Kansas Fourth District-Which Democrats Should Run?

Stepping Up for the Fourth

  With the news of Rep. Mike Pompeo’s nomination for CIA chief, Kansas’ Fourth congressional district will suddenly be vacant. Considering Pompeo will almost surely be confirmed, state laws call for a special election to be held, for which party conventions select candidates. Kansas’ last US House special election occurred in 1950, setting up 2017’s race as an exciting prospect for avid politicos.

Kansas' 4th District

On the Republican side, numerous figures have discussed running. Former Representative Todd Tiahrt, who represented the region from 1994 until an ill-fated senate bid in 2010, has already confirmed his potential interest. However, there are certainly questions about Tiahrt’s chances of making it through a contested convention. After all, his primary campaign against Mike Pompeo in 2014 ended badly, with Tiahrt losing to Pompeo by a whopping 26-point margin. During that cycle, Tiahrt ran a strange underdog campaign, positioning himself towards the center on some issues like campaign finance reform, taking Libertarian stances on others like NSA surveillance, and trying to outflank Pompeo to the right on Obamacare. This curious mix combined with relatively weak fundraising to hand him a decisive, crushing loss despite his high name recognition. With this loss in mind though, perhaps Tiahrt will face an uphill battle to win over the district’s Republicans, especially those loyal to Mike Pompeo’s faction.

            Another major Republican all but expected to run is State Treasurer Ron Estes, who has a website where voters can declare support for a campaign. The groundwork is there, and unlike many state-level Republicans, Estes has avoided controversy pertaining to the Brownback administration and its brutally failed economic experiment. In fact, he has at times challenged Brownback on ideas like pension cuts, which Estes opposed. Moreover, Estes served two terms as Sedgwick County treasurer, which may hold some sway in the Fourth, which is dominated politically by Sedgwick County. Estes’ relatively uncontroversial record makes him a GOP convention frontrunner. However, he lacks the conservative credentials some Republican contenders could bring to the table. In a convention setting dominated by party activists, this may end up counting for a lot.

            Numerous other names have been floated as potential GOP candidates. One big name is Alan Cobb, former Koch Industries lobbyist and Donald Trump’s national coalitions director. Experienced and with ties to the Koch empire, he would have no trouble raising money and would be popular at a convention. However, in a general election with a strong Democratic campaign, his lobbyist connections could prove to be a weak point. Additionally, some have positied that former congressman Tim Huelskamp might jump into the race, despite his loss to Roger Marshall in the 2016 primary election. With his combative nature, perceived carpetbagging, and extremism, Huelskamp would be wonderful for Democrats. Another name mentioned in the fray is county-commissioner elect Michael O’Donnell, easily one of the more controversial politicians Kansas has ever seen. In the swamp, O’Donnell would be the kingpin of the rats. From buying alcohol for minors to controversy over paying taxes to running a sleazy, inaccurate campaign against respected commissioner Tim Norton, O’Donnell is the epitome of everything wrong with politics as usual. Add to his record a high degree of support for Brownback's agenda, and Democrats would do well to field a strong candidate in this race.

            That brings me to the focal point of this article-which Democrats would be good candidates for the special election. Charismatic, policy-focused Wichita lawyer Dan Giroux, who ran a solid campaign but fell victim to the Hillary effect and an independent candidate, decided not to run in 2017, leaving Democrats scrambling to find a solid candidate for what is likely to be a low-turnout runoff election. A number of names have been mentioned as potential Democratic candidates, and most are seriously impressive. KMUW lists the potential contenders here. The names mentioned are: State House Minority Leader Jim Ward, State Rep. Henry Helgerson, former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, former State Treasurer Dennis McKinney, and businesswoman Laura Lombard, along with Robert Tillman. Only two candidates have declared, Lombard and Tillman. Some contenders are stronger than others, which is why it’s important to break down strengths and weaknesses.

State Rep. Jim Ward

            I’ll begin with State Rep. Jim Ward, who serves the 86^th district, composed mainly of South Anybody who knows me knows I am partial to Rep. Ward, as he really helped inspire me to get involved in politics. In 7^th grade, I spent a day shadowing him in the legislature and became fascinated with politics, at one point asking how I could get more involved. I can attest to Jim Ward’s character and devotion to Kansas. During his time in the legislature, he has been a vocal champion of good causes, proposing minimum wage hikes, Medicaid expansion, and a host of other progressive goals. His take-no-prisoners style means he tells it like it is and fights for what he knows is right. With experience as a state senator, city council member, attorney, and state representative, Jim Ward has crucial experience. Furthermore, he knows how to win, consistently defeating Republicans by large margins and even coming out of a contested primary with another incumbent unscathed. He would be a formidable candidate and has also demonstrated the ability to fundraise well. Only one potential issue exists. Just over a week ago, Ward was elected House Minority Leader, upsetting incumbent moderate Rep. Tom Burroughs.  Whether or not he wants to shift his focus to a federal level race so soon remains to be seen, but regardless of whether or not Jim Ward runs, it’s great to have him as part  of our Democratic team.

Former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer

            The second candidate mentioned who I think stands out is former Wichita mayor Carl Brewer. Wichita itself is a relatively conservative city, having voted for John McCain, Mitt Romney, and (probably) Donald Trump. In fact, the 2015 mayoral election to replace term-limited Carl Brewer was headlined by  two Republicans, Jeff Longwell and Sam Williams. Despite the city’s conservative tilt, Carl Brewer twice won with astounding margins, defeating incumbent Carlos Mayans 61%-37% in 2007 and overcoming challenger Darrell Leffew by a 69%-30% margin in 2011. Brewer’s popularity owes itself in part to his down to earth, kind nature. I've met him a few times and he is very likable. People know who Brewer is and they like him, which matters thanks to Wichita’s large proportion of the Fourth District’s population.  Name recognition is crucial in a race with such a short time-frame and generally low turnout. Moreover, his record speaks for itself and helps explain his popularity. This video highlights some of his achievements, which are quite impressive, including spurring downtown revitalization, bringing a new airport to town, growing Wichita’s global linkages, updating infrastructure, making Wichita safer, and fostering partnerships with aviation companies to create jobs and boost educational opportunity. With a successful track record to run on, Brewer has a great background to get votes in Wichita. If Brewer can maximize base turnout in Wichita and cut into Republican margins in suburbs, he has the opportunity to do well. One potential liability, which may matter a lot outside of Wichita, is Carl Brewer’s affiliation with “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”, a Bloomberg-backed group that fights for common-sense gun control. The NRA and other extremists will surely spin this into something it’s not and damage Brewer’s stock in the district. This may hurt especially in suburbs and outside of Wichita. However, considering his successes, his affiliation may not be the biggest roadblock. I hope he takes a serious look at running, but considering he has turned down runs for higher office in the past,  the odds are he won't jump into the special election race.

