfeasance in perspective.

To see the second omission we need to drill down a bit.  Consider the three examples Stephens brings up; what do they have in common?

Biofuels: Rather than taking action to remove fossil fuels from our energy base, government policy boosted a supposed "green" energy source derived from commercially grown crops.  This generated substantial profits for agribusiness, but, as Stephens rightly argues, it did little if anything to forestall greenhouse gas accumulation while producing a number of serious economic and social costs.

The ETS: Despite howls of protest from the scientific community, European politicians made decision after decision that eviscerated their carbon pricing system, handing out carbon permits for free, setting meaningless targets and removing large sectors of the economy from regulation.  The system has essentially broken down, but not before, as Stephens mentions, bilking European households of billions in energy costs, which went directly into corporate coffers.

Energiewende: While the achievements of solar and wind energy promotion in Germany are remarkable, the overall strategy prioritizes expansion of renewables and avoids taking any action to simultaneously restrict carbon fuels.  The result is that Germany has both record-setting increases in renewable capacity and hardly any reduction in carbon emissions.

All of these examples have a common theme: governments seem unable to frame climate policy in any terms other than subsidies for corporate investment and profit.  A biofuels initiative is easy to advance, since it funnels public money to agribusiness.  The only ETS element that had any effect is the one that temporarily increased electricity prices and allowed privately-owned utilities to reap all the profits.  Energiewende supports firms that invest in the renewable sector but overlooks firms that continue to profit from burning carbon.

The common denominator is overweening capitalist power.  Climate policy is constrained by the determination of wealth-holders to protect and expand their wealth.  An effective response to the threat of a climate catastrophe, on the other hand, would unavoidably deplete their wealth—not only the stranded assets of the fossil energy sector but a range of other investments that would be devalued by a rapid shutdown of oil, gas and coal.  (I've done a back of the envelope estimate that the wealth hit to non-energy assets would be approximately as great as that to carbon energy.)

So I'm on board with what Stephens is against but not what he's for.  Rather than dismiss all action on the climate front as misguided, I would like to see the non-wealth-obsessed interests in society mobilize to overcome capitalist power.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed