Democratic Socialism - Bernie Sanders in His Own Words

Brian T. Lynch, MSW

[NOTE: Now that he announced he is suspending his campaign, maybe people will be more willing to see what he as to say. It isn't so radical as it sounds.]

What follows is taken directly from Bernie Sanders's own writing in which he describes what he means when he calls himself Democratic Socialist. He isn't advocating government ownership of the private property or of replacing capitalism with "government ownership of the means of production" as extremists claim on the right. It is more about building on what Franklin D. Roosevelt began almost 100 years ago that remain so popular today. It is about how we must reign in oligarchs and harness capitalism to better serve everyone and not just the rich. 

But Senator Sanders expresses it better than most, so, here is Bernie Sanders defining his vision for democratic socialism in the United States... 

IN HIS OWN WORDS:

“If there was ever a moment when we needed to stand up and fight against the forces of oligarchy and authoritarianism, this is that time. – Sanders, 2019

· On one hand, there is a growing movement towards oligarchy and authoritarianism in which a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country.

· On the other hand, in opposition to oligarchy, there is a movement of working people and young people who, in ever-increasing numbers, are fighting for justice.

· When we talk about oligarchy, let us be clear about what we mean. Right now, in the United States of America, three families control more wealth than the bottom half of our country, some 160 million American [while] tens of millions of working-class people, in the wealthiest country on earth, are suffering under incredible economic hardship, desperately trying to survive.

· Today, nearly 40 million Americans live in poverty and tonight [every night], 500,000 people will be sleeping out on the streets. About half of the country lives paycheck to paycheck

· After decades of policies that have encouraged and subsidized unbridled corporate greed, we now have an economy that is fundamentally broken and grotesquely unfair.

· Even while … the stock market and the unemployment rate are strong, millions of middle class and working people struggle to keep their heads above water

· In America today the very rich live on average 15 years longer than the poorest Americans.

· The issue of unfettered capitalism is not just an academic debate, poverty, economic distress and despair are life-threatening issues for millions of working people in the country.

· Across the globe, the movement toward oligarchy runs parallel to the growth of authoritarian regimes – like Putin in Russia, Xi in China, Mohamed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary

· These leaders meld corporatist economics with xenophobia and authoritarianism.

· They redirect popular anger about inequality and declining economic conditions into a violent rage against minorities — whether they are immigrants, racial minorities, religious minorities or the LGBT community

· In the United States, we have our own version of this movement… led by President Trump and many of his Republican allies who are attempting to divide our country up and attack these same communities.

· The challenge we confront today as a nation, and as a world, is in many ways not different from the one we faced a little less than a century ago, during and after the Great Depression... deeply-rooted and seemingly intractable economic and social disparities led to the rise of right-wing nationalist forces all over the world.

· Anger and despair were ultimately harnessed by authoritarian demagogues who fused corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia into a political movement that amassed totalitarian power, destroyed democracy, and ultimately murder[ed] millions of people — including members of my own family.

· We rejected the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler

· We instead embraced the bold and visionary leadership of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then the leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Roosevelt led a transformation of the American government and the American economy… at transformative change opposed by big business, Wall Street, the political establishment, by the Republican Party and by the conservative wing of FDR’s own Democratic Party. And he faced the same scare tactics then that we experience today — red-baiting, xenophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism.

· In a famous 1936 campaign speech, Roosevelt stated,

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace:

• business and financial monopoly,
•  speculation,
•  reckless banking,
•  class antagonism,
•  sectionalism,
•  war profiteering.

· We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.

· Today, America and the world is once again moving towards authoritarianism — and the same right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia are on the march, pushing us to make the apocalyptically wrong choice that Europe made in the last century.

· Today, we have a demagogue in the White House who… support brutal family separations, border walls, Muslim bans, anti-LGBT policies, deportations, and voter suppression.

· The United States must reject that path of hatred and divisiveness and instead find the moral conviction to choose a different path, a higher path, a path of compassion, justice and love.

· It is the path that I call democratic socialism.

· We must take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry it to completion.

· [We must commit] committing ourselves to protect political rights, to protecting civil rights – and to protect the economic rights of all people in this country. As FDR stated in his 1944 State of the Union address:

“We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”

· Now, we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman, and child in our country basic economic rights

• The right to quality health care

• The right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society

• The right to a good job that pays a living wage

• The right to affordable housing

• The right to a secure retirement, and

• The right to live in a clean environment.

In the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights. That is what I mean by democratic socialism.

· As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said,

“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.”

· We must see ourselves as part of one nation, one community and one society regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or country of origin. This quintessentially American idea is literally emblazoned on our coins: E Pluribus Unum. From the many, one.

· I do understand that I and other progressives will face massive attacks from those who attempt to use the word “socialism” as a slur.

· President Harry Truman was right when he said that: 

“Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years…Socialism is what they called Social Security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.”

· When Trump attacks socialism, I am reminded of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.”
· And that is the difference between Donald Trump and me. He believes in corporate socialism for the rich and powerful.  I believe in a democratic socialism that works for the working families of this country.

· Freedom is an often-used word but it’s time we took a hard look at what that word actually means. Ask yourself: what does it actually mean to be free?

· Are you truly free if you are unable to go to a doctor when you are sick or face financial bankruptcy when you leave the hospital?

· Are you truly free if you cannot afford the prescription drug you need to stay alive?

· Are you truly free when you spend half of your limited income on housing and are forced to borrow money from a payday lender at 200% interest rates.

· Are you truly free if you are 70 years old and forced to work because you lack a pension or enough money to retire?

· Are you truly free if you are unable to go to attend college or a trade school because your family lacks the income?

· Are you truly free if you are forced to work 60 or 80 hours a week because you can’t find a job that pays a living wage?

· Are you truly free if you are a mother or father with a newborn baby but you are forced to go back to work immediately after the birth because you lack paid family leave?

· Are you truly free if you are a small business owner or family farmer who is driven out by the monopolistic practices of big business?

· Are you truly free if you are a veteran, who put your life on the line to defend this country, and now sleep out on the streets?

· In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able to fulfill that vision.

· I am proposing an  Economic Bill of Rights… that establishes once and for all that every American…is entitled to the right to:

• A decent job that pays a living wage
• 
  
• Quality health care
• 
  
• A complete education
• 
  
• Affordable housing
• 
  
• Clean environment
• 
  
• A secure retirement

· Democratic socialism to me requires achieving political and economic freedom in every community… the only way we achieve these goals is through a political revolution where millions of people get involved in the political process and reclaim our democracy

· At the end of the day, the one percent may have enormous wealth and power, but they are just the one percent. When the 99 percent stand together, we can transform society.

· These are my values, and [this] is why I call myself a democratic socialist.

· At its core is a deep and abiding faith in the American people to peacefully and democratically enact the transformative change that will create...

                             SHARED PROSPERITY

                             SOCIAL EQUALITY

                             TRUE FREEDOM FOR ALL

Seeing Politics in Three Dimensions

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Seeing our polarizing politics from the oversimplified linear perspective has bothered me for many years. The complexities of my political observations never seemed to fit neatly into this left/right dyad.

I set about creating a conceptual framework to describe our politics, one that was was more dynamic. It is a scheme that better fits my real-world observations and, sadly, alerted me to the political dangers Donald Trump represented before many others saw it coming.

I was aided in this quest by something I read. I can't remember where, but the thrust of it was that the opposite of liberal is not conservative, but tyranny. The result is this three-dimensional conception of our politics.

The subsequent exploration of the philosophic origins of the term "liberalism" supplied the insight I needed to identify a separate political dynamic at play in our politics. It was something apart from the left vs. right model we have all come to accept.

In a Huffington Post article in December of 2017, titled "Conservative Is Not Opposite Liberal: That’s Totalitarianism", this same idea was expressed. In that article the author said:

Liberalism is an independent political philosophy, with no inherent connection to either the Left or the Right.

By that point, I knew this to be accurate. The roots of liberalism are independent of the spectrum of social policies along the left/right or progressive/conservative continuum. The liberalism vs. tyranny continuum describes encompasses the wide spectrum of approaches to governing itself.

Using this new axis I created a two-dimensional graph to chart political dynamics. But then being dissatisfied that this two-axis graph didn't incorporate religious dynamics, so much a part of the American polity, that I added a religious axis to the graph to create a three dimensional model of American politics.

What this graphic display allows us to visualize is a three-dimensional space in which we live our political lives. A much-needed definition of liberalism and a few examples will help to explain how this three-dimensional graph works.

Liberalism is a term most people aren’t familiar with because of our colloquial usage of “liberal” to mean “progressive.” I don’t usually use Wikipedia for these discussions, but I like how it frames the terms associated with liberalism:

“Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free market, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.”

So, the opposite along the Liberal Spectrum are those political figures who would oppose these freedoms and the rights of individuals. Leaders who oppose all these things are classified as tyrants and authoritarians. At the time that I wrote about this, I had to use infamous figures in history to provide examples of authoritarian tyrants. Today, unfortunately, we only have to look to Donald Trump, Mitch McConnel and the ironically named Freedom Caucus in Congress.

The “consent of the governed” is another interesting term. On one hand, it implies that we allow politicians to represent our voting interests in Congress, but more importantly, it implies that we accept the majority opinion of those representing us. In other words, we accept majority rule as long as the majority opinions don’t infringe on our individual rights, personal freedoms and our equality under the law. This aspect of our republican form of government is most at risk in recent days.

So, with all of this in mind, we can place a point anywhere in this three-dimensional graph and pinpoint where a politician or a political system stands across all three dynamic spectrums. We can see for example that a politician can be a liberal-conservative and a moderate in his/her religious beliefs. Another can be a progressive authoritarian and very anti-religion, much as a former Soviet communist. Someone like Bernie Sanders might be both progressive liberals with moderate religious beliefs who is very unlikely, because of his liberalism, to support a fair and competitive version of capitalism that works for everyone. You can identify Donald Trump as a moderate to strong conservative (wildly fluctuating) who is radically authoritarian and probably much closer to an atheist than to a fundamentalist.

More importantly, we have to protect our liberal form of government from candidates who threaten it in the future. We have to judge future political candidates along all three political continua to determine their fitness for office. For example, where a conservative Republican candidate falls on the progressive/conservative spectrum must be judged along with where they fall along the liberal/authoritarian spectrum and the religious intensity spectrum as well. And yes, there is such a thing as liberal conservatives, but in our one-dimensional model we label them "moderate Republicans" don't fully see the danger signs when they are banished from the Republican Party. Likewise, liberal progressives should avoid supporting candidates who hold their social policy beliefs but stray too far from liberal views on governing. What democratic societies must avoid are political candidates on the right or left politically who can't abide by liberal democratic principles of governance. We shouldn't elect tyrants just because the can best enact our progressive or conservative policies. And we shouldn't elect religious zealots to enforce morality codes at the expense of our liberal form of government either.

So, once we succeed in reaffirming our democratic republic, we must adopt a more sophisticated system to identify and judge the worthiness of political candidates and elected leaders. We must never again be beguiled by the simplicity of a single dyadic continuum to judge our politicians or our own political tendencies.

Why Democrats (and Everyone) Should Care About People Who Don't Vote

by Brian T. Lynch

Both political parties in America, along with virtually all television pundits and political opinion polling companies focus entirely on 60% of likely voters. We all ignore 40% of potential voters who don't vote. Polling surveys commissioned by both the Democratic and Republican Parties are always predicated on some variation of likely voters. The results are then grise for the mill of television and newspaper commentators and political party prognosticators. And so it is settled wisdom that all of our elections boil down to 7% of likely voters who are also the swing voters among us. Rightly or not, these much fawned over swing voters are considered most independent voters with centrist political ideology. These swing voters have a disproportionate influence over electoral strategies and policy positioning. As a result, we never hear much about the 40% of all Americans who are disillusioned with politics.

The conventional wisdom is that these non-voters don't care about politics, but it is equally true that the body politic doesn't care about these non-voters. We have come to the point where non-voters are the largest block of eligible voters in America. But are they really unreachable? Or are they justifiably disengaged because they are neglected by both the Democratic and Republican Parties? What is the potential for re-engaging this huge block of the electorate, and which political party has the most to gain? Which of our current Presidential candidates have the best shot at reaching out to these non-voters? And who are they anyway?

Why Democrats should care more about non-voters than swing voters

·      Among likely voters, there are about 10 million swing voters or 7% of all likely voters according to Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight

·      There were 91.7 million non-voters in the 2016 presidential election or 40% of all eligible voters. Non-voters are the largest group of eligible voters

·      54% of non-voters (49.5 million votes) are Democrats or left-leaning non-voters

·      Another 10% of non-voters (14.7 million votes) have no political leaning

·      52% of all non-voters (47.7 million votes) want more government services, not less

·      The 64.2 million non-voting Democrats, left-leaning or neutral eligible voters represent over 6.4 times the number of swing voters in the 2016 election

·      This compares with 65.9 million Democratic votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election

Who are the eligible voters that are not engaged in voting?

·      66   million non-voters (72%) are under age 50. They are mostly younger voters

·      59.6 million non-voters (65%) are dissatisfied with the way things are in the country

·      54.1 million non-voters (59%) are White (non-Latino) citizens

·      19.3 million non-voters (21%) are Latino citizens

·      11   million non-voters (12%) are Black citizens

·      55  million non-voters (60%) either graduated or dropped out of high school

·      54.1 million non-voters (59%) are single

·      46.8 million non-voters (51%) experienced unemployment in their household in the prior 12 months

     39.4 million non-voters (43%) have household incomes of $30,000 or less per year

      By far, the largest number of eligible non-voters are people who once made up the base of the Democratic Party. They are citizens for whom the rightward and upward shift of both political parties over the year has left them without a voice in government. It is not only the right thing to do to reconnect with these less-fortunate Americans, but it is also in the best interest of the Democratic Party and the Nation. These disillusioned, often angry citizens are most vulnerable to the nationalistic authoritarian appeals to which they are being targeted every day. 

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Centrist Threat to Democracy and the Globe

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW 

An editorial (and request for reader support) in The Guardian caught my attention because it so well states what is at stake for the United States and the world in the 2020 election. Please allow me to share part of it here and follow-up with an editorial comment of my own.

In his editorial, Hamilton Nolan of the Guardian writes:

"Even in our pitifully broken semi-democracy, rich people shouldn’t be in charge. The math is against them. There are, by definition, comparatively few rich people, and many middle- and lower-class people. In a two-party system where one party represents the interests of the rich and the other party is meant to represent the interests of everyone else, logic says that the rich people party should lose most of the time, based on sheer numbers. The political power of plutocrats should be arbitraged out of existence as parties seek a larger base." So true! This expresses in other words what I have been trying to say."

Here is the article:

THEGUARDIAN.COM

Bernie Sanders' real obstacle is not Trump. It's the Democratic establishment | Hamilton Nolan

More from the above Editorial:

"For the past four years, it has been clear that Sanders and Trump each represent a direct response to the severe (and warranted) disillusionment of average Americans, who have seen the American dream of economic mobility die during their lifetimes.
Trump represents the dark path of racism, nationalism, and division; Bernie represents the other path, of socialism, multiculturalism, and solidarity... Any sane and moral political party should want to do everything possible to make Sanders’ vision become a reality. The alternative is not a fresh flowering of centrism. It is something much, much worse.
America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness. Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more. The stakes could hardly be higher."

Everyone, please hear me out!

We must reject the urge for safe, centrist candidates who believe they can still reach across the aisle for bipartisan support for their half measures and incremental steps. This didn't work in 2016 and it isn't going to work now. The number of disillusioned citizens far outnumber the entire Democratic Party, let alone the elites and centrists within it. A centrist candidate may feel safe, but we are beyond normal politics. We are in a war against a well funded, wells organized global authoritarian movement threatening democracies everywhere.

Donald Trump has had three more years to harvest disaffected "likely-voters" and 45% of all eligible voters who stopped voting for either party years ago. He is coaxing these folks to join his dark and vile plutocracy.

If the Democratic party doesn't boldly reconnect with poor people and the working poor (our traditional base), the opportunity to beat back the dark forces of fascist-style authoritarianism will be lost for a generation. The consequences will be atrocious, if not actually bloody. And a generation lost is enough time for the very worst effects of global warming to be baked into the future of the planet for a millennium.

Bernie/Biden Clash On Social Security Masks Real Differences

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

In an opinion piece by Paul Krugman, published by the New York Times on January 21, 2020, Krugman writes, “The Sanders campaign has flat-out lied about things Biden said in 2018 about Social Security… The last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and can’t admit ever being wrong.”

That is pretty damning. What did Sanders or his team actually do?

Krugman writes that the Sanders campaign promoted a doctored video clip that distorted Biden’s record on Social Security. He repeated a quote from another N.Y Times article from January 18th (and updated Jan. 21st) by Katie Glueck’s that said:

“There is a little doctored video going around,” Mr. Biden said, adding that it was “put out by one of Bernie’s people.”

But Glueck also wrote:

“Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Saturday accused Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign of distorting his record on Social Security, claiming without evidence that Mr. Sanders’ team was promoting a “doctored” video…” [emphasis mine].

In fact, the video clip linked to Krugman’s article is an unedited segment of an interview from January 7th between Senator Sanders and Anderson Cooper. While listing differences between Biden and himself, Sanders said:

“You know, Biden has been on the floor of the Senate talking about the need to cut Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid.”

That’s it! Sanders didn’t say exactly what Biden said or when he said it. Krugman’s comments about a doctored video, therefore, appear to convict him of the same false accusation that he accuses Senator Sanders of committing.

But in fairness to the truth, the released Sanders’ campaign materials Krugman refers to did make some misleading claims. As pointed out in the PolitiFact article linked to the Krugman article, item #1 on the Sanders campaign document said:

“BIDEN’S BRAGGED OF TRYING TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE”

So, from where did this accusation come? It came from the Congressional Record of the U.S. Senate, as did another article on the subject in the Intercept written by Ryan Grim on January 13, 2020. The lead sentence of Grim’s article reads:

“AS EARLY AS 1984 and as recently as 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden called for cuts to Social Security in the name of saving the program and balancing the federal budget.”

Grim then cites this excerpt is from the Senate Congressional Record just fifteen-years ago:

“When I argued that we should freeze Federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the Government.”

In this case, it is Ryan Grim who distorted Biden’s record by taking it out of context. Biden was arguing that the budget sequestration under discussion should include all areas of the federal budget and not exclude the very popular and vital entitlement programs. In this same Congressional Record transcript, then-Senator Biden went on to say Social Security, “…is arguably the most important and most depended-upon program in the Federal Government.”

Joe Biden suggested taking Social Security off of the Federal Budget. He wanted to protect the billions of dollars in surpluses it generated each year back then, surpluses that Congress spent every year to cover deficits in other areas of the budget.

What this manufactured controversy misses, however, it the very significant point that the thrust of this and so many of Biden’s speeches always center on the middle-class. Biden has rarely ever focused on 45% of all Americans who live below middle-class economic standards. 

This is the real distinction.  Joe Biden is interested in maintaining stability in America by growing and sustaining the middle-class. Bernie Sanders, for his entire career, wants to bring hope and relieve the structural economic burdens of every American family living in or below the middle-class. It is this focus and message that is beginning to resonate in places around America where Biden's message just doesn't carry. It is this focus on economic inclusion for all segments of society that scares the heck out of the wealthy elites.

Here is one example of Biden's middle-class messaging. In his 2018 speech at the Brookings Institute, also cited in the same PolitiFact article to which Krugman linked his opinion, Biden said, “Folks, we’re here today for a simple reason: to talk about the middle class.” 

 He later goes on to describe the plight of a factory worker to make his point:

“Folks in the middle class are in trouble. It’s not just their perception. They are in trouble. Now it’s all about taking care of the folks at the top… take that guy working on the assembly line making 51 grand. We don’t talk about him anymore, by the way, if you notice politically. Not you, we in politics don’t. And his wife is a hostess at a nice restaurant, she’s making 28 [grand]. So they’re making almost 80 grand and they’ve got 2 or 3 kids, and they can’t make it if they live in Washington or New York or San Francisco.”

No one can seriously argue that the middle-class is in trouble in "high living" places like San Francisco and New York City, but how does this limited message resonate with half of all Americans in far-flung places who make way less than $80,000 per year. Wouldn't they love to have the financial problems of these middle-class families? What they get instead is a conspiracy of silence from politicians in both parties who are beholden to the donor class. These are many of the same families that responded to Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign. He spoke directly to them and they love him for that.

The real question before us now is which Democratic candidate for President has the message and credibility to take back that momentum?  Who has the spark to inspire the working poor to turn out and vote for the Democrat? It isn't the loyal base who needs to be motivated. They will "vote blue no matter who"(if we can believe that). It is the great mass of inactive voters we have been ignored for decades who will sweep Donald Trump and his Republican sycophants out of office if we offer them real change. 

------------------------------------

This reads as a companion article to one I wrote on the differences between Senator Elizabeth Warren, who I admire, and Senator Bernie Sanders, who I support at this time. In the Studebaker article I linked to that post the differences between Biden, Warren, and Sanders are discussed. That post and two important articles can be accessed here: 

https://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2019/08/differences-between-warren-and-sanders.html

Wealth Inequality has Always Been Un-American

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

In an Intelligencer article entitled, “AOC Thinks Concentrated Wealth Is Incompatible with Democracy. So Did Our Founders,” Eric Levitz writes, “ [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez’s second argument against the existence of billionaires — that concentrated wealth is incompatible with genuine democracy — was something close to conventional wisdom among the founders. Levitz goes on to write:

“The notion that political freedom has a material basis did not originate with Karl Marx and the creed of Communism; it was a core idea of the 17th-century British political theorist James Harrington, and his formulation of classical republicanism. A man who does not own the means of his own reproduction can never exercise political freedom, Harrington argued, because “the man that cannot live upon his own must be servant.” Likewise, the man of immense wealth — whose fortune consigns great masses of men to servitude — is inevitably a kind of tyrant. After all, 'where there is inequality of estates, there must be inequality of power, and where there is inequality of power, there can be no commonwealth.'”

Having seen the ravages of extreme property-based wealth inequality in England, Thomas Jefferson was concerned that measures needed to be taken to prevent such inequality in America. Among his ideas, he wrote:

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

The vast concentrations of private wealth we see today is incomparable with a democratic society - and our founding fathers knew it. Regardless of if they were for or against democracy as a form of government, there was agreement that this nation needed to guard against the extreme accumulation of property in the hands of a few.