          The third major contender I’ll focus on is former state treasurer Dennis McKinney. As the only candidate in the mix from outside of Wichita, he brings a different perspective and background to the table. McKinney has private sector, municipal, legislative, and executive experience, as a farmer, having served as a Kiowa County Commissioner for 3 years, a state representative for 18 years (including 5 as minority leader), and state treasurer for 2 years, he knows what it means to be a true public servant. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about his tenure serving the 116^th district is just how conservative the area is. With the boundaries he most recently served in, only 20% of voters in the 116^th were registered Democrats, compared to 58% who were registered Republicans. McKinney ran populist campaigns and proved able to fundraise and get his message out. Retail politics was clearly a strong suit, as shown by his performance in his district. After surviving the Greensburg Tornado, McKinney was one of the strongest forces behind the town’s successful rebuilding efforts, cementing his reputation as a leader. While he hasn’t been in elected office since losing his treasurer re-election bid to Ron Estes 58%-41% in 2010, that race remains important to look at. In a GOP wave year, where Kansas lost its last Democratic congressman and took blows statewide, Dennis McKinney performed well in rural areas. During that race (owing in part to his tenure as a state rep), he won 82% in Kiowa County, 69% in Pratt County, 69% in Comanche County, and 64% in Barber County, along with good margins in other Southwest Kansas counties. In those same counties, respectively, this year Hillary Clinton garnered 11%, 20%, 12%, and 13%. McKinney’s strength in rural Kansas could be seen elsewhere. In Ellis County (Hays), he pulled 42% of the vote (Hillary: 23%). In Marion, he got 43% (Hillary: 22%). In deep red Wallace County, he got 36% (Hillary: 6%). Even in Sedgwick County, running against the popular county treasurer in a lower turnout midterm, McKinney won 35% of the vote (Hillary: 37%). Dennis McKinney can boost Democratic strength all across the Fourth District and make inroads into areas that have lacked outreach in recent years. This can not only help propel McKinney to victory, but also lay the groundwork for Democratic success and organization for years to come. When rural counties receive more attention and resources from Democrats, the ticket does better and more Kansans' interests are represented. I would be especially interested to see a McKinney-Huelskamp race, considering Huelskamp's alienation of farm interests and McKinney's farm background. Nonetheless, McKinney would be a stellar candidate to go toe to toe with any of the aforementioned Republicans.

Former State Treasurer
Dennis McKinney

            Some of the other candidates also have impressive qualities. Henry Helgerson returned to the state legislature to represent East-Central Wichita after a hiatus and has immense private sector experience after having served as a state representative for 17 years and a state senator for 2 years. I will be honest-I didn’t know much about Rep. Helgerson. He would probably be a good candidate too.

            Entrepreneur Laura Lombard is definitely the most qualified candidate on foreign policy issues out of this bunch. She is the President and Executive Director of the Middle East & North Africa Consultants Association, which works to promote global business linkages. This impressive position is accompanied by a wealth of knowledge about foreign policy, which is sorely needed in congress. Lombard already seems to be fundraising, albeit through gofundme, which seems interesting. She has raised $2,725 in 10 days without creating much fanfare or garnering a large degree of attention. If Lombard can build name recognition and prove to be a good fundraiser, her private sector and policy-related experience will be major assets.

            The other declared candidate is Robert Tillman, who was the Democrats’ 2012 candidate after being defeated in the 2010 primary and lost another primary in 2016. Tillman’s reasons for running in 2012 were highlighted by mundane statements such as “I am running for Congress because my wife wants me to get a job”, “I want to know if I am the ‘chosen one’”, and “I'm running to learn more about how the United States Government works”. He does not have a website (for his failed 2016 campaign) or any campaign apparatus aside from his bright yellow “Vote Tillman” t-shirt. Clearly, with the aforementioned Republican vulnerabilities, Democrats need to find a serious candidate to run against any Republican.

            I believe that the three strongest candidates for the Democrats in the Fourth District are Jim Ward, Carl Brewer, and Dennis McKinney. While some of the others are promising, these three have the best shot at pulling off a win. On a purely personal level, I like all three, but gravitate towards Dennis McKinney. I really admire and look up to Rep. Ward, but I want to see him give his full attention to fighting Right Wing extremists in the Kansas House. Carl Brewer would be a fantastic candidate, but I personally prefer the more populist Dennis McKinney. He has important experience winning outside Wichita and has proven that he can swing Republicans to vote Democratic. Democrats have an opportunity coming up. Here’s to a strong campaign and a Democratic win in the Fourth District!

Improving the Democratic Message

It's no secret-I'm a Sandernista turned Hillary fan and a lifelong Democrat. Hell, I was a sad six-year old when John Kerry barely lost to George W. Bush in 2004.  Politics is my life, and one of my specific focuses is how Democrats can rebuild our party's infrastructure, platform, and rhetoric to win elections. Over my time working in, researching, and pondering politics, I have developed a general, personal, subjective sense of the direction Democrats, and liberals as a whole, should take.

The failings of today's liberalism are evident. The GOP has eviscerated downballot Democrats across the country. The party that historically dominated all across the US now controls a strikingly low amount of state level seats. Make no mistake, gerrymandering, corporate money, and GOP strategy have all precipitated the struggles of downballot Democrats. However, I firmly believe that a series of rhetorical and ideological blunders have damaged the party. Something needs to change. Following is a set of suggestions I would love to see define a new Democratic message. My ideas are far from foolproof, objective, or even uncontroversial. They simply represent a change of course I would like to see Democrats embark upon.

Recognition of Regional Difference
Too often, liberals assume that certain policies objectively benefit all Americans. One such example if the idea of a $15 federal minimum wage. On principle, I would love to see everybody earning a living wage. However, endorsing these types of ideas on the federal level ignores local realities. Such a high wage would, for example, destroy small businesses and register a disproportionately negative impact on rural communities that are already struggling. The state of Oregon's minimum wage plan, which sets minimum wages based on location, takes into account these discrepancies in economic status and cost of living. Another example of problematic liberal zeal is how Democrats package EPA regulation. There's no question that environmental health and society's safety are priorities. However, too often some Democrats act like their regulations should be above reproach. It's really easy for Democrats in New York City to scorn farmers who complain about the EPA's excessive bureaucracy and regulation. The New York City economy doesn't rely on farming; many of these limousine liberals have never set foot in a farming community. A better strategy than arrogantly shouting over relevant concerns could include consulting farmers and leaving more space for downballot candidates. Many of us in rural states disagree with the party's emphasis on more farming rules 24/7. It's time that our party respects that and doesn't hold all of its candidates to policies drafted far away from many downballot races. Democrats must focus on policies that are well-researched and presented with a reasonable degree of local flexibility. This makes ideas easier to market and more effective when implemented.

50 States
This one doesn't take much explaining. Democrats need to invest resources, both tangible and intangible, into all states, no matter how conservative. 2006 and 2008 should have proved that upsets can come from the unlikeliest of places. Bolstering parties in every corner of the US will help us win back state houses, congressional seats, and more.

Bread, Butter, and the Blue Collar
Over the past 25 years or so, Democrats have capitulated to corporate interests. I've discussed this before. Bill Clinton attacked the poor with welfare 'reform', signed NAFTA, and deregulated banking. These are not the issues that Democrats are supposed to own. No matter what you think of Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic president, he pioneered the idea that Democrats should look to the common man. Our definition of the common American (thankfully) has become much more inclusive, but sadly Democrats are giving up their historical focus on working America. Too often, we write off working class voters entirely. In pursuit of the creative class, Wall Street donors, and the Tumblr crowd, Democrats forgot the working people that were such a great part of their New Deal coalition. Thomas Frank understands this-I highly recommend his book Listen, Liberal for an in depth focus on Democratic base betrayal. Bernie Sanders momentarily brought the focus back to working America. He talked about expanding unions, fair trade, and combating poverty. These are the issues that Democrats need to talk about. We need to take up figurative arms and fight for legislation that directly benefits the working class. From expanding the EITC to passing the Employee Free Choice Act, the left must once again speak to the issues of blue collar voters. Additionally, Democrats need to stop dismissing places like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana as "backwoods" and instead work on outreach efforts in struggling communities. To do this, they must acknowledge the economic and social breakdowns occurring in poor White towns. Between collapsing families, opiod addiction, the death of the coal industry, and lack of opportunity, rural blue collar populations face steep odds in life. Donald Trump has spoken to the insecurity of this group while Democrats have sat back and labelled the White working class as "deplorable". That's not how to win. We need to ditch the arrogance ASAP and start a substantive dialogue with blue collar communities.

Realism, not Utopia
One of the major problems I have with the American left is that too often, it deals in the rhetoric of utopia. Government will never create the perfect society. I, as many others, realize that government has a role to play in building a better society. However, realizing the limitations of policy is critical. At the end of the day, human nature prevents the formation of a utopia. While Democrats must emphasize the government's role in providing opportunity and building stronger communities, they must also be cautious to avoid utopian rhetoric which may repel some voters more concerned with realistic policymaking. Too often, bold promises are broken, which fuels the anger this cycle has levied at the political class. Leave the pipe-dreams to the Green Party.

