2020 US Election (Part One)

[metalhead]

How is Warren or Harris' stated support for reparations a big deal? This is an honest question. I understand that to some degree support for reparations has always functioned as more of a signal than an actual policy commitment, but do either of them have any kind of outline for an actual concrete reparations policy that could work or is it just signalling to black voters that they will take their concerns seriously?

It's a big deal because it hasn't happened before. Overton window and all that. If you have major party candidates touting reparations to distinguish themselves in a large field of candidates who otherwise are difficult to distinguish on policy, then it gets the idea visibility, and gives it legitimacy.

Harris has only offered the lame "investment in Black communities" answer, but Warren has already proposed targeted relief for people victimized by decades of redlining. That's not explicitly reparations for slavery, but it is reparations for racist government policy that is the main contributor to the racial wealth gap, which overwhelmingly targeted descendants of slaves.

Obviously, we'll have to see where the candidates go with it, but of course it matters that they explicitly support reparations. Apart from Jesse Jackson, has any other presidential candidate in recent history said they support reparations?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I get a genuine sense of commitment from Warren to it. Harris is a bit tougher to gauge. She has worked hard to establish progressive bonafides she did not previously have. What that says, I don't know. But having a couple candidates break the ice might make, say, Sanders support it (he chose not to in 2016).

I think all of this is, if nothing else, probably the biggest argument one could make for Warren or Sanders. Probably every other Dem candidate will largely follow the Obama staffing plan of departments headed by former GE CEOs and k street and wall street regulars whose response to an earth shattering recession was to not rock the boat that was already sinking, and whose response to global warming and wealth inequality will largely be institutionalist and compromising.

 

[metalhead]

Warren also has a wealth of experience trying to use the regulatory apparatus of the U.S. government to produce better outcomes for U.S. consumers. I think that, too, should count for a lot when gauging who is going to be able to accomplish the most in terms of unrigging the economy.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Yeah she was probably one of Obama's biggest critics in his first term with the lack of government response to institutions that had crashed the economy.

 

[Lexicus]

It's a big deal because it hasn't happened before. Overton window and all that. If you have major party candidates touting reparations to distinguish themselves in a large field of candidates who otherwise are difficult to distinguish on policy, then it gets the idea visibility, and gives it legitimacy.

It's weird because it seemed like you didn't take these arguments very seriously when some of us were making them about Bernie a couple of years ago. But whatever, not important, this is a fair point.

Harris has only offered the lame "investment in Black communities" answer,

I wonder whether this means "give money to rich business people and hope they'll invest in black communities"

Obviously, we'll have to see where the candidates go with it, but of course it matters that they explicitly support reparations. Apart from Jesse Jackson, has any other presidential candidate in recent history said they support reparations?

Well, as someone who'd actually like to see reparations, I'd really be disappointed if it turned out it was just talk. Even if it's ultimately helpful talk.

 

[metalhead]

It's weird because it seemed like you didn't take these arguments very seriously when some of us were making them about Bernie a couple of years ago. But whatever, not important, this is a fair point.

Well, you asked why it's a big deal that Warren is talking about it, not whether talking about reparations means Warren should be president.

If you asked me whether mentioning support for reparations and proposing an outline of a reparations-adjacent policy means Warren should be president, then I'd say no, of course not. The fact that she is talking like eliminating the legislative filibuster is something she would push for is of much, much greater consequence in gauging whether she should be president. But I do appreciate her leaning into a potentially divisive racial justice issue.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

She's also come out in potential favor of stacking the supreme court (or at least, "anythnig is on the table" including said stacking), which previously, only Buttigieg had.

 

[metalhead]

By comparison, Bernie has said he is "not crazy about" the idea of eliminating the filibuster. Which pretty much makes his entire agenda DOA.

 

[Estebonrober]

I’d literally campaign for Warren but that’s because I believe the idea of pragmatic capitalism. So since she is basically that I support her. As for reparations, can we force the South to contribute the cost of forty acres and a mule adjusted for inflation? I mean you forced blue states to eat trumps tax cut. Can we not force the south to finally pay what they owe?

 

[Lexicus]

By comparison, Bernie has said he is "not crazy about" the idea of eliminating the filibuster. Which pretty much makes his entire agenda DOA.

Second sentence doesn't make much sense. As President he will not be deciding whether to end the filibuster.

While I think it's dumb if he is not in favor of eliminating it, it doesn't mean his agenda is DOA because it will be the Democrats in the Senate who will have to actually end the thing. That is actually an issue that should be important in the Senate campaigns for 2020 (any Democrat running for election in that year should be asked whether they would end the legislative filibuster to get a Democratic President's agenda enacted), but I don't see how it affects the Presidential race much except (as you pointed out) inasmuch as it signals a willingness to embrace "procedural maximalism" to accomplish goals.

My guess is that Bernie's lack of fervor for ending the filibuster probably just reflects his view that we need a wider political mobilization, and his hope that such a mobilization would deliver electoral victories sufficient to make tactics like ending the filibuster unnecessary.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I think it's probably true though that a Dem president with a Dem senate would not even get a discussion about removing it if said president for keeping it but the Senate was for removing it. It'll have to be a joint front and probably a reasonably substantial public facing attempt to get people onboard.

