Chilean Privatized Social Security Falling Apart

Michael HiltzikPromoters of privatizing the US Social Security system have never tired of holding up Chile’s privatized program as an example of how this can make workers rich. The trick is that they never ask ordinary Chilean workers and retirees how they feel about it.

That may be because they know what the answer would be. It was visible last month in the streets of the capital, Santiago, where crowds estimated at 100,000 to 200,000 marched to demand reform…

The Chilean program was promoted relentlessly by its creator, Jose Pinera, who got himself a sinecure at the Cato Institute out of the deal. From there he fed American conservatives’ fantasies of “an obvious free market solution that works,” he wrote for a Cato audience in 1997. (In that same article he declared that “America’s Social Security system will go bust in 2010.” Umm, no.) He boasted of how he single-handedly “decided to undertake a structural reform [of Chile’s bankrupt retirement system] that would solve the problem once and for all.” …

But the seams soon showed. The World Bank determined that fees charged by those favored investment firms consumed fully half the pension contributions of the average worker retiring in 2000. The government surplus disappeared, and those outsized stock market gains faded away.

A series of reforms of the reform followed. But not enough. Many workers can’t afford to pay the 10% minimum contribution, and others have been moved out of the system by a shift toward contract labor. The average pension for retirees is about $400 a month, Bloomberg reports, but 40% of retirees are getting less than $260.

—Michael Hiltzik
Chile’s Privatized Social Security System, Beloved by US Conservatives, Is Falling Apart

Why Trump Won? It Ain’t Rocket Science; It’s Social Psychology

Why Trump WonI don’t like to write about Trump because at base, I’m an academic. An academic without an academy, sure. But over time, I’ve found that I’m just not interested in discussing the little things. It’s kind of like in Reason, Faith, and Revolution. Terry Eagleton knows that most religious people hold ridiculous opinions, so he doesn’t talk about it. It’s fish in a barrel. He wants to aim higher. And I feel the same way about Donald Trump. He’s so obviously a nightmare, his latest proof doesn’t seem worth talking about. But I am still interested in the question of why Trump won the GOP primary.

Let me start by noting that I don’t think that, from a policy standpoint, Trump would be categorically different than other Republicans. His foreign policy might well be far better. This tax plan is worse, but after going through the House and Senate, his tax plan would turn out to be identical to whatever one would have been enacted under Ted Cruz, John Kasich, or Marco Rubio. On Social Security, Trump would be better. The one area where he might be worse is that his rhetoric might embolden his followers to commit acts of terrorism against various minority groups. But I tend to think these lazy cowards won’t be doing anything — especially if their savior Donald Trump is in command.

Another issue to consider is that it doesn’t much matter why Trump won. By the end, all the candidates were Donald Trump. They just weren’t as good at it. Look at Kasich! He has a notorious anger problem. Amanda Marcotte wrote an excellent article about him back in February where she ran down what a vile president he would make because of his racism, sexism, xenophobia, and demagoguery. So the GOP was going to nominate someone like Donald Trump because that’s what Republicans like.

The Eternal 25 Percent

But on the specifics, it isn’t a mystery why Trump won. There are always about 25% of the people who are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. What they’re mad about is mostly unclear. The few Trump supporters I know are actually doing very well in an economic sense — far better than I’ve ever done. They remind me of rich people who are angry that they aren’t more rich. These people want more respect (or something) in the society. Of course, if they got it, they’d just be angry that it wasn’t enough.

Republicans smelled blood in the water in 2016. They thought this was their election. As a result, we got upwards of 20 candidates for president from them. Why Trump won was simply that he best spoke to these authoritarians who make up at least half the party.

There are roughly 25% of these people in the United States. I suspect the numbers are roughly the same in England and Germany and France. These people are, to put it bluntly, authoritarians. They want a strong leader. But they don’t want him (!) so much to get the fags, the coloreds, and the feminazis. They want an authoritarian leader because they want an ultimate authority to say that, yes, they are the right kind of people. They are the real Americans! And this has been the appeal of the entire Republican Party since Nixon.

