Can the Democratic Party Come Back?

January 12, 2017

A tectonic shift in the political landscape is taking place and the Democrats are in danger of being left out in the cold.  Just as the civil rights movement in the 60’s completely rearranged and upended what it meant to be a Democrat and Republican, a new alignment is taking place over America’s place in the global economy and in global affairs.

The two victories by Barack Obama obscured a party that was dying on the vine.  We all (now) know the numbers.  The oval office, both houses of congress, governorships, state legislators; the Democratic Party is in full retreat.  It is a party so desperately clinging to the past and past leadership that we need to ask if this party can right itself before it becomes irrelevant and obsolete.

The Democratic Party is psychologically wounded, lashing out at everyone and everything that they feel is to blame for the horrible injustice that has befallen Hillary Clinton, denying America the benefit of her obvious superior leadership, it was Trump the demigod, the GOP, sexism, racism, the media, the electoral college, the Comey letter, the Russians, the list goes on and on.  All of this thrashing about on the ground in a pile of tear-filled rage is pointless and ultimately harmful. We look like fools and sore losers, most importantly it makes us incapable of seeing our own faults that has led to this debacle.

Democratic vs. Republican has been usurped by globalization vs. populism. This realignment is occurring in the US and around the world.  Globalization has been uncovered as a cruel hoax.  Free trade, the global banking system, capital-friendly tax systems and mass immigration are doing real harm to the middle class.  The system is designed to drive down the cost of labor while exacting profits that flow to the 1%.  It is a system that is of course, unsustainable but the donor class is not interested in introspection on the society that is being created, or should we say being destroyed, and neither it seems is the leadership of the Democratic Party.

It is a bigger and much more dangerous mortgage lending crisis being played out over the course of decades.  When Bill Clinton took up the cause of NAFTA as a way to raise money for his presidential bid, the Democratic Party bought into free trade hook, line, and sinker.  Globalization became the defining economic policy of both parties right through to today.

Barack Obama missed this realignment, continued pressing forward with trade deals and wars when the voters were begging for relief.  This is the problem when you take your cues from the donor class whose interests are not in line with the voters.  The undercurrent of populism has been building for a long time but the donor class and the media manage to keep it from the light of day.  By playing to a system where it is verboten by the donor class to offer any alternative to globalization, the Democratic Party became a tool of the 1%.  Corporate Democrats may be more right on social issues but are really no different from corporate Republicans on the fundamental operating principles of our economy.

Obama/Clinton made no effort to address the concerns of the middle class.  They talked about the income inequality but refused to define a cause because that would have led to the only real conclusion; globalization is exactly the wrong policy to build broad-based middle-class prosperity in a developed nation.

The rise of Bernie and Trump was a direct result of the fact that they were operating outside the normal system of campaign finance and were free to tap the populist mood that lay dormant and unaddressed, the sleeping Giant of American policies.  The Democratic establishment just did a better job killing off the candidate of real change.  Whether Bernie could have won is missing the point, Bernie was the only Democratic alternative that broke through the donor class blockade. The Democrats are just as responsible, if not more responsible, for the Trump Presidency because we turned our back on the working families of America.

Democrats if you want to know why we lost it’s time to stop crying, passing the blame and look in the mirror.  Hillary lost because she was a product of the corporate establishment elitist globalist party system and Trump was not!!

The Democratic Party faces an existential crisis, can we break free from the clutches of the globalist donor class and if so where do we get the money to rebuild?  If the Democratic Party cannot come to terms with its failed and rejected policies and make real change in its’ policies and leadership, (and so far it seems wholly unwilling to do either), it is in danger of being a non-entity in American politics.  Without real substantive charge in the Democratic Party, the battle for power in American politics will be waged between the globalists and populists of the Republican Party.

 


The Immigration Reform American Workers Deserve

February 23, 2016

Democrats have wholeheartedly taken up the issue of income inequality and stagnant real wages of working class families.  Bernie Sanders has criticized our current trade policy; making it a centerpiece of his campaign. He does not support the purposed TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade agreement.

Here in Ohio, Sen. Sherrod Brown has been a longtime opponent of “free trade”.  Former Gov. Ted Strickland, who has a good chance of unsetting Sen. Rob Portland (r) in the upcoming election, is also campaigning against trade deals that put Ohio workers in direct competition with cheap foreign labor and sends Ohio jobs overseas.

What does it matter if we send American jobs overseas for foreign labor to fill or we bring foreign labor into the U.S.?  This is the disconnect of progressive economic labor policy.

In the relatively recent past, prominent liberals agreed that rapidly expanding the labor pool by bringing in millions of immigrants was not in the best interests of working Americans. Labor union leaders and civil rights luminaries, for a century right through President Bill Clinton, supported reducing the number of work permits for foreign laborers. They understood that such a move would spur wage growth and expand job opportunities for Americans.

A 1995 congressional commission, chaired by the charismatic civil rights leader and Democratic Texas congresswoman Barbara Jordan, recommended limiting immigration to 550,000 individuals a year. President Clinton praised the recommendation as a “balanced immigration policy that . . . protect[s] the American work force.”

There is no good reason to continue giving out one million new lifetime work permits every year, supporting guest worker programs and having a permissive attitude towards illegal immigration when over 15 million native and immigrant Americans already here are currently unable to find full-time jobs.

From 1924 to 1965, America sharply scaled back the number of immigrants it accepted. Without competition from a large pool of foreign-born laborers, American workers were better able to unionize and demand improved wages and benefits.

The share of income going to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans dropped from 43 percent in 1924 — the year lower immigration quotas were implemented — to less than 32 percent in 1965 — the year the quotas were replaced with the current immigration system.

The post-1965 influx of workers helped freeze wages. In fact, inflation-adjusted wages have actually declined over the last forty years. The average worker in 1973 earned a higher real wage than the average worker does today.

Economists have concluded that high levels of immigration are partially responsible for wage stagnation. Harvard professor George Borjas, an immigrant himself, has shown that expanding the size of any working cohort — as defined by age or education — by 10 percent through immigration reduces the wages of all native-born folks in that group by 2.5 percent. The effect on native-born men is even greater — a decline in wages of 3.7 percent.

For Americans without a high school degree, the wage losses are even more pronounced — about $1,200 for the years between 1990 and 2010.

Immigrants themselves are not at fault. The overwhelming majority of immigrants are industrious people who work hard. It is just that in America, hard work often is not rewarded.  The strongest work ethic in the world cannot defeat the law of supply and demand. The more workers who need a job, the less employers have to pay to attract employees.

Our leaders have the power to stop this economic race to the bottom and boost wage growth. Scaling back the pace at which our nation admits new laborers from abroad would help disadvantaged immigrants who are already here. It would take job-market realities into account and give native and immigrant American workers the leverage to win back the wages and benefits they’ve lost over decades.

America has been and must continue to be a nation that does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, but there’s no need to bring in one million permanent immigrants every year, allow guest worker programs, on top of illegal immigration when current residents cannot find good-paying jobs.

If progressive candidates are serious about standing up for American workers, they must consider greatly reducing the number of foreign laborers who have access to the American labor market through trade policy and immigration policy.


It is the Labor Market Stupid

January 5, 2014

Why Democrats will not address the real cause of income inequality.

I am hopeful that the public and our political class are coming to terms with income inequality in America and the harm it is doing to our economy and society.  At the same time, I am disappointed in the response by my party, the Democratic Party, to the overreaching economic issues of our time.

While raising the minimum wage would do more good than harm, simply raising the minimum wage would help too few people, too little, and could create inequities of its own.  More importantly, the minimum wage is a placebo, a distraction from the real labor market forces at work that are bringing the ideal of America as a broad base middle class national, to a close.

Our government over the last 30 years has pursued policies by way of trade agreements, cheap foreign labor embedded in the goods imported to the US and an immigration policy of non-enforcement to increase the supply of labor in the United States.  Globalization has been an abject failure for the American middle class.  When President Clinton supported NAFTA he sold out to a corporate establishment and took the Democratic Party’s labor market policy 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Increasing the supply of labor into the US market has had a predictable, and for some, a desired result.  While corporate profits are at record highs the value of labor in the market has been diminished to the point where a full time job no long provides a place in the middle class.

For a party that holds the moral high ground on so many important issues, it sickens me to see Democrats pandering to foreign nationals who have intentionally broken our immigration law in order to gain an electoral advantage, and to a corporate establishment that is willing to put short term profits above the economic interest of their employees and their own customers.

It is my wish that the Democratic Party will set aside the interest of foreign nationals and big campaign contributors and return to their core values of supporting a strong and prosperous middle-class.

Please like the Facebook Page: Democrats Against Amnesty   https://www.facebook.com/pages/Democrats-Against-Amnesty/152334804799707?ref=br_tf


Jose Antonio Vargas: The Moral Argument for Unlimited Immigration

March 29, 2013

Jose Antonio Vargas is a journalist and immigration activist who has taken on the cause of the “Dreamers”, children brought to America, in violation of our immigration law, at a young age , who were able to avoid enforcement long enough to become integrated into American society and have a sense that America is their country.  Mr. Vargas, himself, came to the United States at age 12 and remained in the United States without legal status.

I am sympathetic to the dreamers; I would like to see provisions in the immigration law to provide legal status to these children caught in a nether world of their parent’s illegal actions and a federal government that is unwilling to enforce our immigration laws.

But, when you take a deep look at Mr. Vargas’ movement and philosophy we find that he is not talking about the one time fix for the immigration system that has been allowed to devolve out of control.  Mr. Vargas is extolling a notion that for any parent who can manage to get his/her child inside the United States and if that child can avoid enforcement for an unspecified length of time, this child is entitled to legal status.

While Mr. Vargas’ “Define American” web site is long on emotional appeals it is short on a real discussion of immigration policies, particularly how we enforce our immigration laws,  Mr. Vargas’ concept of a “21st Century Underground Railroad” is a call to American citizen’s to facilitate the presence of young illegal immigrants in the United States until they can claim citizenship by moral fiat.

Indeed, mine is a story about the heart and compassion of the 21st Century Underground Railroad: American citizens helping new American immigrants as we strive for full citizen rights. My teachers, school administrators, mentors and friends were all part of my “Railroad.” They are the chief reason I’m able to tell you my story.

Mr. Vargas seems willing to take advantage of our sense of fair play and compassion for young people to manipulate our immigration policy, giving power and control of our immigration policy to those willing to break our immigration laws.

I also take issue with his assertion that there is a parallel moral equivalency between an underground railroad for slaves and illegal immigrants.  Not being enslaved is a fundamental human right, there is no basic right of immigration.

As Mr. Vargas seeks to define who is an American, I hear him saying that anyone can simply declare oneself an American.  Mr. Vargas seems to be putting forward a moral imperative that sweeps all other consideration aside, that anyone who wants to be an American is entitled to be American.  Mr. Vargas, and many others, are making a moral argument for unlimited immigration.


Deportation: The Only Real Answer to Immigration Reform

March 20, 2013

Who can and cannot be an American

When you consider that far more people want to come to America than we admit legally or come illegally, our immigration policy is mostly about who cannot be an American.  The back log of those waiting to come to America, legally, is often held out as proof that our immigration system is broken.  While I am sure that our immigration bureaucracy could be improved, the fundamental reason for this back log is that far more people apply to immigrate to the United States every year than, under current law, can be legally admitted.  So it only follows that the back log grows year by year and hopeful immigrants wait and wait for their chance at the American dream.  This is just one point where the logic of Immigration Reform starts to break down.

If we give illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship, there is simply no way to overcome the opportunity cost to all those who are waiting in line for their chance at legal immigration.  If our society and economy can accommodate 12 million more souls then was provided for by law, why not 12 million souls who are following the law and are waiting in line for their pathway to citizenship?

There is no constituency for a family living in Haiti or Bangladesh or Syria.  There is no constituency for the millions or tens of millions of people that live in the countries far poorer and more war-torn than the countries of origin of the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.  But these 12 million people have a large and powerful constituency.  They have their fellow countrymen and family members that were granted legal status by the 1986 amnesty.  They have their children that are US citizens.  They have their employers.  They have census and apportionment processes that bestow them with political power.  And they have their physical presence inside our borders. They have presidential politics on their side.  All of this political power has its genesis in illegal acts.  Our immigration policy has been co-opted by a population with a proximity to our border and a willingness to violate our immigration laws and commit document fraud on a massive scale.

