PROGRESSIVES HIT A BIG BUMP

Freedom is just a word for nothing left to lose. ~ Janis Joplin

At this point, the quadrennial task surrounding development of practicable political strategies to win presidential and Congressional elections in America is unmistakably facing the Democrats. Big time. Given the Trump administration’s astonishingly frenzied, disordered, tumultuous record so far, you might think it could be an easy task. I doubt it.

How bad is it now for Democrats? Let me count the ways. Republicans hold a 241-194 majority in the House of Representatives and a 52-48 majority in the Senate. The Democrats’ Congressional representation is very concentrated. More than 50% of the House Democratic caucus members come from just six (12%) of our states. One of every four House Democrats is from either California or New York. At the state level, Republican governors now exercise power in 33 states. Republicans now control 66 of the 98 legislative chambers in the country. Republicans control 32 state legislatures, including 17 with veto-proof majorities. Those 32 states account for 61% of the U.S. population. Republicans now have total political control over 25 states outright and another 2 where they can override a Democratic governor’s vetoes. The nation hasn’t seen this level of Republican dominance in our political process since Herbert Hoover was president.

Despite this unassailable Republican domination, during the past weeks much of the liberal media has been running stories about how Rex Tillerson, Betsy DeVos, Jeff Sessions and Steven Mnunchin could be denied the cabinet positions He Who Shall Be Named Micro-Man nominated them for. Hope springs eternal and all that, but the laws of Senatorial mathematics unsurprisingly crushed those less than faint Democratic hopes. As of Feb 14, each of these questionable, unfitting nominees has become a Senate-approved cabinet member, as expected. Oops, I wrote too soon. On Feb 15 Andrew Puzder, the president’s nominee for Labor Secretary, resigned after numerous Republican Senators expressed dissatisfaction with him. Micro-Man remains a laggard. So far he has barely filled his roster of senior administrative jobs; he has nominated just 35 people to fill the roughly 700 positions that require Senate confirmation. Are these the results of "a fine-tuned machine"? I think not. 

During the past year well-founded, “identity”-based issues raised by progressives were thrust into the nation’s social, legal and political limelight. These issues included “visibilzing” the 0.6% of the population who identify as transgender. [Yes, visibilizing doesn’t appear in the dictionary; the term is used by used by the LGBTQIA community.[1]]  This limelight engendered a diverse set of personal and political reactions across the nation, including support and outrage. What happened from these reactions? Among other things, the Nov 8, 2016 federal election happened with calamitous results for the Democrats’ social liberals, among others.

There are many ideas floating in the political ether about what contributed to this election’s surprising outcome, now that the Democrats are WOPPed – wholly out of political power – in Washington DC and many states. I think 3 of the reasons Democratic social liberals/progressives fared badly are: a lack of motivating, emotional connection of enough voters with Democratic candidates’ goals and priorities; geographically-concentrated, heavily urbanized backing; and fractionalizing minorities central to the Democrats’ base.

The Democratic coalition that twice elected Barack Obama nosedived this time around. During the campaign there was much talk about the increased prominence of minority voters and their amplified importance for Sec. Clinton’s success. Demographically, that was true for her campaign, but not the nation. According to Census projections, no one racial group will be a majority of the country by the year 2044, which is 27 years in the future. But right now, non-Hispanic whites represent 70% of eligible voters and they vote more reliably than any ethnic or racial group. The Democratic campaign tactics seemingly forgot this; the election’s actual vote count reflects this gross oversight. Micro-Man won 58% of the total white vote and 63% of the white male votes.

Despite being unwaveringly tooted by Democrats, Hillary Clinton failed to win a majority of white women voters. Also, Millennial, Hispanic and African-American voters failed to vote for Sec. Clinton in sufficient numbers in enough states to ensure her victory. Critics mention that Sec. Clinton’s campaign emphasized far more why voters should not cast their ballots for Micro-Man, and not a strong or alluring enough message to voters about why she deserved their votes. There was too much pessimista and not enough optimista in her campaign. It seemed like her campaign forgot, in a stunning error, about the primacy of our outdated Electoral College mechanism. An example of this misguided bungle was her spending campaign effort in Arizona and Texas (among the reddest of all states), rather than Michigan and Wisconsin. OMG.

Here’s a personal example attesting to why Democrats now inhabit such a dark political space. Recently my wife and I had dinner with some friends and inevitably talked about the despairing situation we and our nation are facing because of He Who Shall Be Named Micro-Man is president. Recalling former times when progressives were actively headlining the news, one of us asked “What was the name of that group who was protesting Wall Street.” It took us a while to remember the answer: Occupy Wall Street.

The Occupy movement was formed in late 2011 to demonstrate against inequality and the deluge of financial disruption for millions of Americans during the Great Recession. It popularized the phrase “we are the 99%,” reflecting the continuing struggles inequality poses on people who are neither wealthy nor rich (the 1%). In 2011 at the height of its influence, the Occupy movement had palpable difficulty stating its principal objectives because of its commitment to “participatory democracy.” Perhaps as a consequence, its legacy does not include demonstrable electoral political success.

In contrast, it takes much less time to remember the Tea Party, and its movement’s widespread (and all too successful) influence on American politics since 2009. In 2010 the Tea Party Caucus (that has since morphed into the Freedom Caucus) in the House of Representatives was formed after conservative candidates it directly supported had won 48 seats in the House. In a real sense the Tea Party’s legacy includes the populist ground-roots political activism that helped elect the current president as well as very conservative members of the House and Senate.

The Democrats have had no counter to the well-organized political movement that has provided total control of Congress and the Presidency to the Republicans. In a sense, now that the Democrats have virtually nothing left to lose, they have the freedom to create a fresh, new strategy and tactics for future success.

The average age of the 4 Democrats’ Congressional minority leaders is 73 years. The Democrats are now electing much-needed, new leadership of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The DNC, like Democrats in the majority of states, has no unified political power base. Creating such unification will be imperative.

Notable exceptions to the Democrats lack of power include their 5 state trifectas (states where one political party controls both legislative houses and the governorship): California, Oregon, Hawaii, Connecticut and Maryland. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Republicans enjoy having 25 state trifectas, as well as the all-important federal trifecta. As one journalist put it, Democrats and the DNC are “leading from behind.”

In effect, the DNC is now searching for relevance as well as a plan for 2018 and beyond. They would do well to learn from the successful efforts of the Tea Party and other political crusades. In the short time available for next year’s House elections, this plan needs to entice majorities of voters to elect Democratic candidates in local, state and Congressional elections. Creating such a plan will require discipline and focus – something Democrats have found difficult in the past to master. The DNC will need to finally acknowledge the obvious; that the world beyond the Washington DC beltway is a much different place than they thought it was.

The Democrat’s plan for success also should include direct financial and political support for the growing number of grass-root organizations that already have empowered thousands of people’s “resistance” to Micro-Man’s chaotic, painful changes. The DNC and Democrats will need to build upon the initial successes connected with the Women’s March, the airport demonstrations and town-hall meetings to form a viable, enduring movement founded on a new, expanded, easily-repeatable message that emphasizes inclusion, human rights, safety and opportunity.

In fact after being WOPPed 4 months ago, messaging is the only leverage Democrats now have at the federal level. If successful, such communication – from strong, distinctive and broadly empathetic candidates – coupled with resistance and other action, can induce more people to actually vote for Democrats. Only then may there be a sparkle of light at the end of the dark tunnel Democrats now find themselves in. What do we now have left to lose?  

---

[1] The better-known abbreviation for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community has been amended to LGBTQIA as a term used to refer to the now more multi-faceted community by explicitly adding the Queer, Intersex and Asexual communities. 

FOR WHOM THE TOLL CHIMES

Never mistake motion for action. ~ Ernest Hemmingway

Our young people are suffering mightily. The combined, ruinous effects of fiscal policy idiocy, minimal macroeconomic growth, and much reduced wealth/savings and stagnating wages for the majority of American working adults has devastated the employment possibilities for young people throughout this country and beyond. Over the past 5+ years, all too many Millennials are becoming our Lost Generation. The chart below shows the shameful youth unemployment rates that persist in too many so-called developed nations. In May, the US teenage unemployment rate is an astonishing 322% more the overall US unemployment rate. As high as our youth unemployment rate is, it's less than one-half as large as either Spain's or Greece's youth unemployment.

Meanwhile members of the Senate sit on their derrieres and pat themselves on the back for adding billions of unnecessary dollars to "strengthen" the US-Mexican border with ever-longer 20-foot high fences, drones, cameras, hired-guns, guards and electrified razor wire. Congress has delusionally dismissed the facts of immigration: the number of immigrants seeking legal or illegal entry into the US has decreased by 80% during the past decade. Members of Congress still live on their mental plantations of the past [decade, century?]. Perhaps this all too common evidence of reality-denial by public decision-makers should be added as yet another "disease" in DSM-5.

Congress and the President have not addressed far more consequential economic issues concerning our nation's present and future. These concerns including encouraging equitable macroeconomic growth that supports hiring workers, especially young people, and improving the incomes of more than the top 0.001%. Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reduced its estimate of this year's first-quarter GDP growth to a moribund 1.8%. Parsimonious conservatives continue to endorse cutting education, training and support programs' budgets and worry about non-existent inflation. Businesses remain reluctant to hire more workers, especially young ones, when Congress is retreating. Meanwhile many corporations sit on mountains of retained earnings and cash. This is most definitely not the needed counter-cyclical fiscal policy that I explain to high-school economics students.

Congress' and the President's dismissal of youth's travails borders on myopic madness. It doesn't have to be this bad; look at Canada in the figure, which has the lowest youth unemployment of any OECD nation. But even its 13.5% rate is quite high by recent historical standards.

In 2012, of the 2.1M 16 to 24 year olds who want a job but can't find one, 217,000 were so discouraged that they dropped completely out of the labor force. The labor force participation (LFP) rate for US teenagers is now 35.0%, the lowest of any category of US workers and the lowest in decades. The LFP rate for all US workers has dropped to 63.4%, also low by historical standards. Most of the decline in the US unemployment and LFP rates is caused by workers (like teenagers) leaving the labor force (not "actively" looking for work), rather than actually finding jobs. There has been no improvement in youth employment for almost 5 years, especially for those who haven't gone to college or who are non-white.

I've mentioned before the problems facing our Millennial generation, and unsurprisingly no Federal programs have been created to remedy this generation's considerable economic plight. In fact, interest rates on Stafford student loans doubled on July 1 – from 3.4% to 6.8% – because Congress couldn't find time to authorize the continuation of lower rates before it adjourned for its extended July 4^th vacation.

The meager life of all too many US young people – as well as their compatriots in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia – has not been a priority for politicians. However, as politicians across the globe have seen, they disregard these issues at their own peril. Witness the "revolutions" and massive displays of public upset in Egypt, Brazil, Turkey, Chile and China.

When youth movements like Occupy here and tamarrod in Egypt figure out how to organize people within the political process – and not just for impressive public demonstrations – and be clearer about what they want (not just what they don't want), politicians will be forced to remedy the issues that young people are facing.

What types of public actions can help Millennials gain a more assured economic life here in the land of the free (disregarding the ever-present PRISM, of course)? There are at least 4 inter-related types of human-capital investment programs that in the past have proven their worth for improving people's economic well-being now and in the future.

First, immediately resume subsidized public loan programs for post-high school education. This includes re-funding Federal Stafford loans at below-market interest rates and increasing similar State-specific education loan programs.

Second, increase funding for Community Colleges and vocational programs (including high-school programs especially those that include joint private-public sector participation). By "vocational" programs I'm not talking about traditional wood shop classes, I'm referring to a broad array of classes from mobile software development to applied engineering to health-science that provide skills which will remain in demand by private employers.

Third, Federal and State post-high school education funding should be provided only to institutions that limit student cost increases to less than the yearly inflation rate. Continued super-escalation of tuition and fees should not be allowed to continue. In other words, Federal and State education funds should be provided only if colleges, universities and other education providers' student expenses are reduced in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. With the sizeable fiscal leverage that Federal and State government agencies have on all types of educational institutions that charge tuition and fees, and assuming these agencies – such as the Dept of Education, National Science Foundation and Dept of Health & Human Services – wish to exercise this leverage on behalf of enrolled students (rather than administrators; always a large assumption), I'm sure tuition and fee increases can be much moderated as soon as such policies are enacted.

Fourth, create a multi-year public job corps program that principally focuses on youth without college degrees. Sure, all age groups need more employment opportunities, but our future rests most directly on having 16 to 24 year olds in full-time jobs, and especially "disadvantaged" youth – principally Hispanic, Black youth without college degrees who are not enrolled in post-high school education programs. Remember, although much media attention is deservingly made of under-employed college graduates (7.0% of youth with a BA or more are now unemployed), the unemployment rate for youth with only a high-school degree is 18.5%; with less than a high-school degree it's 28.5%. These numbers support the well-recognized maxim; the longer you stay in school and get decent grades, the more likely you'll find a job.

Current unemployment rates for Hispanic-Latino youth and Black-African American youth with only a high-school degree are disproportionately huge, 34.8% and 40.8%, respectively. A job corps program that helps such youth would initially be expensive, but the nation's overall, longer-term health requires it. The economic benefits of this investment would be both broadly-received and substantial. Very few voters disparage the G.I. Bill (the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944) that provided an expansive range of benefits to returning US soldiers, including cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend college. [US public debt right after WWII was as high as it's ever been, 122% of GDP. This debt didn't cripple us, as conservatives now expect, and we survived to become a mega-power. We will carry on now as well, in spite of Republicans' ill-founded prophecy of certain economic catastrophe.]

This pioneering, publicly-funded human capital investment law paid for itself and more. Like the G.I. Bill, the youth job corps outlays can create hundreds of thousands of jobs for currently-displaced young people that would buoy our economy and thus benefit everyone.

Should we middle-aged (and beyond) citizens be uncharacteristically magnanimous about spending billions on such youth-oriented programs? Absolutely. Because Millennials are now starting to pay for our public retirement and Medicare expenses. And because Millennials are our future; the better off they are, the more protected we Boomers (and the rest of the US) will be. The Millennials' economic welfare is vital at this point if the rest of us want to enjoy a sustainable, secure future. We need to act now and mitigate the toll that our youth are suffering from.