A few of you might know that I periodically publish conversations with those who have opposing viewpoints or perspectives from mine, (well except those of my wife). Recently, I have had deep conversations with two staunch Hillary supporters who happen to be caucus delegates going to the final step of voting for National DNC delegates. Those conversations followed two other conversations with an actual DNC Superdelegate and another with a senior campaign aide of another superdelegate. The last couple of days I have pondered deeply what I learned and finally I think I have got my arms around the entire nomination as what it really represents as in a metaphor of our nation argues over what is or will be the Democratic Party’s future social morality.
Before I continue I need to inform you that I am a Democratic Party (rank & file activist) local party official. I am one of those guys who is a precinct committee-person, a state party Central Committee-person and am on the State Executive Committee, (really those positions are not a big deal nor do possess any power, just merely many opportunities to be volunteered for campaign work and being solicited for donations). But they do afford me some opportunity to speak in the first person to some individuals who actually possess political power. Also, I am a Bernie Sanders supporter and a state and congressional district (CD) delegate to our upcoming conventions where I am assisting the local Sanders volunteer group to organize for something few have an idea what is going to happen at the next and final level. To my own ignorant futility trying to inform ordinary citizens or media types, until the conventions vote and select their national delegates everything else was and remains conjecture, as to how many delegates were won or lost in this presidential nominating process. But no more of this fascination with the personal horse race, in reality this contest is more about competing moralities, no different than when Lincoln debated and faced Douglas over “Popular Sovereignty” and the Slave Economy in 1858 and later in 1860.
When I talk about social morality in political terms it is how a nation of differing cultures comes to a consensus of what is socially right and wrong, who benefits or who is served and why. Therefore as our presidential contests have emerged from what was a total sell job of slogans to the present complex psychological warfare battles---until this year, when a principled political moralist, named Bernie Sanders gained real traction. In my conversations with fellow Democratic Party activists and professionals it has become clear what they are all very unhappy and fearful about towards Bernie’s campaign, (and his berning supporters), is that they know deep in their own hearts he is morally right. I hear that when before I am told in a “talk over” how and why they don’t like Bernie Sanders as a presidential candidate, how much they support his ideas and initiatives, (thanks Bill Clinton for that current ‘talk over’ example).
What are people actually saying when they say that but in reality they compromised their own
morality for the sake of the seemingly calculated and practical selection of a compromised candidate, who by their own words by quoting Hillary’s resume, “she has earned this it is her turn”---in other words---their belief in the meritocracy.
When I spoke about a Democratic morality, (I do so from this foundation) so well articulated by Franklin D Roosevelt the actual modern father of the Democratic Party. When you read his words you also hear Bernie Sanders echoing his same principles. FDR’s Commonwealth Speech, San Francisco, CA, September 23, 1932, outlined what became the Party’s underlying principles for the New Deal. May I suggest reading this speech again for first time or for the umpteeth time, you might be surprised how contemporary it is. It both dated in in 1932 references and prose, but it also is also timeless in how FDR framed society and government’s problems of financial capitalism and the morality of a new social contract in an industrial society between its citizens and their self-government.
Initially, FDR framed the situation where the American Experience was a continuing struggle where most of society’s social problems were caused by “brutal individuals and arrogant classes” who used government’s mechanisms for their advantage.
The issue of government has always been whether individual men and women will have to serve some system of government of economics, or whether a system of government and economics exists to serve individual men and women.
[...]
There came a growing feeling that government was conducted for the benefit of a few who thrived unduly at the expense of all. The people sought a balancing—a limiting force.
FDR even goes so far as to speak of government as a “privilege.”
Another factor that tended to limit the power of those who ruled, was the rise of the ethical conception that a ruler bore a responsibility for the welfare of his subjects.
[...]
The history of the last half century is accordingly in large measure a history of a group of financial Titans, whose methods were not scrutinized with too much care, and who were honored in proportion as they produced the results, irrespective of the means they used.
[...]
I wonder whether they realize the implications of the past. For while it has been American doctrine that the government must not go into business in competition with private enterprises, still it has been traditional particularly in Republican administrations for business urgently to ask the government to put at private disposal all kinds of government assistance. The same man who tells you that he does not want to see the government interfere in business—and he means it, and has plenty of good reasons for saying so—is the first to go to Washington and ask the government for a prohibitory tariff on his product. When things get just bad enough—as they did two years ago—he will go with equal speed to the United States government and ask for a loan;
How much has changed between 1930 and 1999, or 2008 or 2016?
FDR then pivots illuminating the plights and miseries caused by this rise of private “financial Titans” and now a mutant form of the Hamilton-Jeffersonian centralized government emerged and challenged the concept of individual rights. He spoke directly to the threat of the “economic oligarchy” leading to “a drab living for our people,” accurately describing that Americans can no longer continue to enjoy the liberty and blessings the old Declaration heralded. Contrary to continuing his former President Wilson’s idea of a better administrative state, FDR boldly declared:
“The day of enlightened administration has come.” Reliance on “enlightened administration” or bureaucracy, not enhanced private productivity, will redistribute our stagnant resources.
[...]
The terms of that contract are as old as the Republic, and as new as the new economic order.
Every man has a right to life; and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living. He may by sloth or crime decline to exercise that right; but it may not be denied him.
FDR’s calling for a new social contract between government and individuals declared new rights and correspondingly new powers for government. The social contract required government to protect the individual against the “princes of property.” Each right corresponded s with new policies that would be backed by a federal government program.
First: “Every man has a right to life; and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living.” Second: “Every man has a right to his own property; which means a right to be assured, to the fullest extent attainable, in the safety of his savings.”
FDR’s new contract, offered an aggressive, expanding central government necessary to balance the growth of corporations as being essential to preserve these new rights. It replaced the old social contract the founding fathers that emphasized limited the powers of the government by the principle of consent and the common good. This vision and new principles redefined the Democratic Party where four successive elections institutionalized this social contract.
Now eighty years later and a generation of neo-oligarchy forces have successfully tore at FDR’s contract where we are again, at a similar juncture as 1932.
What is this juncture politically is actually a a moral decision. Returning to my conversations and observations of both the Bernie Sanders’ constituencies and the Hillary Clinton’s constituency’s. Yes, there is a slight here since in reality be it the voting groups or in composition of CO’s delegate delegations Sanders’ constituency is much broader in age, profession, gender and ethnicity while Clinton’s constituency is quite defined by age, economic class, gender and ethnicity. That reflects on their respect political moralities. One is far more socialist in its demands and viewpoints and the other far more status quo or reflecting the continued meritocracy.
Sitting down with my two Hillary volunteer leaders, both whom are delegates and fellow Democratic Party activists the initial purpose was to try to find “bridges” that could heal our local fracturing party. Locally one of the aftermaths of 2008 was there were resentments and scars that caused later problems. But in both cases the conversations quickly went from nice idea to both of them talking over me expressing all the angst and vision that Sanders’ campaign and my fellow supporters were not truly Democratic or real Democrats---even Sanders himself. That his campaign could not win and was destructive to the party. I listened and tried to express the what I perceive what are the sentiments of Sanders’ base of support, especially the Millennials. They would hear none of it.
(Here is a point Hillary supporters, you decry all sorts of slights and disrespects, but it is my observation from meetings, caucuses, conventions and personal meetings, you accuse what you are doing. It is simply emotional projection, it is you who are disrespectful and if your side prevails, good luck trying to bring over and uniting the newbies.)
Neither of them would hear of it and marginalized and discounted every point---even acknowledging that their adult children held similar perspectives and viewpoints. They both said these viewpoints were unrealistic and because young people made poor choices in their education or careers or should have sacrificed more so they are less straddled in collegiate loans or personal stuff. It is the age old perspective that our younger lives were tougher and harder, blah blah blah. In both cases after listening and listening, when I then heard the ultimate catch phrase:
“I like everything Bernie says, but...”
You know I could be rich if I had copyrighted that phrase as how often I hear it repeated…
My reply: Bernie’s principled political morality actually goes back to FDR wonder if you would vote for Roosevelt today? With both persons I knew their age and knew they were receiving Social Security, (yet both still worked professionally), as they were receiving Medicare plus also worked for government institutions which were a consequence of FDR’s vision of a expanding government social role. This brought out what I consider their ultimate reasoning, paraphrasing them out of personal respect: “It is her [our] turn, she’s earned this.”
Usually this unspoken in public settings, though I have seen this stated on FB posts and have heard it gatherings when I was deciding between who if any I was going to support last autumn when I sought out Hillary and Sanders meetings. What I perceived was that Hillary’s core message is “I [She] is the best qualified now to do the administration job as President, (a Howard Taft/Herbert Hoover/Dwight Eisenhower/George HW Bush type Presidency) or in real political terms, the meritocracy in action. (But there is no meritocracy in a democracy, yes maybe a republic.)
)
Meritocracy (merit, from Latin mereō "I earn" and -cracy, from Ancient Greek κράτος kratos "strength, power") is a political philosophy holding that power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively based on ability and talent. Advancement in such a system is based on performance measured through examination and/or demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented.
Each of those aforementioned Presidents were status quo, administrator type of presidents regardless of their party labels---leaders who embodied the political ideology of a dominate meritocracy controlled by the elite. Change presidents were Theodore Roosevelt/Woodrow Wilson/Franklin Roosevelt/ John F Kennedy/Ronald Reagan/Barack Obama presidencies and despite lessor resumes’ against their meritorious opponents prevailed in getting both the nomination and presidency.
In 1912, history’s forgotten Democratic front-runner was the embodiment of the Democratic meritocracy, Champ Clark of Missouri, he was the Speaker of the House, he lost to a visionary named Wilson. In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt bested the 1928 Democratic Party Presidential nominee, Al Smith. In 1960 John F Kennedy beat out then Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B Johnson. In 1980 Ronald Reagan beat out former CIA Director and party insider and pedigree George HW Bush. In 2008, well we know, junior Senator Barack Obama beat out Senator Hillary Clinton.
This historical pattern showed how democracy eventually bested the meritocracy as each of the winning candidates built a core campaign theme and subsequent presidency embodying a new vision---a new political morality. The flaw of the meritocracy is that simply stated, the merits that are earned are those merits valued by the elites of an establishment, not the general public. A democracy often rises up to seek change because the elites who have controlled society have grown out of touch or abusive to the common good---err as FDR would say; “rulers NOT bearing responsibility for the welfare of their subjects.”
So now I will double back to the basic premise of a new political morality. What happened in 2008 has not been reconciled. 2008’s Meltdown, (market collapse, panic, depression or recession whatever metaphor) changed lives forever, including mine and my families. I was not a bad actor, merely a casualty when the nation lost 8-10MM jobs and never really recovered. This new math was so stark but unlike in 1929 when speculators and financiers jumped out of windows or shot themselves, instead of facing ruin, while speculators in 2008 survived and eventually thrived. George Friedman, a right wing elitist, international forecaster and a founder of STRATFOR, (a privatized Security Apparatus entity) but also provocative author and economist, best described 2008’s political moral dilemma in an email essay back back in 2009:
Financial panics are an integral part of capitalism. So are economic recessions. The system generates them and it becomes stronger because of them. Like forest fires, they are painful when they occur, yet without them, the forest could not survive. They impose discipline, punishing the reckless, rewarding the cautious. They do so imperfectly, of course, as at times the reckless are rewarded and the cautious penalized. Political crises - as opposed to normal financial panics - emerge when the reckless appear to be the beneficiaries of the crisis they have caused, while the rest of society bears the burdens of their recklessness. At that point, the crisis ceases to be financial or economic. It becomes political. [my emphasis]
The financial and economic systems are subsystems of the broader political system. More precisely, think of nations as consisting of three basic systems: political, economic and military. Each of these systems has elites that manage it. The three systems are constantly interacting - and in a healthy polity, balancing each other, compensating for failures in one as well as taking advantage of success. Every nation has a different configuration within and between these systems. The relative weight of each system differs, as does the importance of its elites. But each nation contains these systems, and no system exists without the other two.
Limited Liability Investing
Consider the capitalist economic system. The concept of the corporation provides its modern foundation. The corporation is built around the idea of limited liability for investors, the notion that if you buy part or all of a company, you yourself are not liable for its debts or the harm that it might do; your risk is limited to your investment. In other words, you may own all or part of a company, but you are not responsible for what it does beyond your investment. Whereas supply and demand exist in all times and places, the notion of limited liability investing is unique to modern capitalism and reshapes the dynamic of supply and demand.
It is also a political invention and not an economic one. The decision to create corporations that limit liability flows from political decisions implemented through the legal subsystem of politics. The corporation dominates even in China; though the rules of liability and the definition of control vary, the principle that the state and politics define the structure of corporate risk remains constant.
[...]
The precise distribution of risk within an economic system is a political matter expressed through the law; it differs from nation to nation and over time. But contrary to the idea that there is a tension between the political and economic systems, the modern economic system is unthinkable except for the eccentric but indispensable political-legal contrivance of the limited liability corporation. In the precise and complex allocation of risk and immunity, we find the origins of the modern market. Among other reasons, this is why classical economists never spoke of "economics" but always of "political economy."
The state both invents the principle of the corporation and defines the conditions in which the corporation is able to arise. The state defines the structure of risk and liabilities and assures that the laws are enforced. Emerging out of this complexity - and justifying it - is a moral regime. Protection from liability comes with a burden: Poor decisions will be penalized by losses, while wise decisions are rewarded by greater wealth. Because of this, society as a whole will benefit.
This is why the Republican Party and its religious-like bullcrap about some pure marketplace is so full of itself. Macro-economics is not God’s or Earth’s or the Universe’s nature, this is human nature which is inherently flawed and short sided, because it never is about nature, but about the artificial assigning of risk through the political system. It is also why whenever some cries out that they wish our medical system was more market driven I respond by asking what inherent risk does the doctor (practitioner) possess in the transaction of treating you? They get paid regardless and the patient takes on the entire risk, both their body and their pocket book! I like commissioned lawyer’s risk-reward better, they win, they get paid, they lose they get nothing---same as the plaintiff, that is equalized risk. Back to Friedman’s essay.
[...]
The greatest systemic risk, therefore, is not an economic concept but a political one. Systemic risk emerges when it appears that the political and legal protections given to economic actors, and particularly to members of the economic elite, have been used to subvert the intent of the system. In other words, the crisis occurs when it appears that the economic elite used the law's allocation of risk to enrich themselves in ways that undermined the wealth of the nation. Put another way, the crisis occurs when it appears that the financial elite used the politico-legal structure to enrich themselves through systematically imprudent behavior while those engaged in prudent behavior were harmed, with the political elite apparently taking no action to protect the victims.
[...]
Financial panics that appear natural and harm the financial elite do not necessarily create political crises. Financial panics that appear to be the result of deliberate manipulation of the allocation of risk under the law, and from which the financial elite as a whole appears to have profited even while shareholders and the public were harmed, inevitably create political crises. In the case of 2008 and the events that followed, we have a paradox. The 2008 crisis was not unprecedented, nor was the federal bailout.
[...]
This is a political crisis then, not an economic one. The political elite is responsible for the corporate elite in a unique fashion: The corporation was a political invention, so by definition, its behavior depends on the political system. But in a deeper sense, the crisis is one of both political and corporate elites, and the perception that by omission or commission they acted together - knowingly engineering the outcome. This is not something that is confined to the United States by any means, although part of this analysis is designed to explain why the Obama administration must go after Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and others. The symbol of Goldman Sachs profiting from actions that devastate national wealth, or of the management of Lehman wiping out shareholder value while they themselves did well, creates a crisis of confidence in the political and financial systems.
The Obama Administration failed to go after Goldman Sachs or other Wall Street Megabanks and now we are here in the 2016 Presidential election where a renegade candidate has made breaking them up his core moral-political issue while the status quo candidate is literally in bed protecting their existing political economy and its immoral regime. I think that is best illustrated this coming Friday before the New York primary when Bernie Sanders is travels to the Vatican to speak about morality in politics and environment policies, while Hillary’s official campaign event is a fundraiser in Hong Kong hosted by a Goldman Sachs partner in the home of a CitiGroup banker and attended by other international Bankers and trade professionals.
So there in lies the juncture for the hearts and minds of the Democratic Party.
Certainly I get it that following the 60s and 70s the nation reacted with a Conservative Revolution, though it was not really conservative, but a reactionary movement away from FDR’s social contract. The Democratic Party survived by being Republican lite, kind of like the the lite beers that proliferated in the calorie conscious marketplace. In both cases what appeared to be judicious or intuitive politics was actually a the same metaphor as if you drank lite beer and thought it was better. Today good beer is now made at microbrewery's proliferating with full caloric content in a marketplace where America’s millennials drink it as they also demand to return to a modernized FDR social contract.
This was born out with my conversations with actual Democratic Party superdelegates, or one in person, and one of their top staffers. We discussed how the process was turning out contrary to 2008 and how I expect the actual delegate apportionment go forward. What people and especially the MSM forget is that 2008 at this stage the nomination was still very much in doubt. Obama carried a 100+ delegate lead lead into this final third of the contests. Unlike the last twenty in 2008 then it didn’t include New York or California plus Clinton won just 9 of the last 20. What if Sanders wins 17 out of the remaining 20, (let alone the remaining 30)? He told me that would makes things very difficult and testy. That the superdelegates were not created or tasked to actually choosing the nominee in a tight race, even though that is what many think. We want the electorate to choose, brokered conventions don’t go well, just look back to 1968 and 1980. But what if neither has 2383 and both are essentially tied near 2024 apiece? He told me that publicly there will be all sorts of criteria used by super’s, raw vote or states or which blue states or this or that, but at the end of the day it will be who is the best candidate and momentum and money and the number of states won will be as a big a criteria as any. He even said that raw votes are actually meaningless because caucus states by their nature have 75% less a turn out than primaries, by design. What will happen? He said if Sanders wins 17 of the last 20, meaning 25 of the last 30 it will make for a strong case.
Talking to the staffer and asked the same question and got a differing point of view but again not what MSM pundits propose. As much as Hillary lined up many superdelegates in the beginning if she doesn’t close out this nomination at the ballot box and Sanders wins like you say, 17 out of 20, or 25 out of the last 30, they will find a way to get off their Hillary Superdelegate Island. (This was the second time I heard that phrase or description of an island.) Sanders has something Hillary never created, a cause, a reason, a purpose or calling to the office that is believable. Her reason is her. A historical embodiment of being a woman, but that is not selling, except to us older gals. I am cheering her everyday because it is our turn, (wow their I hear it again), but this astute political operative goes on; being something is not what wins elections. John McCain was a war hero, Sarah Palin a woman, and Barack Obama was an African American. In the end none of that was determinate. Obama had a message, McCain had a resume, who won?
Trying to conclude this essay what I have come to realize, as a 59 year old liberal activist who happens to be a Democratic Party rank and filer, is that we are seeing democracy rise up despite the meritocracy imposed by the elite. I pulled a screenshot of the CitiGroup’s Plutonomy Memo’s ,
which discusses the threats to their continued status. They all point to a political backlash. This one discusses the failing idea of the “American Dream” as the psychological engine that allows them to continue to sell the idea that a few might actually join the plutonomy. That the possibility that the current plutonomy might die with the death of the illusion of the modern “American Dream”. What was clairvoyant was its final sentence where a political fight has not made the plutonomy the battleground issue.
The second one, discusses the concepts of one man one vote and the rising political tensions. Of course, these memo’s were divined in 2005 well before the 2008 meltdown or 2011’s Occupy Wall Street Movement or now Bernie’s improbable political campaign. In response we see Hillary’s campaign so cozy with Wall Street that is almost impossible to deny it so they now embrace it as a positive relationship saying that Obama successfully withstood their influence. Even Friedman, as I referenced above, does not buy that premise of independence of corrupted influence, but they like putting lipstick on a pig anyway.
So we are now at that juncture, whether Democratic voters will find their New Deal morality roots and vote for a new moral regime or continue with its meritocracy time will tell for 2016? For many it is hard to move off the falsehood promise of meritocracy as it aligns with middle class values of hard work, good deeds, responsibility and education advance. But like that pictured lone figure in the Norman Rockwell painting he has a voice, and a vote. I ask you all think about this strongly, do you really think Hillary and gang can
successfully negotiate and reign it what Taibbi describes as a vampire squid?
Finally thinking through all my conversations I concluded and I mentioned FDR’s moral contract each turned silent with demonstrative cognitive dissonance. Everyone one of them knew what was morally correc, but I could see they were locked into their islands. To a degree neither of the two Hillary delegates were well off, living an affluent lifestyle where they could afford less of a moral regime. (This goes to the bullcrap which I have heard that women Bernie supporters can afford to be supporters of him, afford what? They are broke and without a future. The reality is that Hillary supporter can financially afford the meritocracy.) They had sold out years ago and feel comfortable now as do many older Democratic Party activists. What they fail to realize is that they are now in the minority as Berniacs are poised to take over where they have developed a the pragmatic realization that there are only two major parties, (at least now, we shall see if the Republicans survive as a major party after this election cycle, I have my doubts) and this one they are taking over. Ultimately what I see regardless, is that the meritocracy Democrats really don’t have a heart and soul except configuring how to win centrist elections. That is not a cause célèbre and therefore I welcome to the new Democratic Party, a return to its FDR roots.