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.

Introductory Ramblings

So, I have no clue how to start off my first post. I guess I could introduce myself? I'm Andrew Figueiredo. Many of you know that my Facebook is full of political rants about all sorts of issues. I figured that instead of bothering my non political friends with these long rants, I'd start a blog. Moreover, this is a perfect forum for longer thoughts and is more conduicive to using sources to develop an argument. Finally, I felt that it might be cool to have all of my thoughts in the same place. That way, I can look back easily at them whenever. I'm going to make my first real post pretty soon, so stay tuned.