Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

I was forced to not only to join the AFL/CIO Restaurant and Bartender's Union, I was also forced to join the UAW, and the Teamsters.

I was totally fucked by the Teamsters (coincidentally enough, my dad "organized" for the Teamsters and the CWA), and became really pissed off with unions. I've now turned back to very sypathetic with the unions.

My grandfather was a member of the UMW and if it weren't for Jock Yablonski and the union when he died of black lung from the Bethlehem Mines, he'd have died in his own arms.

What you think and claim is 100% against my experience and I was there and you weren't.

You were never forced to join the AFL-CIO because nobody belongs to the AFL-CIO.


He would have died in his own arms? How does that work?


"My anecdotes are mightier than your puny facts!" Yeah, I hear that all the time.

Hillary Clinton’s Newfound Populism Will Be Tested Early and Often

From trade deals to living-wage campaigns to student-debt relief, whose side is candidate Clinton on?
The Editors
April 14, 2015 | This article appeared in the May 4, 2015 edition of The Nation.

Hillary Clinton meets with local residents at the Jones St. Java House on Tuesday, April 14 in LeClaire, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Hillary Clinton’s long-awaited announcement that she’s ready and running for president touched off saturation press coverage that other contenders can only envy. The former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state has been in the public eye for nearly a quarter of a century. She’s the prohibitive favorite to get the Democratic Party nomination this time, and the odds-on favorite to win the presidency.

Yet hurdles remain. Clinton’s challenge isn’t to capture the middle from the Republicans; the GOP’s rightward lurch has already virtually ceded that ground. Rather, it is to inspire the Obama coalition—made up of people of color, millennials, and women—to vote in large numbers, not only to guarantee her victory but also to help Democrats take back the Senate, gain seats in the House, and secure a clear mandate.

If the first video that her campaign released is any indication, Clinton at least understands the task ahead. The hard-working “white Americans” who formed the backbone of her 2008 bid were still there, but they were artfully blended into a rainbow coalition of optimistic faces: an African-American couple expecting a child, Latino brothers opening a restaurant, a young Asian-American woman looking for a job, and a gay couple engaged to be married.

Multiculturalism will certainly set Clinton apart from the eventual Republican nominee, but diversity alone won’t be enough. As she herself acknowledged, at a moment when “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” the central question is about the economy. What is needed to make it work for all Americans—to rebuild a broad middle class, increase wages, and reduce inequality?

Clinton’s newfound populism sounds sincere, but there is every reason to ask whether the candidate—whose campaign is expected to raise as much as $2.5 billion by relying heavily on wealthy donors—shares the vision of grassroots Democrats about how best to achieve these goals. A growing debate rages inside the party, symbolized by the split between the Wall Street and “Elizabeth Warren” wings, with the latter still campaigning to draft the Massachusetts senator into the race. Clinton will find herself forced to decide where she stands in relation to this divide.

In April, for example, a resolution to give the president fast-track trade authority will be introduced in the Senate. The measure is designed to ease passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership accord. President Obama, joined by the GOP leadership and much of the Fortune 500, is pushing for fast track and the treaty. The vast majority of House Democrats is opposed, as are progressive senators like Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Jeff Merkley. Potential rivals for the Democratic nomination—Senator Bernie Sanders, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee—are also opposed. Does Clinton stand for a continuation of the trade policies championed by her husband, which have racked up over $6 trillion in trade deficits since 2000 and ravaged domestic manufacturing jobs? Or does she oppose such agreements as one of the ways the rules are rigged against “everyday Americans”?

On April 15, tens of thousands of low-wage workers from across the country will walk out in some 200 cities, demanding a $15 minimum wage and the right to form a union. Clinton favors raising the minimum wage, but will she join the fight for $15 an hour? Will she speak forcefully about empowering workers to organize and bargain collectively, or will she try to duck the issue?

With boomers retiring without pensions or adequate savings, progressives have proposed expanding Social Security benefits, and also removing the current income cap (annual wages above $118,500 are not taxed by Social Security) as the first step in covering the costs. Obama, by contrast, has proposed cutting Social Security benefits as part of a “grand bargain” with the Republicans on deficit reduction, a position greatly appreciated on Wall Street. Clinton, like all Democratic candidates, will promise to protect Social Security, but will she support expanding it?

Student-debt strikers have launched a campaign to cancel federal student debt. Senator Warren has also laid out a clear plan for relief: allow any student with federal loans to refinance at government-subsidized rates, currently below 4 percent. Warren proposes enacting the “Buffett Rule,” which would impose a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate on people who earn over $1 million annually, to pay for it. Would Clinton support such measures?

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

On these and other matters, Clinton will be tested by progressives throughout the presidential campaign. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who pointedly declined to endorse her, has proposed collecting thousands of signatures for a Progressive Contract With America and hosting a bipartisan presidential debate on inequality. Likewise, the Campaign for America’s Future has formed an alliance with three major grassroots organizations—National People’s Action, USAction, and the Alliance for a Just Society—to drive a populist platform into the political debate. And Clinton may also face stiff challenges from her potential rivals. Webb has been a compelling critic of our trade policies; O’Malley has called for reviving the Glass-Steagall regulations repealed by Bill Clinton; Chafee has called Clinton “a little too close to Wall Street”; and Sanders has eloquently challenged the corruption of big-money politics.