While Jefferson and the founding fathers understood this, they nevertheless adopted a Constitution which only permitted a flat tax (Art. 1, Sec. 9, 4th paragraph). It wasn't until the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted in 1913 that the idea of a progressive income tax became possible.

The progressive income tax of 1913, as it was originally designed, did exactly what Thomas Jefferson had suggested. It was not intended that wage earners would be taxed at all. The bottom tax bracket began with incomes over $100,000 in today’s inflation-adjusted dollars and many higher marginal tax brackets climbed upwards from there. The one reason most wage earners ended up paying income taxes is that the 1913 law was not indexed to inflation. Just like the alternative minimum tax today, the progressive income tax crept down the income scale over time as wages were adjusted upward for inflation and productivity growth.

Up until World War II the top marginal income tax rate was over 90%. It was set that high to help prevent the unchecked accumulation of private wealth for the sake of maintaining a functioning democracy. President John Kennedy scaled back the top tax bracket to 70%, but it was Ronald Reagan who destroyed the whole purpose of the progressive taxes by cutting the top rate to less than it is now. At the same time, he adjusted the bottom rate to increase income taxes paid by lowest-paid workers. These changes, along with a law to tax capital gains at 1/2 the rate of wage income, set-in-motion one of the main conditions that would result in the creation of today’s billionaire class.

The other changes that allowed for the current unchecked accumulation of vast amounts of private wealth were the rise in the mid-1970s of organized capital in the form of political associations and PACS, (Political Action Committees) bent on killing unions and electing pro-business politicians. To this end the practice of sharing growth in the hourly gross domestic product (GDP) with workers in the form of productivity wages ended. Since then the US economy has nearly tripled but nearly all of that new wealth has gone to the wealthiest owners of capital. Wage growth, adjusted for inflation, has been nearly flat since 1975.

The irony here is that if productivity wages had been allowed to keep pace with America’s growing wealth (hourly GDP), the average family of four today would be making over $100,000 per year, the point beyond which they might have had to start paying income taxes if the original 1913 progressive tax law had been indexed to inflation.

The Rise of a Disloyal Opposition

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

It isn’t too radical to say that the Republican Party establishment is no longer compatible with the democratic ideals on which our republic was founded. If that shocks you or disturbs you, you are in good company. This isn’t how most of us picture things. For well over a hundred years politicians in both parties have been unquestioningly loyal to democratic principles, to this republic, the Constitution, and the rule of law. This truth is the source of the phrase “the loyal opposition.” Members of the "other side" were always opponents, not enemies.

But politics isn’t static, of course. It evolves, and our understanding of how governments and society have changed must change as well. This is difficult because most changes unfold very slowly. We keep up by taking the occasional mental snap-shots of the surroundings, but the tendency to hold on to these images is strong as we struggle to manage our busy lives. We reconcile our views of events from day to day until one day some event or a crisis comes along that scrambles how we pictured things. We are living in one of those times.

Tracing the details of how our politics changed is too broad a topic. Seeing one essential feature, the decline of majority rule in government, is the point here. To help do that, the rise of the Christian-right in politics provides a helpful starting point. To be clear, these trends and changes impact every aspect of our politics, including the growing tensions now on display in the Democratic primary. But the impact is most obvious in the GOP as the majority of us struggle to understand the Republican response to the current impeachment inquiry.

The political rise of the Christian-right at the end of the Twentieth-century is not in dispute. Of the primary reasons for this shift, their views on legal abortion predominate. The standard means of resolving religious differences involves evangelizing until the majority viewpoint of citizens are swayed. In the 1980s the religious right came to realize that anti-abortion sentiment may never predominate in a modern, pluralistic democracy. That inability to convince the majority to willingly outlaw abortion is what brought the Christian-right into politics. They sought, and still seek to legislate what they cannot attain through indoctrination or persuasion.

But politics and power have a corrupting influence on religion. After gaining political influence and even after gaining positions as elected officials, the Christian-right was still unable to pass their unpopular legislation within a system based on majority rule. They would eventually compromise certain Christian and democratic values to join a coalition of other minority interests and fringe political groups under the umbrella of the GOP. Secular pluralism would come to be seen by fundamentalist Christians as American society’s moral decay, and government by majority rule would come to symbolize evil in the eyes of some fundamentalist Christians.

These same hard lessons about majority rule also frustrated the economic caste of America’s wealthiest elites. In the corporate world where decision making is proportional to one's ownership share (or wealth). One person-one vote was a significant barrier to enacting laws and policies that the industrial elite favored because they are so few in number.

But money is power. The Barrons of industry resorted to buying government influence in order to reshape state and federal rules so they could buy even more influence over time. They corrupted politicians with campaign cash and perks. This is particularly true in the Republican Party where the industrial elite focused most of their attention. Now the Republicans in Congress routinely pass and implement policies favorable to the rich regardless of how unpopular or harmful to the general population.

As stated above, this transition is a feature in both political parties, but it is especially evident in the GOP where frustration with majority rule has passed the tipping point.

Frustration with majority rule has become a unifying feature that transformed the GOP into an odd coalition of minority and fringe interest groups united by their desire to overcome the majority in order to achieve their unpopular agendas. The rise of Donald Trump and his corrupt, authoritarian style of leadership has accelerated this transition.

Just as the Christian-right has had to make some unchristian compromises, so have the industrial elites and every other minority or fringe interest group within the Republican coalition. In the process, the GOP has morphed into an anti-democratic movement that will do whatever it takes towards a totalitarian rule. This coalition of disgruntled minority interest groups will even propagate Russian disinformation talking points if it excites their base and wins over their support. 

The GOP is no longer faithful to democratic principles or even the rule of law. We have lost the consent of the minority to majority rule. Political opponents are cast as political enemies in an all-out battle for Unitarian control. The opposition is no longer loyal.