Bernie does have a way around the filibuster if he wants to broaden the electorate (again, it'll have to be with congress of course), and it's one I'd like to see Dems embrace as well; statehood for DC and PR.

 

[Lexicus]

As far as I'm concerned if the Democratic Senators need the President to intervene to help them end the filibuster they're not worth the paper they're printed on. The President should of course support them publicly if they do that but I don't see that the President needs to take a leading role in the public debate.

And let's face it: let's assume Sanders' "not crazy about" ending the filibuster means he doesn't want it ended. I don't think that's necessarily true, but let's assume it. Fast-forward to 2021: the Democratic House has just passed a slew of immensely popular left-wing legislation, which is now being shunted to the Senate where the Democrats have a 52-48 majority. Bernie Sanders is going to speak out decisively against ending the filibuster under these circumstances? The picture refuses to form in my mind

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Well they won't be worth the paper they're printed on. We'll have some red staters and purple staters and other ones who get gun-shy about not being a Neutral.

But why not just end it anyways? Regardless of congressional policy. It's dead in most areas with no repercussions and the structural argument against it is super pervasive. I'm not even sure why any Dem would want to hang onto it.

 

[metalhead]

As far as I'm concerned if the Democratic Senators need the President to intervene to help them end the filibuster they're not worth the paper they're printed on. The President should of course support them publicly if they do that but I don't see that the President needs to take a leading role in the public debate.

Excuse me? In what universe will Chuck Schumer even agree to pass his policies, let alone go ahead and eliminate the filibuster, without heavy pressure from the White House to do so?

You're envisioning a scenario where all of the Democrats in the Senate, and in particular the Dem leadership, are all on board with those policies. That is not the world we are living in. Of course they aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but we still need them to pass the legislation!

I dunno man, I don't understand where you're coming from here. You'd rather not pass Bernie's policies if he has to publicly pressure the Senate to get rid of the filibuster to do it? For what reason?

 

[Lexicus]

Excuse me? In what universe will Chuck Schumer even agree to pass his policies, let alone go ahead and eliminate the filibuster, without heavy pressure from the White House to do so?

I don't know, I suppose the same universe in which the Democrats actually win a Senate majority and the White House in 2020?

Of course they aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but we still need them to pass the legislation!

If they're not going to support the legislation then no amount of pressure from the White House will make them end the filibuster to pass the legislation. You're conflating the issue of the White House trying to get Senators on board with its agenda (which, obviously, I see the need for, and I see no indication that a Sanders White House would not do that) with the issue of the White House taking a position on the tactics the Senate should use to pass its agenda.

I dunno man, I don't understand where you're coming from here. You'd rather not pass Bernie's policies if he has to publicly pressure the Senate to get rid of the filibuster to do it? For what reason?

I have no idea where you're getting this from. I'm not even saying that Bernie shouldn't publicly support ending the filibuster - if he does not support that, I don't agree with it, as I've indicated by calling it dumb. What I'm questioning is the rather odd (to me anyway) assertion that if candidate/President Bernie doesn't publicly support ending the filibuster, his agenda is therefore DOA. I can think of a bunch of other actual reasons his agenda might be DOA: first on the list, in fact, is that the Democrats in the Senate can't be trusted to support that agenda! But if that's true, then Bernie saying "we should end the filibuster" on the campaign trail won't make a difference.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Without 60 votes in the Senate and as long as the filibuster is in place, Bernie won't be able to pass anything.

I don't see a route to 60 seats in the Senate in 2020.

 

[Lexicus]

Without 60 votes in the Senate and as long as the filibuster is in place, Bernie won't be able to pass anything.

I don't see a route to 60 seats in the Senate in 2020.

Alright, I don't dispute this, but why does it mean that Sanders' agenda is DOA if he doesn't support ending the filibuster? I don't believe the Republicans will oppose "centrist" legislation any less than "democratic socialist" legislation - the opposition to Obama and his agenda seems to have made that clear - so if the Senate wants to pass anything after 2020, they will need to get rid of the filibuster regardless of whether Bernie supports the idea or not.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Edited because I forgot which thread I was posting in.

Because Republican politicians have been proven to be untrustworthy, I hope for a Democrat president and Democratic Party majority in both houses of congress. I will emigrate if The D’ump is reelected. I will consider that the nail in the coffin of freedom in this once great nation. I quite like the Green New Deal.

Spoiler :

From what I know of science and engineering as a STEM undergrad, The Green New Deal is entirely within the realms of existing technological and engineering possibility. From what I know of economics and politics, it is difficult-to-impossible to implement, especially with Republicans attitude of screwing over the disadvantaged to either help corporate lobbyists or out of spite (“owning the libs”). The reason it is called a ‘New Deal’ is because it requires a proportionately similar amount of effort. The USA would need to devote a similar percentage of its GDP towards the project. The USA would have to redistribute wealth from the richest similarly harshly. The political climate and general culture has changed so much since the Great Depression that it is politically infeasible.

 

[rah]

We lack a leader great enough to pull it off.

 

[Lexicus]

We lack a leader great enough to pull it off.

Obviously we need one with the Charismatic trait, the other trait could be either Philosophical or Industrious I guess.