By vowing to be the champion of “everyday Americans,” Hillary Clinton has shown that she can read the populist temper of the times. Now she’ll have to make good on that promise.



Read Next: If Elizabeth Warren were running for president, this would be her agenda
The Editors
April 14, 2015 | This article appeared in the May 4, 2015 edition of The Nation.

How Progressive Will Hillarynomics Be?

The center-left think tank "Center for American Progress" recently issued a report entitled the "Report of the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity." Overall, the report presents a multi-pronged approach to boost middle-class incomes, and calls for a more progressive public policy through promoting labor unions and fiscal stimulus...

The political center of gravity has recently shifted in the Democratic Party, and there are reasons to hope that Hillary Clinton will embrace a progressive, far-reaching agenda. The 2008 supbrime mortgage meltdown perpetuated by Wall Street and the subsequent recession have caused inequality to dominate the party's policy agenda in a way it did not before...

Even among the traditionally centrist wing of the Democratic Party, there has become widespread recognition that exorbitant income inequality must be addressed to prevent "insufficient aggregate demand" from restricting economic growth and prosperity...

Due to the efforts of progressives like Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Party has not only defended entitlement programs, but has called for expanding them. Hopefully this shift among the party's establishment will have a long-lasting impact that will encourage future party leaders to embrace a more ambitious role for government, the likes of which we haven't seen since the heyday of postwar liberalism...

Establishment Democrats will undoubtedly look to the Summers report as a blueprint for crafting their economic agenda in 2016. The policy regime put forth in Summers report is referred to as "inclusive capitalism." "Inclusive capitalism" seeks to fundamentally alter the rules of the marketplace by shifting America from its shareholder model of capitalism based on short-term profits to a more stakeholder model of capitalism that invests more in employees, the environment and communities. Inclusive capitalism posits that the middle-class does not want to punish the rich; just that middle class families want a chance to succeed and take in some of the new income generated by the economy. The market-oriented reforms and legislative endeavors of "inclusive capitalism" seek to counter inequality, wealth concentration, and promote opportunity and upward mobility. If these policies become central to the party's platform, it will be the Democratic Party's strongest commitment to boosting middle-class incomes since FDR's New Deal...

However, while Hillary Clinton won't turn into a social democrat, there is no need for there to be a lasting, intractable schism between progressives and establishment Democrats. If Hillary successfully crafts an economic message that exploits the recent convergence in thinking between the center and center-left, she can definitely construct an inequality agenda that satisfies both the establishment and progressive Democrats even if she doesn't give the latter everything they want. Progressives are already being heard by the establishment more they've been in a long time. If Hillary channels Elizabeth Warren, she'll solidify her support among the liberal base and increase voter turnout during the general election...

In order to effectively lead and represent her party, she will have to settle for the policy preferences of the median Democrat. With the Democratic Party becoming more populist in both the electorate and among elected officials, Hillary will be forced to embrace a progressive agenda in the 2016 campaign. Her personal views are irrelevant; regardless of whether Hillary is genuinely a progressive or a DLC Wall Street Dem, structural factors will prevent her from advocating for corporatist policies if she seeks to be the party's standard bearer. She cannot be a "Third-Way" Democrat in an operational sense. Again, she can only lead the Democratic Party in directions the party is willing to follow.

Of course, her policy preferences in the abstract won't reveal much about how she would govern in office, although it appears she would take a harder-edged approach to leadership and negotiation than President Obama. She may stand firm and pursue her agenda through creative uses of executive power. She may instead focus more on bipartisanship and trying to stake out compromises with the GOP wherever possible, although that is unlikely given party polarization and GOP intransigence. While the Democrats have a structural advantage in the 2016 Senate election and can retake that chamber, due to gerrymandering, the GOP may well hold the House until 2022. Even if the Dems retake the Senate, they may not have a filibuster-proof majority, denying Hillary an easy path for enacting her agenda. She may very well have to resort to executive actions.

Having said that, I am positive that due to the growth of progressives as a juggernaut force within the Democratic Party, Hillary's starting point on policy negotiates will be more far-reaching, transformative, and progressive than what we've seen in a while from mainstream Democratic Party leaders.

See full post here: http://policywonkroy.blogspot.com/2015/04/hillarynomics.html

I have come to realize that liberals cannot have all that they want in 2016. I think Clinton will be as close as we can get for this go round. We have to rally around a candidate who will be likely to nominate two or more Supremes. We have to deny the Republicans at all costs if we hope to revive democracy.

Amen!

Hillary's economic messaging is irrelevant if it is liberal, because there is zero chance Congress will sign off on it even in the unlikely event that she got elected and tried to follow through.

Allow me to take this rare chance to agree with you completely, Hawk.

Translated, you said: If Hillary is elected president, the Republicans in congress will do everything they can to destroy any chance she has of doing what she has promised...and which, if she is elected, a majority of the people want done.

The Republicans pissed on the Republic during the tenure of Barack Obama...being much, much more interested in making sure he was not successful...than actually helping to lead the country to a better place.

If Hillary Clinton is elected, they will do the same thing.

Sorta like a kid in a sandbox not getting his way...and throwing a tantrum.

When you are right, Hawk...you are right.

Wrong. What I said was until we the American people reach some conscious on what direction we want the country to go, what we want Washington to do, it will do nothing. Individuals with plans are irrelevant until/unless a sizable majority gives the mandate to Washington. There is no chance that we are anywhere near agreement on any economic scheme that the progressive wing of the D party would like.

You didn't say anything like that, Hawk.

And what you said...reduces to what I said.

Stop trying to change things just because you resent me agreeing with you.

Furthermore you should be in full agreement with the situation, if you want Washington to make major moves without the consent of the governed then you dont believe in democracy.

Stop bitching about the R's, if you want what you say you want then convince the American people.

I don't do "believing" at all, Hawk.

I thought I mentioned that.

But I do agree with you that if Hillary Clinton is elected president...the Republicans in congress will continue to be as obstructionist as possible.

Until/unless Hillary arrives in Washington with a mandate I would expect nothing less of these public servants. They have obligations to the country and I am always happy do see them being carried out.

Ahhh...so you think the Republicans should be as obstructionist as possible.

Glad I got that agreement with you out of the way.

Anyway...my expectations of you were that you would want the Republicans to obstruct as much as possible. Kick the sand right out of the sandbox!

They owe it to me and to all of America to make sure that the D's do not make major moves without the consent of the nation. Now, the not working with the D's on more mundane issues, on issues that America agrees about, that is a problem. But the thing is that the R's are no worse than the D's so far as unwillingness to work for America, so it is a wash. This is not a subject that the D's can score any points on with me at least.

D's: LOOK THERE AT THE DO NOTHING CONGRESS!

ME: Keep up the good work!

Not talking about scoring points...especially not about the Dems scoring points with you, Hawk...which I see as problematic at best.

The Republicans have been obstructionists for the entire of President Obama's tenure. They simply have obstructed him and his efforts...without offering realistic alternatives.

You are suggesting they continue to be obstructionists.

Fine...you have a right to want the Republicans to continue to be obstructionists.

I'm sure you would love to see them offer another 60 attempts to end Obama Care, for instance.

That is fine with me.

You expect them to do that.

I am just happy to be able to agree with you on something. And I agree with you that the Republicans will do more of the same. They will continue to kick sand out of the sandbox...until there is no more sand. And then I expect they will start kicking at the boards holding the box together...probably holding their breath until they turn purple.

Doing nothing until/unless the American people decide what we want is an alternative. Yes I know that the R's are all about their political games and not what is best for the country, that this motivates them not a conscious choice for Washington to do nothing, but I argue that they have accidently done the right thing. And I think a lot of people agree with me, which is why the D's never make any headway hammering the R's on this subject. The D's assume that America is waiting for Washington to do big things and they keep blaming the R's because Washington is not doing big things...What the D's dont understand is that a huge chunk of America does not trust the current systems and people in Washington to do anything big, we are fairly confident that they will **** it up and will do what the ruling class wants over what we want. In this environment a depowered Washington doing nothing is not a bad outcome.

Another thing that escapes the D's is that the mission of Congress is almost exclusively to make law, and we have an ever increasing numbers of ever more intrusive laws controlling our lives. Many of us are looking for less law not more. Congress writing few new laws feels better than one of the alternatives, so lets not be so fast to condemn Congress for doing nothing.

A third thing: given The Professors record of lack of candor, of being a self absorbed dick, and for miscalculation not instituting his agenda has a high probability of being the right call.

Do you remember back in 09/10 when all the media was ablaze with stories of how the R's were committing suicide by not working with The Professor? It did not work at that way at all, these days based upon his poor performance they are more likely than not to get credit for their amazing foresight.

I agree the Republicans will be just as grimly persistent in their objections against Hillary's programs, and simply because she is who she is; there is one proviso, there will be no racial overtones for her to put up with. One component of the Republicans' strategy against President Obama was trying to diminish him as a full-grown man, to one of a "boy", not fully mature enough to hold such a position.

Hillary is used to being attacked going all the way back to the White Water so-called scandal along with the accusation she killed an aide, Vince Foster. She can hold her own and the more she's savagely pilloried, the more it will appear all women are under assault.

One of Hillary's now obvious flaws might be her love of lots of money and the fact that she's reluctant to cut loose all foreign donators to the Clinton Foundation. Still it cannot be proven there was a quid pro quo....it merely looks shady, especially since she promised to abide by the Obama rules to not accept donations for the Clinton Foundation from foreigners as Secretary of State.

This blip in itself will not destroy her presidential run.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

There is no way that this is not a major problem for the D's. Who did the due diligence when she asked to be handed the nomination?

I think the Republicans will do everything in their power to sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidency.

I think she expects it...and will deal with it as best she can...which is what Barack Obama has done.

America and the rest of the world will have to live with the result.