Understanding the truth is the first step in identifying ways to save our republican form of government.

----------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:

Coup d'état – The Revolution Has Been Televised for Years

On September 19th Donald Trump Declared Himself our Dictator

ALSO: Listen to this interview by Bill Moyer of psychiatrist and author Robert Jay Lifton. His new book is Losing Reality  https://billmoyers.com/story/losing-reality-can-we-get-the-truth-back/

Warren vs. Sanders is at the Core of Who Democrats Are

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

In an excellent article written by Benjamin Studebaker, he clarifies the significant distinctions between Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders. To do this, he also traces the ways that the Democratic Party has evolved over the past several decades. His description of that evolution is perfectly aligned with the recent findings of Thomas Picketty’s scientific study of voting data over the last fifty years. In essence, both Studebaker and Picketty find that the Democratic Party increasingly ignores the poor and working-class in service to the growing influence of the wealthy elite, who left-leaning on social issues but pro-corporate and conservative on fiscal issues.









                 Above: Graphic depictions from Studebaker's article. A similar graph shows Biden supporting both the professional class and the 1%. 

I will not attempt to summarize the Studebaker or Picketty articles further here. Instead, I have provided links to them below and encourage you to read them. I only offer here a few personal reaction from what they have to say.

For me, Studebaker’s article raised profound personal questions I hadn’t thought about, beginning with the question, whose interests do I want the Democratic Party to address? How inclusive am I really when it comes to getting the attention I want? When times are good, and I am comfortable with my prospects, it is easy to promote the welfare of those less fortunate. But when even those with considerably more resources than me are feeling squeezed by the economy, egalitarian notions start to fade.

All this raises the idea that if we don’t limit the attention directed at the poor and working-class, will we get less attention then we deserve? But then, isn’t this the very question that the wealthiest 1% of voters are asking? Is the self-interests of middle-class voters just as toxic to the poor and less fortunate?

These are questions everyone should be asking themselves. We should be searching our soul and asking who should the Democratic Party stand for if not for everyone? Listen carefully to what the Democratic Presidential candidates propose and who they are proposing it for. Are they speaking for everyone, or only for those in the professional class who are feeling the pinch?

For me, the answer always come back to my belief that we are all deserving. The Democratic Party, indeed the whole of all governments, should fairly represent everyone’s needs. No one should be excluded or ignored.

The Main Difference Between Warren and Sanders

by Benjamin Studebaker

https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2019/08/07/the-main-difference-between-warren-and-sanders/?fbclid=IwAR1wXTx3m7RXworl6dg7wjjSBu-g77ARFKwq5ElXTm3R5oh2pQhEGkVHc-Y

Data Analysis Shows a Dem Centrist Candidate Loses

https://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2019/06/americans-new-political-landscape-as.html

And this can be contrasted with an article posted here in February of 2016 about Bernie vs. Hillary in which the battle to define the heart of the Democratic Party was getting underway.

https://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2016/02/bernie-vs-hillary-clearest-distinction.html 

Image credit: https://dnyuz.com/2019/07/30/bernie-sanders-and-elizabeth-warren-take-on-all-comers/

Who Are We, America? And Who Will We Become After Trump?

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

For more than a generation the narratives, myths, legends and stories (culture) that bound us together as a nation were overpowered by media noise and corporate branding campaigns. Our culture became threadbare as many insurgent subgroups chipped away at our national mythology by inserting competing amendments and alterations to America's story in an effort to make us a more inclusive nation.

Millions of Americans became disoriented, disaffected and felt marginalized amid the morass of competing narratives, the vanishing clarity of who they are, and the unfulfilled promises of both political parties and corporate entities that are competing for power over our lives with increasingly loud and belligerent messaging.

Then along came Donald Trump with an entirely new American mythology, a new story about who we are. This has been a clarifying storyline that captures the imagination of those who no longer respond to America's traditional fictions. Donald Trump has created a new nation in the minds of millions who needed something and someone to believe in again. It is a story that defines America as an exceptional nation of exceptional people under siege by immigrants, racial groups, ethnic group, the gay community, and non-Christian religions.

Now we are at a crossroad in history. We can't go back to what wasn't working and can't abide by what Trump has created. We need a better, brighter, more radically different national narrative about who we are as a nation. We need a broadly shared vision of who we are that can make and keep better promises for us all.

A Practical Temporary Solution to Child Detention Camps

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Children are children no matter where they live. They are humanities precious future, and every country is ultimately obligated to secure the safety and welfare of every child under its jurisdiction regardless of citizenship status or how that child got there.

The Trump administration's unconstitutional policy of arresting and incarcerating asylum seekers coming into the United States from South and Central America has created a humanitarian crisis. This crisis is especially traumatic for children who become separated from their families because of their parents' criminal incarceration. Thousands of separated children are languishing in over-crowed holding areas under inhumane conditions. They are not receiving age-appropriate care or supervision while their incarcerated parents are being held in prison-like settings for months without judicial reviews of their asylum claims. These children need immediate relief, which the federal government is incapable of providing.

The obvious over-all solution is to follow the law and keep the families of asylum seekers intact at all times. We must stop arresting these parents for requesting asylum, which is an internationally protected human right. Until that happens, what can we do to end the immediate crisis for tender aged children whose parents are incarcerated, or in some cases already deported without their child? These children need immediate, but temporary home-based care. They need temporary caregivers who can hold them, comfort them and meet all their physical and emotional needs. They need frequent and ample visitation with their parents to maintain healthy emotional bonding. And they need to be permanently reunited with their parents as quickly as possible, even if their parents have already been deported without them. 

Just because an immigrant parent has been deported doesn't mean an unaccompanied child left here can't be returned to them or to another responsible relative in their country of origin.

I use to have to make these sorts of international arrangements in my career in a state child welfare agency. When a foreign-born child came into state custody, for whatever reasons, we would seek out parents or relatives here or in their home country. If the best or only option was a relative in a foreign country, we would work with the social service authorities in that country to arrange a safe return home.

These foreign countries in all had social service agencies who would work with us and conduct a home study of the parents or interested relatives, when located, to make sure we weren't returning the child to a dangerous situation, such as a child prostitute ring or whatever. Then we would arrange for the child to go back to live with the responsible relatives. Each case was reviewed by a judge before the child was returned to make sure we were doing our job.

If there were no safe or viable alternatives in here or in the country of origin, the child would remain here to be raised by foster parents, and hopefully, be adopted. All 50 states have similar policies, procedures and resources in place for this humane handling of unaccompanied minors, but the current federal authorities aren't utilizing (or supplementing) these well-established state resources to assist with the crisis at the border.

For just a fraction of the money, the federal government is currently spending to warehouse these children in horrendous conditions, the administration could distribute these children equitably across all 50 state child welfare agencies and provide sufficient funding per child to compensate the states for the additional staff and resources the states would need to build capacity to do the job they already do now so successfully.

Data Analysis Shows a Dem Centrist Candidate Loses

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Here’s a quick summary of how U.S. politics has evolved over the last 50 years, according to a massive analysis of exit polling data conducted by economist, Thomas Picketty.

The ultra-wealthy elites were always conservatives on the political right in the 20th Century. They were traditionally represented by the Republican Party. The lower economic classes were always progressives on the political left represented by the Democrats.

Massive income growth by the wealthiest citizens and changing patterns of wealth accumulation at the top of the scale created a new, high education/high wealth class of elites on the political left. Their power and special interests realigned the priorities of the Democratic Party and shifted focus away from those on the lower end of the economic scale. For over 20 years Democratic candidates for election barely ever mentioned America’s poor. This is especially true for America’s rural poor. With neither party representing the interests of the working class or the poor, these citizens became disaffected and radicalized against elites in both parties, and also against the federal government in general. This gave rise to the Tea Party movement. A vast swath of the Democratic base switched allegiance and became the radical Republican base we have today.

To attract and hold on to these radicalized low wealth/low education voters the industrialist elites have funded and vastly expanded the alt-right media machines to appeal to their radical base. They also pushed radical policies to appease and manipulate their new base. The Republican party today would not have enough members to be a national party if this shift had not taken place.

So, this is how United States politics stands nearly 20 years into the 21st Century. On the Right, we have a radicalized Republican Party comprised of the same ultra-wealthy industrialists at its core. But today they have created this subversive coalition of traditional conservatives and a pantheon of disaffected, low education/low wealth former Democrats. These voters at the lower half of the economic scale include a disparate collection of alt-media radicalized single-issue voters, fringe groups, hate groups, and the disaffected rural poor. All of these groups have otherwise unpopular goals, which the traditional party elites exploit by pushing a radical Republican agenda that is harmful to a majority of Americans, but not to their own bottom line.

On the left, we have a modulated Democratic Party unwilling to challenge the influence and power of the ultra-wealthy, left-leaning elites whose economic interests are best served by maintaining the status quo. The Party is no longer the champion of the poor and marginalized citizens that it once was. The party fauns over the “middle-class” (the upper 40% on the economic scale) in order to hang on to them while strategically ignoring the poor and working-class that once formed its base. Instead, it panders to its former base voters without actually pushing an agenda that would improve their lives.

It is for these reasons that Picketty draws the conclusion that a centrist Democratic candidate for President may be a losing strategy. A centrist who tries to thread the needle between ultra-wealthy elites on the left, and the poor and working classes at the base, will neither energize progressives at the bottom of the income scale nor win over the disaffected voters who have turned to the Republican Party to make themselves heard. It is against these new political realities that Democratic progressives must come to terms before it is too late.

Coup d'état – The Revolution Has Been Televised for Years

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

[AUTHORS NOTE: Since I first published this article in May of 2019, we had a Presidential election in which the losing President has yet to concede and a violent attempt to disrupt the election process to overthrow our democratic rule and reinstall Donald Trump into power. The long-planned coup is now in high gear and moving quickly, out in the open, to complete the violent coup attempt of January 6, 2020. Our republic is facing its greatest crisis since the Civil War. Now, this piece serves as a prologue to however this turns out. 11/23/2021]

The Party of Lincoln is gone. Forever gone. All that remains of it are a nostalgic band of loyal followers around the country who don’t accept its passing and don't see clearly what has taken its place.

Systematically, over time, and with stealth, the Republican Party officeholders have been replaced by a subversive cohort of politicians hostile to a pluralistic, democratic Republic in which they must share power with others who don’t look, think, or worship like them. Demographic changes over the years have expanded majority opinions to include more ethnic and racial minorities while shrinking the proportion of Eurocentric white voters. Additionally, income inequality has massively increased the power and influence of a tiny number of ultra-wealthy citizens who want a greater say in government. Consider that the top 0.1% own as much wealth as the bottom 90% of Americans yet represents just 238,000 voters compared to 214 million people of voting age in the bottom 90% group. These uber-wealthy citizens occupy a world of business in which they get one vote for each share of ownership, a style of corporate governance that they would happily apply to national governance. (see World Democracy and the Invisible Hand Opposing It)

Under these conditions, the industrialist elites have created a Republican Party that is a tightly wrapped coalition of wealthy special interest groups and a disparate collection of disaffected social interest groups with otherwise unpopular goals. Collectively, they are working towards a more autocratic system of government wherein their unpopular ideas can be imposed on the rest of us. (see The Rise of a Disloyal Opposition)

The bedrock of any democracy is the consent of minority interests to accept majority rule in exchange for personal liberty and protection under the law. It is this consent, to abide by the will of the people, that is breaking down in America.

The goal of these democracy thieves is to take down our Republic and replace it with what could be called a Neo-Republican authoritarian state, or permanent neo-republican control over the government. We have already seen how this works in several Republican-controlled states. An authoritarian, single-party federal government is the only way this coalition of the wealthy elite coupled up with disaffected white nationalists, Christian right fundamentalists, homophobes, and others can impose their will on Americans. Their long-range plans for this takeover have been fomenting for years in places such as the Federalist Society and other ultra-conservative think tanks. The broad outlines of their schemes can be seen in their recent attacks on popular democratic ideas.

When these Neo-Republicans recently controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the Executive Branch, they grossly abused their Congressional oversite authority to disrupt the regular order of government. They blocked or attempted to block all legislative initiatives, even ones they had proposed themselves. They blocked all judicial nominations, especially, and most dramatically, to the Supreme Court. They filibustered every Democratic initiative so that we no longer had majority rule in Congress. When their own will was challenged by filibusters after they regained the majority in the Senate, they ended the filibuster for judicial nominations so they could have their way in making key appointments. They shut down the federal government on several occasions mostly to alienate the affections of the people towards this republic. They loudly pointed to this as proof our system of democratic government wasn't working.  They harassed the popularly elected President, Barak Obama, with endless investigations and obstreperous oversite, which they ruthlessly oppose when oversight is appropriately directed at the most lawless Chief Executive in modern times. 

State governments controlled by the Neo-Republicans have found ways to suppress the vote and game the election systems to keep themselves in power. They have drawn up unconstitutional Congressional districts that create safely Republican Congressional Districts for years to come. They passed unconstitutional anti-abortion laws and odorous social conservative legislation to prove their intentions to serve the wishes of the evangelical right and nationalist fringe groups whom they court and pander to for support. In some states, they have subverted democratic rule altogether and appointed emergency managers to take control of distressed cities and towns, usurping duly elected local governments. And in every GOP-controlled state, they have given tax dollars and tax breaks to every corporate interest.

After the Executive Branch came under the control of the Republican Party, with an assist from Russia, the Neo-Republicans ended all Congressional over-site while President Donald Trump has been taking a wrecking ball to our Republic and democratic institutions we so admired. He began installing himself as the first Supreme Executive while breaking every norm of the high office he holds.

Now with Democrats in control of the House of Representatives [May 2019], regular oversite is being restored. But Donald Trump, backed up by Congressional Neo-Republicans, is resisting any oversite activity whatsoever. He is challenging the House’s authority to hold him accountable in any way. He has refused to allow any of his Senior Executive Staff to respond to requests or Congressional subpoenas in his impeachment inquiry. He has refused to turn over any documents or cooperate in any way with Congressional oversight. Then on September 19th, in a federal court filing, Donald Trump, in effect, declared that he is above the law and untouchable by anyone.  When you step back to look at the big picture it becomes clear that we are experiencing a slow-motion coup d'état.

This takeover of our democratic government has been going on for some time. Consider how the Republicans have been blocking all Democratic Party candidates for federal judgeships while packing the Judiciary with their ideological judges when Republicans are in control. Consider how brazenly Mitch McConnell stonewalled President Obama’s pick to replace Justice Scalia for over a year in order to fill the vacancy with a Republican ideologue. He brags about how many young, highly partisan federal judges he has installed in the federal courts.

We have three separate co-equal branches of government. To take control you must control all three branches. At this moment in history, only the House of Representatives is beyond their control.

But there is also the question of the fourth estate, the news media. You can’t get away with taking over control of a government without also taking control of the messaging and public perceptions. Here is where the Republican coup actually got started, after Nixon's impeachment. For a whole generation now, the Neo-Republicans have been building a massive network of alt-right media with a high online presence and lots of toxic, anti-government content.

This alt-right network, the Republican "echo chamber" as Hillary Clinton first perceived it, is now working in parallel with Russian cyber-disinformation activities to continually misinform and arouse the alt-right political base that Neo-Republicans have been carefully cultivating over the years.

So, put it all together and what immerges is a new Republican Party grasping to control all of the levers of power in order to have their way. This new governing party doesn't want majority rule when that includes the votes and opinion of people they don't like; People who don't share their distorted Christian values. Our most trusted democratic institutions, such as the FBI, NSA, and the Justice Department, are under siege. They are beginning to crack. The status of the Judicial branch, and especially the Supreme Court to save our democracy is about to be severely tested, and the prospects of salvation from the Court seem murky at best.

Here is how the revolution stands. We have embattled civil servants trying courageously and disparately to hold on to our great democratic institutions and the rule of law. We have one-half of the legislative branch clinging on to our democracy. They are just beginning to understand the fight they are in. They are trying to right the ship of state without the support they were expecting from the Neo-Republicans in Congress. We have the fourth estate locked in a massive counter-informational battle with alt-right media and foreign powers. 

Faced with multiple Constitutional challenges we pin our hopes on a deeply divided judicial system and Supreme Court, hoping that just one conservative Justice will rise above politics to save our Republic. But more importantly, we must rely on ourselves to see more clearly the threats we are under and rise up in mass to preserve majority rule. We must identify and defeat the enemies of democracy, both foreign and domestic.  As Benjamin Franklin once warned us, we have a republic, "... if we can keep it."


Further reading: Rise of a Disloyal Opposition.
https://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-rise-of-disloyal-opposition_29.html?m=1

------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT: The slow-motion coup d'état described above turned quick and hot on January 6, 2021, when Donald Trump sent both his well-organized hate-group supporters and disorganized rally supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol building to disrupt the certification of the votes that elected Joseph Biden President. Democracy is held by a thread but the war has shifted from an outright insurrection to a covert insurgency being fought under the radar at the local district level. B.T.L. 3/7/21