Promoting the Family
The family is the central unit of society. It is the bedrock with allows people to seek self-actualization. Family provides security, spiritual nourishment, and socialization. Republicans constantly claim the mantle of being the 'pro-family' party. They lament the collapse of American families by citing issues like abortion and LGBT rights, but Democratic responses to these claims are few and far between. Democrats have an unused arsenal at their disposal. Take for example Paul Ryan's budget plan, dissected here by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Ryan's budget proposals systematically target families and receive widespread Republican support. They cut Pell Grants, Medicaid, SNAP, and more. Democrats need to make something clear. Undermining the social safety net is not pro-family. Millions of Americans work hard to put food on the table. Taking away the benefits that help sustain children, prevent bankruptcy, and provide opportunity destroys families. Economic stressors often cause issues like divorces, drug abuse, and household tension. The decay of American families can be traced directly back to the sorts of policies Republicans advocate. Instead of letting Republicans get away with calling themselves 'pro-family', Democrats need to attack the GOP's record on family policies while emphasizing their own strengths in this area. Democrats support paid leave policies, which allow parents to spend time with their newborns. This is no radical idea-most developed nations have already implemented some form of family leave.

Knowing Our Opponents
In politics, as with any competition, it's important to know one's opponent. Chasing one's own tail looking for solutions to problems doesn't accomplish anything. We Democrats seriously need to grasp this and work on researching Republicans. The GOP has strategically played us. They've mastered the art of rhetoric, blending corporatist policies with red meat social issues painted as black and white. Republican thinkers and leaders brought together business interests, economic libertarians, and social conservative populists to forge a winning coalition. GOP rhetoric on issues like immigration has especially maximized appeal to social conservatives and the Tea Party's disaffected voters. While Trump calls into question the long term validity of fusionism, Democrats need to understand the importance of coalition building through rhetoric. We must master the word game to define the terms of debate. Whoever controls the terms of debate can skew public opinion, build support, and maximize their own political potential. Doing any of this fundamentally depends on knowing the GOP. Liberals need to start reading The National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The American Conservative to get an idea of how various factions of conservatives think. Knowing how the GOP frames issues will help Democrats gain the upper hand in the long run. Moreover, Democrats should read books like Why the Right Went Wrong to understand the ebbs and flows of conservatism's various strains. Tailoring a winning strategy depends on extensive knowledge of the opponent.

Growing a Skin
The Tumblr left is a threat to Democrats everywhere. We have become too associated with the overzealous PC culture on display at colleges like Oberlin, where students threw a tantrum about food being "cultural appropriation". There are relevant concerns of prejudice on and off campus, but the more we excuse and embrace the extremist elements who want to coddle our youth, the bigger of a hole we dig for ourselves. I maintain that Trump's strength exists in part because of how out of control the Tumblr left's culture has gotten. Sure, exclusionary safe spaces, absurd use of trigger warnings, and actual prejudice coated in leftist self righteous (BDS) might seem okay if you live in a campus bubble. However, allowing this extremism to taint mainstream Democratic politics irreparably damages the party's image among moderates, disaffected independents, and those who recognize the problems with campus extremism. The extreme left's thought police mentality is not much better than the alt-right's crypto-fascism. They have a lot in common, come to think of it. Both the alt-right and the Tumblr left promote antisemitism. Both believe in shutting down and excluding anybody they disagree with. Both have a self-righteous, often hypocritical worldview. Democrats need to work for social justice without falling into the trap of Tumblrism and becoming annoying PC freaks. The more Democrats embrace radical social leftism, the more voters they turn off from their economic message. A winning strategy will not be led by safe space extremists.

Community Based Turnout
Directly connected to the last point is the idea that Democrats need to build stronger inroads into the community to create a more effective turnout machine. Republicans use churches as a way to connect their message to voters. While on an official level, churches cannot be explicitly political, the ties between Evangelical mega-churches and Republicans are clear. When election season rolls around, GOP candidates often attend church picnics or address church groups. Some even go so far as to provide voting guides that rate each candidate on the issues. Combined with the aforementioned red meat rhetoric, this ensures high turnout. In 2014, for example, Republican results were boosted by strong turnout among Evangelical Christians, leading to high profile victories. Democrats need to build networks through churches and other organizations with mostly Democratic populations, especially in Hispanic and Black communities. This would boost voter registration and turnout efforts among POC, which can make a serious difference in swing states. Moreover, the more in touch Democrats are with their base constituencies, the more open-minded, diverse, and strong their party will be. Working through community groups, even beyond religious groups, grows the party's presence and can help bring new candidates or new issues into the spotlight.

Becoming the Party of Values
In my opinion, this year's DNC yielded some of the most powerful political moments in recent history. From Khizir Khan's pocket constitution to the "USA" chants during General Joe Allen's speech, Democrats at the DNC embraced patriotism. However, in the past few weeks and downballot in many places, I haven't seen the same embrace of patriotism I saw at the DNC. As Trump-Putin links emerged, Hillary was far too silent on the issue when she should have been painting Trump as the candidate looking to sell America out for a quick buck. Democrats need to hammer Trump on the fact that he hired undocumented workers instead of Americans. What a hypocrite! Why aren't we attacking the sellout!? Painting the GOP in an unpatriotic light will help us defeat Trump and combat the constant and false allegations that Democrats are less patriotic. This pathetic myth developed from the tendency of some Democrats to oppose war. From George McGovern to John Kerry (two war heroes!!), even moderately anti-war Democrats were painted as unpatriotic wusses; they didn't do enough to demolish these allegations. We need to convey strength, respect military culture, and embrace candidates who served. Almost nothing makes me as proud as seeing Democratic veterans. We are the party of a responsible foreign policy. We are the party of the GI Bill. We are the party whose presidents won World War I and World War II. Democrats need to stand up and be proud of their patriotic background. Of course there are countless areas in which our nation needs to improve. On a personal level, because I so deeply love America, I want to see her overcome her systemic issues. We must frame our politics in the rhetoric of a love for country, community, and character. By being seen as the strong American party and bashing Trump as an unpatriotic coward, Democrats can start winning again.

In my opinion, this is part of what Democrats need to do in order to start winning again. It's time to establish a new coalition and defeat the Republicans on all levels, in all states. I want nothing more than to see Democrats win. If you have any alternative suggestions, questions, or comments, feel free.

Happy Labor Day

It's that time of year again. Labor Day-the symbolic end to summer. Pools close, summer hours end, and the kids starting getting back into their school routines. This weekend, everybody pulls out their barbecues, heads to the lake, and spends some great time with family and friends. There seems to be a general, vague recollection of what this holiday means, but too many people forget the true meaning (and importance) of Labor Day. Today's holiday originated in the late 1800's with local and state legislation to recognize the importance of American workers. In the late 1800's, also known as the Gilded Age, unrestricted monopolists ran roughshod over the rights of consumers and communities. This in turn led to a backlash in the form of populism and progressivism. These dual manifestations of support for greater economic fairness fed support for a growing labor movement, spearheaded by charismatic leaders. 

Today, however, the situation is different. American unions are in decline. Only about 12% of wage and salary workers today are unionized, compared to a peak of nearly 35% in the 1950's (when Republicans weren't anti-worker!). Even in historical bastions of unionization, the decline has been felt. Kentucky's last union coal mine closed last year, bringing an end to the era of unionization that defined Appalachia's coal industry. The overall decline of unions can be attributed to a few different causes. First, there has been a certain complacency in today's society. Some falsely assume that because labor unions have scored so many wins, their work is over. This mentality is especially damaging, as it fails to recognize the importance of continuous progress. Especially with the expansion of 'free' trade policies, globalization, and mechanization, it's more important than ever that workers organize. Another central reason for the decline of American labor comes in the form of legislative attacks on collective bargaining. States like Wisconsin have enacted 'Right to Work' laws, at the demand of right wing extremists funded by large corporations. These laws allow workers to mooch off the benefits of labor unions without having to pay a dime of dues. While right wingers spin this as productive for workers, their claims could not be farther from the truth. By limiting the amount of dues money flowing into unions, their political and social power is diminished. RTW effectively dismantles trade unions from the inside, destroying their ability to fight for workers. The impacts of RTW are vast. When this law is isolated as a factor, those in RTW states make 12% less every year than their colleagues in non-RTW states. Uninsured rates and poverty rates tend to be higher where these asinine laws have been enacted. There is even a direct impact in the workplace, with workplace death rates being over 50% higher in RTW states. While this law is perhaps the most egregious, other legislative attacks have decimated labor unions. The marked decline of collective bargaining in America is indicative of a worrying trend towards forgetting how critical unions have been and are to our way of life. In fact, studies find that the decline of labor has suppressed wages across the board. If unions were as strong as they were in the 1970's (not even their peak!), the average male worker would earn 5% more than he does today. Non-union workers without high school and a college degree would be earning 9% and 8% higher wages respectively. This study displays the importance of unionization, even today. As unions decline, America declines. Unionization is a major part of what makes America great.

Thus, every day, and especially today, we must remember the historical fights waged by American labor.

Never forget Samuel Gompers' fight to expand and consolidate unions. 

Unionization spread across various industries in the early 1900's, despite various degrees of legal and corporate opposition. Central to the struggles of early unions was their lack of centralization. Different trades were all represented by different groups. Samuel Gompers brought together these various unions under the American Federation of Labor, harnessing the immense power of collective bargaining. His contributions transformed the nature of unionization by pooling together resources to fight for the common good. 

Never forget Mother Jones' fight to organize mine workers. 

Miners faced some of the most degrading conditions of any American workers. Forced to work in dangerous, cramped, and dirty conditions for unreasonable hours, many miners fell ill or were injured. However, there was no means for recourse before unionization. They constantly faces abuse from employers, from terrible living conditions in mine towns to abysmally low wages. Before women were even allowed to vote, Mother Jones toured mines, convincing workers to stand up and fight. She brought even doubters on board and was instrumental in gaining rights for miners. Sadly, this feminist's instrumental contributions to American labor are often ignored. 

Never forget Lewis Hine's fight to expose the terrors of child labor.

During and just after the Industrial Revolution, demand for cheap labor combined with lack of regulation led to the flourishing of childhood labor. Children as young as 8 toiled under filthy, dangerous conditions for long hours. Countless children were mistreated, maimed, or killed on the job, and in some places up to 25% of factory workers were children. In 1904, a number of labor advocates founded the National Child Labor Committee, which gradually began to gain support. Their goal was to put an end to the abusive employment of kids. In 1908, photographer Lewis Hine began to work with the NCLC to showcase the plight of factory children. His images were widely circulated and brought attention to the scope of the child labor problem. Working with unions and the NCLC, Hines helped win reforms in congress to ban childhood labor.

Never forget coal miners' bloody fights for unionization.

Time and time again, efforts to unionize met serious resistance. Companies used to hire armed strikebreakers to disrupt bargaining efforts and end strikes. These scabs employed violent tactics, often killing workers or destroying their communities. Still, however, many who lost everything persevered. From the Battle of Blair Mountain (WV) in 1921, where over 50 strikers died, to the Brookside Dispute (KY) in 1974, where miners and their families faced violence, Appalachian workers fought bravely against corporate thuggery. Women, children, and community organizations all came together to support strikers, and in many cases, these struggles ended in success. In Brookside, miners gained the right to a union, which negotiated a better contract for them. The sacrifices of the miners who were shot at, killed, and beaten led to gains for all workers. 

Never forget John L. Lewis' fight for pensions and social insurance. 

Unions fought to create Social Security, a program that keeps over 20 million Americans out of poverty. Led by John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers, labor support helped pass the Social Security Act and overcome conservative challenges. None of us can even imagine a country without Social Security, a country where our elderly population falls into a sad cycle of poverty and misery. 

Never forget United Auto Workers president Walter Reuther's fight for civil rights. 

Unions have been at the forefront of racial integration. Southern Populist efforts to unionize in the late 1800's brought together poor Blacks and poor Whites to demand economic fairness. This led to Jim Crow laws and promotion of prejudice in order to divorce workers from their economic concerns and preempt a working class alliance. Union workers toiled side by side, no matter what their skin color. In Southern West Virginia, where union coal mining was strong, racial animosity was notably lower than elsewhere in the South. Because of organized labor, people were more concerned with the common good than racial conflicts. Much later, unions once again took the lead on civil rights issues. UAW president Walter Reuther addressed the March on Washington, proclaiming: "I share the view that the struggle for civil rights . . . is not the struggle of Negro Americans, but the struggle for every American to join in." His support, and that of other labor leaders, helped convince many White Americans of the importance of civil rights. Moreover, union resources were critical to the efforts of leaders like Martin Luther King, providing the movement with expanded political and economic power. In turn, this facilitated passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, two huge leaps towards equality.  

Never forget the fight of Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta for farm worker rights. 

Before unionization, farm workers were subject to abhorrent working conditions. Picking fruits and vegetables all day under stifling heat, exposed to dangerous chemicals, and paid woefully inadequate wages, these workers lacked the most basic of rights. Threatened with discipline if they spoke up, farm workers were not able to fight for better rights. This all changed when Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta spoke up and began to organize a union for farm workers. They founded the NWFA and began to organize nationwide, starting strikes and successfully pushing for pro-worker legislation. Some of their most ambitious and successful operations were boycotts of non-union grapes and lettuce. These boycotts spread like wildfire and their economic implications were felt by producers, who gave in and substantially raised wages. Their work together revolutionized farm work and represented one of labor's most successful modern efforts.

If we truly seek to honor the legacy of these heroes, it is not enough to simply post "Happy Labor Day!" once the corn is cooked. We must stand up for American workers. It's not that hard! Here are a few steps we can all take to honor organized labor and its contributions to our country:

1. Vote for union-endorsed candidates.

2. Buy American-made, union-made products. There are apps to help identify union-friendly brands. 

3. Become a dues-paying union member if you can. This is a direct way to contribute (and benefit!).

4. Spread awareness about the importance of unions.

5. Contact your local union rep and ask how you can help fight anti-union laws.

6. Call your elected officials and tell them to support card check legislation.

7. Talk to your friends about how they can help too. 

So, as summer ends and we celebrate Labor Day, we must remember the storied history of unions. It's time for a revival. I'm ready for a new American labor movement. We need economic justice and fairness in this country, and the best way to bring that about is by fighting for organized labor and truly celebrating Labor Day.  

In Search of Simpler Times

In this age of instant gratification, I regularly embrace modernity, basking in its LCD glory. Empowered by advances, we now live better than any generation before us. I know this as well as any other, living in a large cosmopolitan metropolis. Everything is at my fingertips and information flows at unprecedented speed. It’s easier than ever to communicate and learn. The convenience, efficiency, and pure modernity of it all is wonderful. Don't mistake me for a Luddite, but there's another side to our advanced society. With all the benefits ushered in by technology, media, and ever-evolving culture have come various complexities. Modern life is a hassle some days. We deal with new ethical questions when our society is more connected than ever. What was considered right is often murkier now. A debate rages as to whether society is more or less connected. Is virtual connection at all like human connection? How advanced will our computers, our phones, and our games become? Traditions vanish, or perhaps just morph into something new. The rate of change in this modern century of ours is so fast that it's altogether too easy for the mind to tire. 

We humans are creatures of habit, but we have fashioned implements that destroy and create habits at a remarkable speed. It's often fascinating as a millennial to ponder over just how fast things have changed in the lifespan of our parents and grandparents. While today we practically can't imagine life without the internet, our forbearers grew up without this seemingly essential node of communication-and they turned out just fine. What we take for granted simply didn't exist 40 years ago. Our calculators now carry more power than computers that used to fill a room. It's incredible, and as we often see with those who struggle to adapt to new gadgets, sometimes dizzying. Our fast paced world is at times maddening. 