There is also no way to overcome the fundamental fact that normalizing 12 million illegal aliens is rewarding their illegal acts.  To believe otherwise is pure self-delusion.

Immigration Reform, as proposed, is not about fairness, it is not about our immigration traditions, it is not about what is best for the economy, not from the view point of working families anyway.  Immigration Reform is about a political expediency, it is a one percent solution that puts the desires of business above working families.  It is about both parties believing that Immigration Reform is critical to winning the White House

It is often said that we cannot deport 12 million people.  That is true, our government simply cannot bring itself to identify and deport illegal immigrants.  I can hear my Democratic friends, the ones that I have left, howl with rage: Obama, they would say, has deported far more illegal immigrants than G.W. Bush.  They are right, but doing better than President Bush was not a high bar to get over.  Both the Bush and Obama administration held out the promise of Immigration Reform and have sent a clear message to illegal immigrants to remain in the country and for new illegal immigrants to come in anticipation of a pathway to citizenship. Obama’s policy of focusing enforcement on a small segment of the illegal immigrant population is designed to give most illegal immigrant the opportunity to do just that, remain in the United States until amnesty is past.

I have often wondered what would be the impact on illegal immigration if the President, any President, would have gone before the nation to announce that our immigration laws would be vigorously and consistently enforced and that illegal immigration will no longer be tolerated.  This kind of basic statement of policy has never been made by any President because it has been federal policy for decades not to enforce our immigration laws.

After the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, when we reset our immigration policy by normalizing 3 million illegal immigrants, we were promised that our immigration laws would be enforced.  We were promised workplace enforcement and more secure borders.  How did that work out?  Twenty seven years later and our illegal immigrate population has grown to 12 million individuals.  The 1986 Immigration reform failed 12 million times because we could not bring ourselves to identify and deport illegal immigrants.

And, what is different this time around?  Nothing.  It may sound jingoistic, but if you are not willing to enforce the law then you cannot expect the law to be obeyed.  You can secure the borders, great, but illegal crossing will continue.  Forty percent of illegal immigrants simply overstay their legal temporary visas.  You can punish employers that hire illegal immigrants, great, but if you do not deport the employees they will find their way back into the work force.

The only immigration enforcement policy that will ever work, if you plan to exert any control on an immigration policy, is deportation.  Until we come to terms with this simple, undeniable fact; if we cannot bring ourselves to deport the most sympathetic of illegal immigrants, any attempt at Immigration Reform is an exercise in futility and self-deception.


Senator Rails Against Elitist Immigration Reform

February 8, 2013

Why are Democrats supporting an immigration reform plan that hurts working families?

The Daily Caller reports on Senator Jeff Sessions R-Ala. comments regarding the expansion of guest workers visa programs and immigration reform  “We have seen this before: the ‘masters of the universe’ want low wages and cheap labor and don’t seem to care much about how it impacts workers or taxpayers.”

See full story at The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/06/sessions-slams-obamas-closed-door-meetings-on-immigration/#ixzz2KLfPsi2J

Like the Facebook page Democrats Against Amnesty: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Democrats-Against-Amnesty/152334804799707?ref=hl


Farm Labor Organizer Says Immigration Reform Will Mean More Competition for Jobs

February 7, 2013

On channel 13abc’s Sunday morning public affairs show; Conklin & Company, Baldemar Velasquez, President of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee stated that immigration reform would lead to more completion for jobs in the labor market as newly legalized agricultural workers seek out better year-round jobs.  This would leave a “void” of agricultural workers that would require a guest worker program to fill.

Mr. Velasquez said “So that people who get legalized in agriculture are going to find their ways in to more permanent employment in order to support their families 12 months of the year”

The full interview with Mr. Velasquez can be seen on the 13abc web site: http://www.13abc.com/story/16366357/conklin-and-company


%d bloggers like this: