How My Generation Comes of Age Politically

            In 2008 I was a senior in college, by the time the election rolled around I was a first year law student. Late in November, as a board member of the Democratic Law Caucus, in conjunction with the RLC, I helped host an election post mortem. We had a few professors and students sit on a panel and answer questions posed by students and even a couple of professors.

            I recall the good natured participation of one of only 2 Republican professors at the school. He affably tried to explain where his side’s message got lost, and why it just didn’t come together for them. He accepted the notion being proposed by nearly everyone else in the room that they lost to a movement. The many liberals in the room, perhaps all that were at the school, were proud that it was a movement, something that would reign for many years of our adult lives.

            One woman, a fellow 1L, chose to be the fly in the ointment and pointed out this was merely one election. What proof did any of us have – smug panelists and smug questioners alike – that this was a sustained movement? Obama could, in four years, become a one term president and it could all be over, what then?

            Stepping up to this challenge I responded: the people who were trained during this campaign to organize and energize their communities would be an enduring legacy that would keep the movement going. It would be these people who were stirred to action at a young age who would carry the political hopes of the new left. Obama did so well with young and minority voters, particularly those voting for the first time. Bringing people in to the process had expanded the electorate and shifted it. She was not impressed.

            This was a moment in time, not something that could be counted on. Too many people were already acting like the work was all done because of the results. People thought they had solved racism, and were on their way to solving corporate greed. The proclaimed successes were far beyond the ones that could be borne out by evidence.

            Nine years later, looking back on that confrontation it is interesting to see how both of our predictions played out. She was absolutely right, Democrats receded in the number of seats they held in congress and they fell short of many of their goals for the Obama era. This culminated in the reaction that became Trumpism. This woman, now an attorney, saw how paper thin the revolution was from the outset. Not because she wished it to fail, but because it was too easy for those in the moment to be blinded by optimism. She wanted to see more proof of sustainability.

            Now in the first year of the Trump administration, I might be able to carve out a small island to believe that I brought a valid point. The reaction to Trump has allowed this generation to fully come of age politically. Organizations like Indivisible, Sleeping Giants, Our Revolution, Brand New Congress, Run For Something, Together We Will, and more are staffed, driven, and supported by alums of Obama for America and its devoted fans. Those who trained to change the world for the original OFA ran smack in to reality, but are finding their second wind. They are returning to public life, because they know they need to, they see that the work is unfinished but not impossible.

            Defeating the Republican health care bill took activism, organizing, and persistence. It may still take more, but citizens are calling their congressional representatives in record numbers. The energy to be involved in politics feels as high as ever. It might not be inspired by Barrack Obama, but his training has certainly led to so many being ready.

            The events in Charlottesville do nothing to dampen my spirit, or my belief that we are growing. The tragedy that is the loss of Heather Heyer, has clearly galvanized those who are willing to fight for equal rights. Defenders of fair societies, of all stripes, were out in the streets and have been active in calling out how the president has failed in denouncing white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

            Just one week later 40,000 protesters came out in Boston to counter protest a hate speech rally euphemistically referred to as a free speech demonstration. The danger of apathy has been seen and is being combated. People of good intentions are banding together to ensure they are heard. It is not dependent on one personality or organization, but of hundreds developed organically and reaching out towards one another to form a logistical chain that brings about the change we were promised.

            If it were not for the highs of optimism from the 2008 election, the let downs experienced leading to the election of 2016, and the earth shattering wakeup call of that election this generation might not be as politically active as previous ones. We have been admonished to never skip mid-terms again, not to sort ourselves in to tiny blue districts. None of it really seemed like it would take, not until we were forced to remind ourselves and each other of it every day. Now we are beset by norm challenging news with disturbing regularity. It was the fall from our high that has allowed us to come of age. 

Drawing the line on which statues we take down

What if we do take down the statues of Washington and Jefferson? It is a popular retort for those defending the monuments of the traitors that fought for the confederacy in the civil war to ask where the line will be drawn and will you take down the Statues of our nation’s founders?

Personally I do not want to take down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It is easy for me to see a distinction. On one side the people that built this country and expressed their moral consternation over the issue of slavery. On the other, traitors who fought to protect the institution of human bondage, taking up arms in insurrection against their rightful government.

Thomas Jefferson famously said that he did not believe that the living should be held in a tyranny of the dead. He wanted our country to change, and be free to change. Today we freely express how revolting slavery was. We openly debate whether someone can be a good person if they ever owned slaves, no matter if they were only a product of their time.

The Confederate monuments were put up during the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras. They were meant to intimidate people of color and today remain as a touchstone for those who want to embolden the cause of white supremacy. The monument to the “lost cause” and “Southern Pride” only serve to whitewash white supremacy.

Washington and Jefferson planted trees whose shade they would never enjoy. Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and their confederates wanted to chop down those trees to continue their sins against nature. If the process of liberating our society from memorializing criminals is to take down all of the sinners, even our favorites, that’s the price I’ll pay. Take the damn statues down.

Thinking of North Korea in a Different Light

North Korea is in many ways not the evil, unpredictable place that it is portrayed as in most media. Last month The Atlantic did a good job of breaking down the motivations and possibilities of confrontation. The possibility of resolution does seem remote, but so did any sort of agreement with Iran about nuclear programs. It only came from long months of negotiation and showing them that we were not adversaries but could work as partners. We gave them something they could take back to their people and sell. Not just to the religious and deeply conservative leadership council but also to the moderate population. The majority of that population, by the way backed that plan by reelecting the president of Iran to another term, so clearly the give and take allowed at least one country to believe they had a real leader.

There are reasons this would not immediately work with North Korea. They have less skin in the game, so to speak, internationally. Their leader is not up for popular reelection, so his grip on the country comes from strong propaganda to suppress any possible internal dissent. Even so, North Korea is easier to understand as the kid in high school who wore all black and had videos on youtube of him torturing woodland animals. Are they wrong? Absolutely. Are they dangerous? Probably. Will bullying or formal intervention work? It’s not particularly likely. Instead I see them as needing a friend. Someone to bring them in to the conversation, give them an invite to the party, and possibly even allow them to sit at the cool kids table.

Right now North Korea does not have a middle class. Any sanctions we impose against them will not hurt Kim Jong Un, or those in his inner circle that much. They will hurt those who are already suffering at the hands of the regime. If there was a middle class that would have their lives disrupted by sanctions, and if they were empowered to actually hold a referendum on their leadership, sanctions would have a shot at impact. These conditions were nominally present in Iran and its arguable whether or not sanctions really were ever all that effective.

This is the third generation of Kims to lead North Korea and the third to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Their existence, and therefore survival, has been predicated on staving off the threat of Western intervention. The nuclear pursuit has given them purpose and the ability to maintain power over their people. They need some sort of reward. We need to meet them where they are. It costs the US nothing to admit we have felt held hostage by the machinations of the dictatorship’s regime. We could send an envoy to offer this admission and begin a dialog. Open the lines of communication begin to inject aid into the country. These “rewards” could be the opening to have a discussion with the people of North Korea. Get them sitting at the table and feeding back to dear leader that they want more intervention. We need to be able to show the North that they can allow the world in and still retain their autonomy. Those connections will prevent nuclear holocaust more than any tough talk and posturing. Once the Obama administration was willing to sit at the table with Iran the gears began to turn, they will turn even slower in North Korea from lack of use, but the best collective security is being bound to other countries economically.

Many will complain that admitting to being held hostage by this regime will hurt American leadership in the world. In fact, if that is what opens the door to the hermit kingdom it will cement American leadership. If it fails, then we are free to return to talking tough and preparing for nuclear annihilation. I care less about the pride of those wanting tough talk and more about the utility of a plan. Is it possible to tease out an end game that does not involve shooting or carnage? If so that plan is worthy of an attempt or at least greater study, however if our actions are simply building towards violence, we should abandon them.

This tough guy talk will not work. It feels good to some, but in the end the recipient will only feel bullied more. They will react the way that the budding high school sociopath, when they reach their limit they will lash out. Also like that kid, he may not want our help but he should receive it anyway. In both cases we know there is suffering there and it is wrong to let it continue needlessly. The people of North Korea have been on the verge of starving for generations. That type of suffering needs to be met with a strategy that has a chance at helping them. At the end of the Clinton administration an envoy was sent to North Korea and deals were struck to curtail their nuclear program. Unfortunately the deal was finalized in October of 2000. Just 15 months prior to the Axis of Evil speech, cementing the refusal of the deal that Bush signaled as he entered office. Later in the Bush Administration, North Korea would test their first nuclear device and heighten this dynamic for the next two presidents.

If our president is man enough to set aside his machismo and negotiate like a sophisticated international player, then we all have a chance at a reasonable solution. Whenever North Korean aggression comes up, this should be the first idea that consumes the conversation, not the last and most marginalized. 

Democrats poised to eat their own candidates

            David Dayen has an article in the New Republic about the needless attacks on Kamala Harris for her non-prosecution of Steven Mnuchen during the financial crisis. This was also one of the topics discussed on this Monday’s (8/7/17) Pod Save America. Mr. Dayen correctly points out that the Democratic Party could end up eating its own on this front. To use his words, “no public official in this country, from Barrack Obama on down, covered themselves in glory during the foreclosure crisis.” It is obviously true, only one person went to jail, and the fines seemed to go in the wrong direction once the banks were declared too big to fail.

            Dayen also stumbles upon what could be the most revelatory point of his article, but he doesn’t meditate on it too much. The foreclosure crisis and the financial problems it caused were a major scandal, and they were not prosecuted. There was never a genuine attempt to bring those who crashed our economy to justice, and Democrats were in charge nearly everywhere.

            Post mortems on the 2016 election have talked about the populist rage and how the Democrats were not prepared to deal with it. I have read numerous think pieces claiming this movement just came from nowhere and most can’t figure it out beyond noting the media elite were not willing to talk to white working class voters. That’s the best most are willing to offer. The concerning thing is there is a shift I think many Democrats missed in the party, something independents and those aggrieved Trumpites have been saying as an otherwise unsupported accusation. Democrats are no longer the party of the people.

            The Democrats stopped being the party of the people when they failed to prosecute anyone for the financial crisis. We swept in to power at its height and promised change, promised to care for the people. When it came time to actually wield that power though, suddenly everyone was too big to fail or we were concerned about the secondary economic impact of punishing the malfeasance of companies that had acted immorally and illegally. That’s not something that proves that we are for the people. Sure we did not want to destroy a fragile economy, but we were failing to see the impact and implication of protecting the corporations responsible. Foreclosures continued, and Democrats allowed the poison narrative of personal responsibility to justify it as well.

            The jobs initiatives we did have didn’t do enough and wages never recovered enough to fully replenish the middle class. These problems persist to today, so much so that it is even in the milquetoast new platform, but where is the confidence that we can actually benefit both the economy and the average person. Democrats haven’t been winning elections because they haven’t been fighting. Sure, things got a lot better under the Obama administration, but he acted more the economics professor than the crusader. This is why Senator Bernie Sanders’ message was so appealing to so many. It was a return to the rhetoric that was worker centric. Not surprising for a Socialist, but still a shift away from a more corporate strategy favored by the establishment of the party.

            Bernie may not have been a perfect candidate but he at least was willing to name the problem and vow to fight it. Obama did positive things for the economy and he certainly left the country better than he found it. But in so doing he didn’t rise all boats equally. He is a Democrat, it should be a little socialist too. He failed in not being FDR and bringing the programs that really helped people. Which is not the world’s biggest failure, Buchanan is derided as one of our worst president’s, but mostly because he failed to be Abraham Lincoln. Barrack Obama will be remembered as a good president, whether he rises to be thought of as a great president will be for historians.

            We are not here to litigate previous elections or administrations, but find a way to prepare better for the ones ahead. The lesson here is that Democrats must keep average people at the center of their rhetoric. That definition might shift a little one way or the other, but it is clear that we cannot prize a corporation over those it serves, or that we serve. Our focus on intelligent government solutions to problems can help the Democrats reclaim the mantle of party of the people.