Sometimes we need a simple prescription to treat the headaches of modernity. Just trade in screens for sunsets. Exchange abstract relativism for anchored community. Swap life's bureaucracy for lethargic bliss. Being here in Cape Cod for a week has let me experience each of these facets. Here, things are different. There's a beautiful Puritan simplicity to life-the pace of which is more manageable. Driving down these twisty roads you pass by gabled two-stories overlooking the bay, by miles and miles or forest, by secluded beaches, by the beautiful landscapes which define the beautiful New England culture that lives on. 

Something as simple as a tomato stand boils everything down to context. On a peaceful nighttime walk with my cousins, we stumbled upon a house with a little stand out front. Walking closer, we noticed homegrown tomatoes, flanked by a sign reading Tomatoes: $1.00 Per Bag and a box to collect money. This stand was reminder of bygone times, of an era when the honor system was trusted, when one could still live locally. New England's very culture, and thus American culture, was built on this perspective. Here, the town meeting brought people from all walks of life together in civic participation. Neighbors were neighbors and had a duty to one another. The stable basis of trust transcended into a sense of belonging and responsibility, one often lost in the hustle and bustle of our race-to-the-top society. These simpler Puritan values came to define the region, becoming a secular part of its very cultural fabric. Here on the Cape, LCD billboards and skyscrapers are nowhere to be seen. Chains are few and far between, with the food scene dominated by local mom-and-pop seafood joints. Corporate America has left these shores nearly untouched. While there is certainly a large tourist presence, there's something lowkey about the atmosphere. It's more refined, more civil, and more laid back then resort areas like Old Orchard or Seaside Heights. This is more the land of Thoreau than the land of tequila. Community still has a place in peoples' hearts. 

It's precisely this atmosphere I long for sometimes. The mind isn't stressed. Instead, it rests, far from the hassles of modern living. Work is valued in all of its forms. Here, the love for an honest living extends even to the ‘old economy’. While folks around the country are displaced and replaced by the trend of treating others like numbers, in Cape Cod, good, honest work prevails. A trip down to Chatham Fish Pier, where tourists mingle with local fishermen, reveals as much. In many places, leaders would try to hide the vestiges of old industry. The pier smells like fish guts, brims with the noise of boats arriving, and reflects on an age-old pursuit. Some cities have sought to break away from traditional lines of work, chasing good recommendations, but forgetting the traditions that anchored their communities. Fishing is not seen as grimy, but rather as beautiful. There is a reverence for the difficulty of this work, for its long hours, and cultural importance. Instead of pushing away the values of blue-collar work, this white-collar enclave embraces them, recognizing the traditions that make this community great. It’s clear when one eats at a local seafood shack or strolls into a town general store. People here don't care how convenient it might be to eat at McDonald's or shop at Wal-Mart. They take pride in the institutions that molded Cape Cod for so many years. Local work and local business are elevated to a higher status than faceless multinational corporations. The throwaway corporate culture found in many places simply never took hold here, as residents of Cape Cod stuck to their community’s foundations.

Even time and food are perceived differently. Here, those looking for a slice of what once was can go clamming when the tide is low. Beaches are seeded with clams, and for a modest price one can get a bucket to fill with them. The time consuming yet meaningful experience of clamming is honored for its regional flavor. One can easily buy supermarket clams anywhere, but Cape Cod affords people the chance to draw local tradition into their cooking. Instead of looking for the fastest, most efficient way to a goal, there is a value placed on what has been done for hundreds of years. Raking the sand and digging for clams might be the more laborious way to get clams, but it’s also fulfilling to eat what you personally dug for. Clamming has a long history here, and people make sure to respect this past while adapting it to today's society by providing local consumers with a choice. Those who desire modern efficiency go to the supermarket. Those who want to honor the New England legacy hit the beach during low tide.

There's a beauty in experiencing an interlude from urbanism. Cape Cod, filled with tourists from Boston and New York looking for a relaxing destination, is an example of how we can preserve simpler times. We sometimes need an anchor as society and its values change rapidly. There is a certain joy in living out these Puritan and American values of old. The real question for community leaders is how we can encourage the revival of a national culture that values simplicity, tradition, and community. While probably not through legislation, bringing back the values that Cape Cod still embodies will take a concerted effort. Policymakers should once again view the family as the integral unit of society, pursuing policies that do not reflect rugged individualism so much as common duty and trust. We need to bring back the egalitarian, democratic spirit of the town meeting. Contrary to the claims of some politicians, we cannot simply evade modernity and globalization. There is no shirking from the way we live today. Yes, it’s good to put down the phone or laptop from time to time, but it’s impossible to hide from our responsibilities and way of life. Instead, we must strive every day to incorporate the values Cape Cod embodies-love of localism, of tradition, and of simplicity-into our modern lives. Only then can we truly love the society we live in. Only then can we build a more open, interdependent, and happy world. 

The Veepstakes: Who Should Clinton Pick?

The Clinton campaign finds itself today at a juncture it only dreamed of reaching in 2008. The primaries have come to a close, the convention is upcoming, and the VP speculation is mounting. This time, the ball is in Hillary's court. It's said that she is seeking a vice presidential pick with foreign policy and national security experience, possibly to counter Trump's focus on security, law and order, and defense. She also should look for a VP who will bring the Sanders wing of the party to her side for sure. Democrats need party unity. Some pundits argue that vice presidential picks are not particularly important (so long as they don't become major liabilities like Sarah Palin did in 2008). However, Real Clear Politics' poll aggregate shows a particularly close race, with Clinton leading on average by just 2.7 points. In this scenario, even if vice presidential picks usually do not serve as panaceas for a candidate's weaknesses, the closeness of the race makes Clinton's VP pick especially important. I decided (on a bit of a whim), to provide some armchair analysis on Clinton's potential picks. I'll include some prominent names that have been floated and maybe even some wild cards! I'm aware that her shortlist has been narrowed, but here are my thoughts on the initial list CNN reported.

Senator Sherrod Brown (OH): A-
Political strategy says that Sherrod Brown is the potential antidote to Trump's rust belt path to victory. Brown is a popular swing state senator who enjoys decent approval ratings and a hypothetical 14 point lead over Ohio's current state treasurer. This kind of popularity can play well in Ohio, a swing state where many workers have been hit hard by unfettered free trade policies that Trump denounces. A microcosmic example of the rust belt Democratic exodus is underway in Mahoning County, Ohio. Youngstown was always a steel town, but has suffered greatly in recent decades thanks to 'free' trade, Chinese market manipulation, and mechanization. In Youngstown, countless Democrats have been defecting to Trump. This isn't just the story of Mahoning County. This is the story of Fayette County, PA, of Porter County, IN, and of countless blue collar industrial cities.Of course, there will be a shift to Trump regardless of VP selection. For Hillary, winning Rust Belt swing states will come down to appealing to minorities, college educated whites, and also stemming the hemorrhage of populist working Democrats to Trump. Sherrod Brown is the perfect candidate to fill this role. He spoke out strongly against NAFTA, CAFTA, and now the TPP. Brown was against the Iraq War from the beginning, and can potentially help Hillary outflank Trump on the issue. His fiery speeches are table thumping monuments to a beautiful Democratic populist tradition, a tradition that still plays well in the Rust Belt. Additionally, Bernie Sanders fans will love his progressive record and rhetoric, even though he was an early Clinton backer cozy with the establishment. Thus, Brown is probably the best VP for party unity as he doesn't really offend the sensibilities of any Democratic faction (minus hardcore free traders). Brown not only brings the party together, but he is also an attack dog, further constructing him as the potential ultimate anti-Trump.

Sherrod Brown has one major downfall, and I can see it preventing Hillary from picking him. If he is picked and Hillary wins, John Kasich gets to nominate a senate replacement for Sherrod Brown. In all likelihood, Kasich would name a Republican to the seat, which as with Cory Booker and to a lesser extent Elizabeth Warren, could throw the senate balance into play. If Democrats are feeling confident about their chances at taking back the senate, Sherrod Brown is a risk worth taking. A second, but more minor concern is that Brown's energy will outdo Clinton, specifically in regards to trade and foreign policies they butted heads on in the past. Perhaps it would be more likely that Clinton and Brown complement eachother, which would strengthen the Democratic ticket.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA): A- 

Judgement: Elizabeth Warren is one of my favorite senators. From her time at the CFPB to her experience in the senate, she has been a crusader for progressive goals and an expert on policy. These credentials play well to the Democratic base. Picking Warren  would bring disappointed Sanders supporters back to the Democratic ticket by demonstrating a commitment to moving the party left. Furthermore, Warren has already shown a propensity to be tough on Trump, which is precisely what Democrats need. They need somebody willing to go toe to toe with Republicans and call them out. The best part of this strategy is that Warren has more name recognition than other possible choices, making her even more effective as an attack dog. Elizabeth Warren is tough, aggressive, and goals oriented, making her a potentially exciting pick.

There are a cautions to heed for Clinton here though. First. Warren and Clinton enjoyed a notably fraught relationship. Warren refused to back Clinton throughout much of the primary season, but never endorsed Bernie Sanders. While both eventually campaigned together, there are still rumblings that Hillary isn't huge on her. Warren's selection could jeopardize Democratic outreach to moderates. Warren may lack appeal to moderate swing voters and donors. Depending on the campaign's strategy, this could be made up for by progressive excitement and targeting the base, but it is still risky. Hillary Clinton may be upstaged by Warren, especially considering rhetorical differences that make her more exciting to watch. Third, as sad as it is, sexism is a clear reality in America. Having two women on the ticket may harm Clinton's standing with male voters. In fact, studies show that having two women on the same ticket may lead to people viewing them in a more damaging, stereotypical lens. It remains to be seen how pervasive this effect is, but picking Elizabeth Warren may prove risky for this reason. At the same time, this could actually help increase margins among female voters. Elizabeth Warren would be a strong choice for vice president, but not as safe as some others. It remains to be seen whether or not Hillary Clinton will take this chance.

Senator Cory Booker (NJ): B+
Judgement: One of Hillary Clinton's biggest weaknesses is her lack of appeal to millennial voters. Bernie Sanders defeated her resoundingly among this demographic, as I discussed in a previous post. Young voters are not necessarily going to break for Trump, but many are unexcited about Clinton and are considering Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or staying home. This is worrisome for Democrats, as young voters make up a large part of the Obama coalition. Cory Booker is the VP candidate for millennials. Young, jovial, and social media savvy, he represents the next generation of politics. Booker has a particular affinity for selfies and an understanding of the millennial demographic. He's known for shoveling driveways as mayor and even saving somebody from a fire, like the superhero he may actually be. In the senate, he has shown willingness to be a leader on bipartisan criminal justice reform and other issues. Hillary really needs his charisma on the ticket. Beyond young voters, Booker would also improve appeal to Black voters. It's no secret that Trump is trying to reach out to Black voters, but recent polls show his support near zero. Thus, it's debatable whether or not Booker will make a huge difference among a group that has overwhelmingly backed Democrats in recent years. He complements Clinton's sometimes bland policy-based technocracy with energy and would be a great choice.

Booker's weaknesses are spread out but still exist. First, he hails from New Jersey, which is hardly a swing state. He would be temporarily replaced in the senate by an appointee of Chris Christie, handing Republicans a senate seat until a special election is held. This could be negligent because of its fleeting timeframe and potential Democratic control of the senate by more than a couple of seats. Another question involves experience. Cory Booker has only been a senator for three years, with about as much experience as Obama had when he won in 2008. On one hand, this could become a Republican attack. However, Booker's leadership and Trump's lack of political experience may stymie potential attacks. While he may appeal to young voters, he is not known to be a progressive firebrand. Therefore, he wouldn't be as good for Sanders-wing unity as Warren, but better than Kaine and Vilsack. Booker is probably one of Hillary's better picks, with no especially deep faults.

Senator Tim Kaine (VA): B

Judgement: Tim Kaine is probably Hillary's safest pick. She doesn't tend to take huge political risks, and picking Kaine would follow this trend. He carries a spotless record despite hailing from a state with major graft and corruption issues (see Bob McDonnell, Phillip Puckett, Phil Hamilton), which could potentially help mitigate attacks on Hillary as corrupt. He also tends to avoid gaffes, which can sometimes be the downfall of a VP pick. In fact, Kaine is the perfect VP for a suburban strategy-urbane, refined, calm, and technocratic. He also has foreign policy and executive experience, which would serve him well. 

On the other hand, Kaine could be seen as a vanilla cop-out pick. Kaine is awfully boring. His speeches don't rouse much excitement and his ability to reach out to disenchanted blue collar voters is nearly nonexistent. It could be argued that with increasing population, turnout, and diversity in NoVa counties where trump finished a distant second or third in the GOP primary, Virginia is no longer a swing state. These vast expanses of beltway suburbia are prime Clinton territory, with or without Kaine on the ticket. Thus, his effect may be overstated. Moreover, Kaine doesn't add many intangibles to the ticket from perceived political cleanness. His Spanish skills are a nice touch, but Trump is doing a wonderful job of handing Hispanic voters to Democrats. He won't be able to reach out well to the party's Bernie wing thanks to his moderate record and eschewing of populism. Kaine is safe, but doesn't deliver much to Clinton that her campaign doesn't already have. Clinton herself is a great candidate for the suburbs. She could do worse, but she could do better.

Secretary of Labor Tom Perez (NY): B-
Judgement: Who?? Tom Perez is the former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and the current Secretary of Labor. His major strength is his progressive appeal. If Hillary is looking to attract Bernie voters with a more wonky pick, Perez is ideal. He has investigated police brutality and hate crime complaints all across the country, which positions him as well researched on top current policy issues. Moreover, his challenges to voter ID laws make him a leader in the struggle for an open, accessible, and fair democracy. During his time as Secretary of Labor, Perez has shown a progressive streak, standing up for the rights of American workers and unions. On paper, he's a relatively non-controversial liberal. Moreover, he is Hispanic and thus could help boost Hispanic turnout, although once again, the argument could be made that Trump does a fine job of boosting Hispanic turnout for Democrats. Perez is quite charismatic too. His speeches are full of energy and many carry populist rhetoric backed up handily by data. He's a great mix of wonk and passionate activist.

Perez's main negative is a HUGE one, however. He's been completely anonymous to 99% of Americans. While people may have heard of Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren (they probably know her), or even John Hickenlooper, the chance most people have heard of Tom Perez is near zero. Of course, this can be overcome, but time is running short and Perez doesn't really have much political
experience. I'm not sure how well vetted Perez is, owing to his lack of media investigation and coverage. There probably aren't scandals in his past, but nobody really knows. While non-politicians have done well this year (see Trump), Tom Perez lacks the foreign policy experience Hillary Clinton is looking for. His economic and civil rights expertise are both invaluable, but Perez doesn't necessarily bring the political and campaign skills to the table that might be important in such a close race. I can see another cabinet spot for Perez, as Attorney General perhaps, but Tom Perez would not be the optimal VP choice.

Governor John Hickenlooper (CO): B-
Judgement: John Hickenlooper is notable for his executive experience, having been the mayor of Denver, the governor of Colorado. and a business owner. He has pursued a spate of progressive reforms in Colorado, from capitalizing on marijuana legalization to passing gun control laws. Hickenlooper's record is that of a steadfast Democrat achieving success both on the local and state levels. He is popular in his home state, even surviving the Republican wave of 2014 and consistent attacks on his passage of controversial reforms like gun control. Hickenlooper is clearly a smart, effective politician. Highlighting his record could help attract Sanders backers. Moreover, picking him could help deliver Colorado to the Democrats, although as with Virginia, it's debatable if the VP will make a difference in a blue trending state. Trump will not play well with the state's relatively high Hispanic population. Plus, Hickenlooper has a bit of 'cool factor' to him, having owned a brewery. He's a pretty good speaker and a decently energetic candidate compared to others on the shortlist.

Hickenlooper is another safe pick, but I don't know that he is vice presidential material. He would probably be most effective on Clinton's cabinet, as he lacks foreign policy and defense experience. He has even less name recognition than Kaine and hasn't stood out in the past like Cory Booker. Hickenlooper doesn't add an awful lot to the Democratic ticket and like Kaine, definitely doesn't appeal much to blue collar Democrats. He's also not too well known. However, the Colorado Governor is politically astute, which ought to count for something, either as VP, or in a cabinet position.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (IA): C

Judgement: If you know me, you know I'm huge on Democrats upping their rural outreach game. We continuously ignore rural communities, much to our detriment and the detriment of the country. This is what I perceive as the main benefit of a Vilsack selection. With higher name recognition in rural areas than other potential VP's, he could help Democrats gain support, especially where Trump is unpopular. Across the Midwest, moderate undecided voters may be more inclined to support Hillary with Vilsack on the ticket. Nobody knows how much of a factor this will be across the board, but Vilsack's impact would  be most pronounced in his native Iowa, where the two most recent polls show Trump leading. He could help deliver Iowa's 6 electoral votes, admittedly not many, but helpful nonetheless. 

Conversely. the nature of his current post could become a barrier to rural success, thanks to plummeting farm incomes under his leadership. Additionally, his technocratic centrism does not fit well with the sentiments of many disenchanted voters, particularly in exurban and rural regions. For that matter, he definitely wouldn't be great to unite the party, as he lacks liberal credentials. Worse yet for Hillary, Vilsack is somehow even more boring than Tim Kaine. His speeches are practically sleep-inducing. There's no way that Vilsack would be a formidable attack dog. Finally, his total lack of foreign policy experience means that picking Vilsack wouldn't be the best option for the Clinton campaign to counter Trump's security rhetoric. Vilsack would not be a major liability, but he definitely doesn't boost Clinton's fortunes much. 

Wild Card Blurbs
I figured I may as well write a little about the pros and cons of a few other picks who have been talked about (some unrealistic).

Senator Al Franken (MN): B+
Pro: Better known than most, funny, charismatic, attack dog, Midwesterner, popular, progressive credentials
Con: Maybe too brash/risky for Hillary

Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN): B
Pro: Midwesterner, strong progressive, party uniter, incredibly popular in her home state, great crossover appeal
Con: Unknown outside of MN, could face sexism

Martin O'Malley (MD): B-
Pro: Executive experience, attacks Trump, 'cool factor', can unite party, well-spoken
Con: Controversies as mayor and governor, may have burned some bridges with Clinton, may be better for cabinet, doesn't stand out enough

HUD Secretary Julian Castro (TX): B-
Pro: Young, charismatic, Hispanic, brilliant
Con: Unknown, inexperienced, not focused on FoPo, not the most exciting to Bernie fans

VP Joe Biden (DE): C+
Pro: Experienced, witty, attack dog, charismatic, popular
Con: Unprecedented move, almost definitely wants to retire (the biggie), not the youngest

Admiral James Stavridis (FL): C
Pro: Military experience, foreign policy expertise, damages Trump's defense credibility, from a swing state, appeals to moderates and independents
Con: Not the most energetic, beyond unknown, no political experience

Senator Bernie Sanders (VT): C-
Pro: Experienced, definitely brings Sanders fans to the ticket, populist, well known, energetic
Con: Animosity with Hillary, radically anti-establishment, would offend moderates, 'socialist' label, doesn't add youth to the ticket

Victory, Patriotism, and Community

Portugal's underdog Euro victory served as a beautiful counterpoint to the critics and doubters who derided the team. Many complained about Portugal's 'ugly' style of play, their seeming reliance on Ronaldo, and their 'luck'. It seemed like the world didn't want to acknowledge the tactical genius and skill of Portugal's squad. The team's vanquishing of tournament hosts and favorites France was a slap in the face to many, but more importantly, an uplifting moment for a community far from its ancestral home. 

The Portuguese community in Montreal, numbering about 40,000 was elated to see their team win their first major international tournament, celebrating every victory along the way too. After each win, fans gathered on the corner of Rachel and St. Laurent streets to celebrate. As early as Portugal's round of 16 win against Croatia, fans gleefully partied in the street and paraded. With each successive win, against Poland, and then against Wales, the crowds grew larger. After Portugal's narrow victory over France in the final, I arrived in Little Portugal to find St. Laurent closed off and full of celebrating Portugal fans. The atmosphere was remarkable. The crowd chanted, danced, and reveled in the glory of a victory against all odds. When the whole crowd began to sing the Portuguese national anthem, I swelled with pride and sang along. The patriotic jubilation of that moment was unparalleled and beautiful in a way words cannot do justice. Of course, there are countless critics of the linkage between sports, patriotism, and nationalism. This misguided New York Times article, for example. lambastes the 'Europhilia' of American soccer culture and brings up a few disgusting but isolated incidents of prejudice to decry the idea of soccer as a unifier. This article was incredibly flawed and written by somebody who even professes not to have a deep knowledge of soccer. Its generalized, weak criticisms of nationalistic soccer spirit don't hold up. Portugal's European Championship win instead demonstrates the value of sports as a vehicle for productive patriotism. 

Amidst the lively victory celebrations, at least here in Montreal, there was no violence, no vandalism, and no division. French fans walked the same streets that Portuguese fans rejoiced on. In fact, a few even surprisingly joined into the festivities. I observed none of the divisive reactions described by the NYT article's author. In fact, there was an unmistakable sense of unity about the celebration. We were all united by our heritage and its celebration despite our various differences. Each person has their own story and faces their own particular challenges. Within Montreal's Lusophone community, there are various different subgroups. Geographically, fans hail from the mainland, the islands, and even Portuguese speaking countries like Angola. There is a marked social class difference between the older blue-collar Portuguese community anchored in Little Portugal and the younger, more educated white-collar Portuguese who inhabit Laval and Anjou. In victory, however, the Portuguese proved to be one people under the same flag. This unity strengthens the fabric of a community thousands of miles away from its heritage. To some, sports may seem trivial. However, to immigrant communities, sports serves as a link to the homeland and a way of preserving culture. The Euro victory forged a connection even between the most assimilated Portuguese and the most traditional. In essence, winning reinvigorated national pride for a community that long has faced an uphill battle in staying active and connected. With an aging population, suburbanization, and gradual assimilation, it sometimes seems as if Montreal's Portuguese community is declining. However, victory brought the community together, showcased its pride, and made it stronger. 

There's no doubt that sports can be a constructive manner of rousing patriotic sentiment and building unity. It's time we acknowledge that patriotism can strengthen the fabric of communities. Something as seemingly basic as a sports victory can mean a lot more to a group of expats. 

Eulogy for the Sanders Campaign

The Bernie Sanders campaign is done. Hillary won the popular vote, exceeded the pledged delegate numbers she needed, and attracted widespread superdelegate support. While Sanders insisted he would stay in the race until the last vote is cast, it's been evident for a while now that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee for the Democratic Party. Some still had hope until the end, and Bernie himself wanted so badly to keep fighting. 

Towards the end of his campaign, Bernie desperately tried to clutch onto arguments justifying his staying in. Bernie's final line of attack seemed to be that he was more electable, but as his campaign winds down, it's clear that the Democrats would be competitive if they ran a yellow dog. Hillary goes into the general election in a position of strength over Donald Trump, who now has disapproval ratings  of 70%, including 56% 'strong' disapproval ratings. Bernie's second major argument was that flipping superdelegates could get him the nomination. First, there are not enough superdelegates to win him the nomination. Second, why on earth would superdelegates flip en masse when it's been clear for so long that Hillary will be the nominee?  Bernie's last arguments simply do not hold up, and consider this a call for Bernie fans online to drop the ill-fated pipe dream of a Sanders nomination.

Bernie himself has finally realized that he lost the nomination. He admitted so much himself, noting that "In all likelihood it [the nominee] will be Hillary Clinton". Thus, the focus has shifted away from the nomination and towards a more subtle, but quite important facet of the primary, that of Bernie's legacy and especially his impact on the platform. While obviously winning the nomination is the end goal of most primary runs, having an influence on the party's platform and rhetoric also plays a major role. In fact, there are countless candidates in Democratic history who could be considered issue candidates. Typically weak issue candidates run to draw attention to specific positions. Examples include: Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008 (Iraq War), Larry Agran in 1992 (urban revitalization), and Eugene McCarthy in 1968 (Vietnam War). I wouldn't consider Bernie to be an issue candidate because of how organized, comprehensive, and popular he was. I'd say Bernie is more politically analogous to Jesse Jackson than he is to most issue candidates. Bernie Sanders, like Jesse Jackson, is likely to register a huge impact on the party in the long run, aside from calling attention to just one issue. Both Jackson and Sanders attracted support for their stances on a number of issues, not just one or two. Both played the game of coalitions. The effects of Jesse Jackson's campaign have been often discussed, and while disagreement exists on the scope and nature of his legacy, there's no question that Jesse Jackson made a difference. Now that the primary race is over, I believe the most important thing for progressive and populist Democrats to do is to analyze what the impacts of the Sanders campaign will be. 

First, the Sanders campaign reinvigorated the Democratic Party's attachment to progressive principles. The Democratic Party, through the 1980's and 1990's, abandoned its New Deal roots. Led by forces like the Democratic Leadership Coalition, Bill Clinton, and Gary Hart, Democrats decided to jettison populist rhetoric in favor of more corporate language. This was reflected most in the Clinton administration, which passed bank deregulation, telecom deregulation, welfare 'reform', and NAFTA. None of these four initiatives helped the average Americans that the Democrats had so vociferously defended in years prior. Wall Street and their related interests celebrated these neoliberal reforms, and the stock market soared under Bill Clinton. The Democrats largely continued this strategy, albeit with some exceptions, through this election cycle. Even President Obama was remiss in not pushing for tougher regulations on Wall Street during the financial congress. The fact that with a Democratic congress, there was not meaningful action to break up banks and prosecute those who gambled away millions attests to the transformation of the Democratic Party. This corporate attitude is what in large part contributes to the party's sometimes detached attitude. Instead of talking to blue collar communities, Democrats are more often meeting with boardroom executives to decide on policy issues. This is the first difference the Sanders campaign has made. Bernie Sanders' campaign has pushed the party back to being concerned about the working class. Entirely reclaiming the party will be a gradual process, seeing as to how entrenched the DLC mentality is. However, a look at the platform, which some Sanders backers have griped about, reveals that Bernie scored some wins  on progressive policy. First of all, Bernie got the chance to submit his choices to the platform committee. Already, inclusion of most progressive voices a major step towards shifting the party's direction. Sanders' choices were interesting to say the least, and while I don't like that he omitted any sort of outreach to rural interests, the committee choices were key to progressive policymaking. When the committee began to draft the platform, it became apparent that Bernie's influence would be felt. The end result, while omitting Palestine issues, a fracking freeze proposal (bad idea in my opinion), a fair trade plank, and carbon tax support, was definitely more populist in nature than recent platforms. It calls for expanding Social Security, which is one of the best historical Democratic achievements. This is a far cry from Bill Clinton's attempts to privatize Social Security. Moreover, there is a plank endorsing new Glass Steagall legislation to break up the biggest banks, which is precisely what Bill Clinton undid in the late 1990's. The 2016 Democratic platform thus directly rebukes the DLC wing's actions and calls for more than Obama even tried to accomplish. Bernie Sanders spent much of his time on the campaign trail calling for expanded social programs and major banking reform; these proposals made it directly into the platform, demonstrating a major victory for his campaign.

Second, Bernie Sanders' campaign gave us a glimpse into the future of the Democratic Party. Bernie won young people all over the United States. CNN exit poll data reveals not just an isolated bastion of youth support or two, but broad support from young voters for the grandpa-like Vermont socialist. In Iowa, 84% of voters ages 17-29 supported Bernie. In Wisconsin that figure was 82%, and even 65% of these voters in New York, Clinton's home state, backed Bernie Sanders. Looking to the states where Bernie lost by massive margins, he still did alright with young voters. In Arkansas, he won voters 18-29 with 58% while losing the whole state 66%-30%. In South Carolina, where he got 26% of the overall vote, Bernie finished with 60% of the vote of voters ages 17-24. Youth was a telling factor of Sanders support. As time goes on, these voters will become the leaders and spokespeople of the Democratic Party. Their support for a broadly progressive platform will likely translate into a more progressive Democratic Party as the years pass. 

Finally, Bernie Sanders represents the populist direction Democrats need in order to win in farming communities, old mill towns, and mining regions. In blue collar areas, the ones Trump may do very well in come November, populist Bernie defeated the more technocratic Hillary Clinton. While major labor unions eschewed support for Sanders, their rank and file members tended to be more supportive of his pro-worker agenda. From Harlan County, Kentucky, a coal mining area whose history is fraught with labor-management conflicts, to high-poverty Choctaw County, Oklahoma, Bernie Sanders performed well in ancestrally New Deal Democratic strongholds. During the Great Depression, FDR's passage of pro-labor, pro-family, pro-worker New Deal legislation endeared these voters to the Democratic Party. LBJ's Great Society programs further helped outreach efforts, but over the years, Democrats stopped hearkening back to these achievements and lost New Deal coalition counties. Bernie's populism is reminiscent of the New Deal approach that used to have rural areas and working class communities across the US locked down for Democrats. Besides his raw support, many of the remaining Democrats who represent these communities, like Rep. Dan Lipinski and Rep. Marcy Kaptur, supported Bernie. While his primary strength in these white working class areas may not necessarily translate to Democratic strength there in the general election, especially with Clinton as a nominee against Trump, Bernie proved that a populist message is the best approach to take when trying to reach out to groups the Democrats abandoned with their centrist corporate shift. This fundamentally makes sense. When Democrats fully and vocally embrace policies like a higher minimum wage, holding greedy corporations accountable, and strengthening workers' rights, they can perform better in blue collar areas of the country. Typically, working class bastions are most negatively impacted by recklessly advanced 'free' trade policies. Free trade is anything but free for working America. Therefore, Bernie's strong anti-TPP stance resonated greatly with this group. Populist Democratic policies are directly beneficial to struggling communities and should be the emphasis of campaigns. Bread and butter economic issues speak to voters more than theoretical ramblings about the "values" of deregulation or dodging issues. Following Bernie's lead can also help Democrats win back rhetoric. We're the real pro-family party, but this line of support will only stick when Democrats move in a more progressive economic direction. Ignoring our losses has been tried-and it doesn't work. Democrats can't just sweep aside blue collar voters and expect to win. That's the strategy that lost us countless state legislatures, congressional seats, and gubernatorial races across the country. Bernie proves that there is a smart way forward in focusing on an economically populist message. 

While it's regrettable that Bernie's run did not end in victory for the nomination, we must conclude that his campaign was a victory in many other ways. He was able to establish himself as more than a single issue candidate, and like Jesse Jackson, his positive contribution will be felt for years to come. The campaign was a win for a more progressive platform, for the party's future, and for smart blue collar outreach. Democrats should learn with Bernie's successes that it's time for a new populist agenda. It's time to stop kowtowing to corporations. Bernie's campaign is the first step towards the Democratic Party reclaiming its historical mantle as the party of the people. This is so much more than one campaign. This is, as Bernie himself ascribed it, political revolution in action.