This 25% of the population has always been there. Look back at Richard Hofstadter’s article The Paranoid Style in American Politics from 1964. This isn’t new. When the Tea Party sprang up, it annoyed me that the media talked about it like it was extraordinary (unlike any leftist movement, which they ignore unless they can’t possibly avoid it). Reporters were surprised when John Birch Society booths showed up at Tea Party events. I wasn’t.

Authoritarianism Is a Republican Problem

This authoritarianism is not confined exclusively to the Republican Party — but it mostly is. I recommend reading John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience. Without this 25% of the electorate, the GOP would be a regional party.

Republicans smelled blood in the water in 2016. They thought this was their election. As a result, we got upwards of 20 candidates for president from them. Why Trump won was simply that he best spoke to these authoritarians who make up at least half the party. They don’t care about policy. They care about having a president who will say that they are the chosen ones. All those other people are lesser. Round them up into camps? Not really necessary — but hardly out of the question.

Why Trump Won

Why Trump won? I think roughly 50% of the Republican Party base is flat out authoritarian. Another 40% have notable tendencies in that regard. In a crowded field, of course Trump would get about a third of the vote. And once it was clear no one could touch him, the rest fell in line.

It’s no mystery why Trump won.

Jane Siberry’s This Girl I Know and the Bechdel Test

Jane Siberry - This Girl I Know - Bechdel TestLet’s get the hard part out of the way first: the Bechdel Test. It consists of three criteria for a work of fiction: it contains at least two female characters; they talk to each other at least once; and what they talk about is not a man. Now you would think that most fictional works would pass the Bechdel Test. But it is surprisingly rare. My first novel, for example, did not pass it.

I think of the Bechdel Test in a broader sense. I don’t think it should be limited to talking about “a man.” I think a conversation about men — how they suck, how they are seduced, whatever — should count. With this broader interpretation (because one could certainly see this as being implied), the situation is even worse.

The truth is, when I learned of the Bechdel Test, I was embarrassed. It’s not that I’m unaware that I have limitations when creating female characters. As much as I like woman, I’m pretty much a gnostic toward them. Certainly, from the age of 5 onward, I’ve felt that women knew things about the universe that I never will. (I still think it’s true and I think it is evolutionary and has to do with childbirth. Women create universes.) So women in my fiction tend to be dark and mysterious. I’m working on this, however.

“This Girl I Know”

But I was listening to Jane Siberry. I love the album, but I must admit to not paying attention to lyrics very much. That is until I pay a great deal of attention to them. The second song on the album is “This Girl I know.” It’s a conversation between two women. One of them says she is sick of being fat and that eventually she will do something about it. And the other is asking her why she doesn’t just do it now.

(There is also a typically Siberry touch of the other woman having a fight with people at another table. “Mind your own business, no, I don’t mean you; it’s the table over there; I think they think I’m being rude; I’m not being rude, I just want to know.”)

I thought it was interesting as I listened to it because it passed the Bechdel Test! But then we get to the bridge, and it all falls apart, “I’ll get some new clothes, I’ll change my style; I’ll cut my hair, I’ll meet a lot of men; I’ll have a lot of dates, I’ll discriminate.” Oh my, Bechdel Test fail!

It’s Not All Bechdel Test

But not everything is about the Bechdel Test. I do think it is a great tool for looking at how we think about women in our society. Obviously, women are better at transcending these prejudices than men. My friend Kristen McHenry’s first (thus far unpublished) novel, “Day Job Blues,” passes the test with such aggressiveness that one could be forgiven for thinking that was her intent. (It wasn’t.)

Although “This Girl I Know” fails the Bechdel Test in an almost classic way, it is still at core, a feminist song. Because the first woman does answer the question: she says she wouldn’t know what to do if a man thought she was “sexy or something.” And when we hear, “Am I supposed to throw away my career and hop into bed?”

Work and Sex

I think that does sum up a fundamental problem for women. For men, sexual politics work because men are seen as dominant on the issue of sex. So a corporate man who is attractive and “fit” has nothing to fear. But an attractive and “fit” woman seems nubile: someone you marry, not someone you promote. And as much as things have changed, that basic dynamic is still very much alive.

So the Bechdel Test isn’t all. One can critique sexual politics, even while failing it. And Jane Siberry does that in “This Girl I Know.”

Corey Robin on Conservatism’s Success

Corey Robin - Conservatism's SuccessBut as I argued at the conclusion of The Reactionary Mind, if conservatism is an inherently reactionary movement, the greatest threat to it will be its success. Once it defeats the movements it was launched to overcome — and those movements will change across time, which is why conservatism, despite being a consistently reactionary politics, will also change across time, in response to the movements it opposes — it loses its raison d’être.

Modern American conservatism, I’ve long held, has succeeded. It essentially destroyed the labor movement, which was, in conservatism’s most recent incarnation in response to the New Deal, its original enemy. It also successfully beat back the Black Freedom movement, which was its second enemy. And it was able to defang the feminist movement, its third enemy. While all these movements are still around — the labor movement, only barely — they don’t have the same traction and forward momentum they once did…

Trump is desperately trying to fashion a new reactionary politics out of the bits and pieces that are now left to it: a white nationalism that draws its animating energies from its hostility to a black president, immigration, and Islam. But the evidence is increasingly clear that that kind of politics simply does not possess enough appeal to propel him or any other similar candidate to the White House. Not, I would argue, because Trump is such a weak candidate (though clearly he is), but because these forces can’t supply the reactionary rationale for modern conservatism the way empowered and radicalized movements of workers, African Americans, and women once did.

It’s going to take a massive victory for the left — not at the polls but in the streets, as a comprehensive social movement of emancipation — for the right to recover its energy and animating purpose. Until that happens, the right might win an election here or there, but they’re essentially going to be in a free-fall.

Trump, in other words, is the least of the GOP’s problems.

—Corey Robin
Donald Trump Is the Least of the GOP’s Problems

Simon Wren-Lewis on Brexit-Trump Connection

Simon Wren-Lewis - Brexit-TrumpThis study that looked at Trump supporters has got quite a bit of publicity. Some have been surprised that “his supporters are less educated and more likely to work in blue collar occupations, but they earn relative high household incomes, and living in areas more exposed to trade or immigration does not increase Trump support.” They also tend to be a little older. Having looked at who voted for Brexit, I was not surprised.

The two clear explanatory variables for those who voted that the UK should leave the EU were education and age. Much has also been made of the fact that, other things equal, those from areas of the country that suffered from deindustrialization over the last 30 years tended to vote Leave, but there was no correlation with levels or rates of change of income. Nor is there any clear correlation between Brexit support and levels of immigration, again matching this study’s findings for Trump support…

Times of rapid economic and social change can leave large parts of society left behind, particularly if they are not equipped with the skills required to adapt. When incomes then stop growing, these groups long for things to be how they used to be (to “make America great again”). The most obvious manifestation of change is the prospect (not actuality) of living with different people and cultures: hence “taking back control” over immigration in the UK and building a wall in the US. What the Brexit vote showed is that when this fear of the new is combined with a protest over relative economic deprivation it can become a dangerous political force.

—Simon Wren-Lewis
Brexit and Trump Supporters

Blue State Democrats Must Vote for Hillary Clinton

Frank Moraes - Californians for Hillary - Blue State DemocratsIt is nonsense to say,[1] “I’m a blue state Democrat, so I can vote my conscience!” Yet I don’t see people talking about this. Instead, I hear the argument that swing state Democrats must vote for Hillary Clinton, but blue state Democrats have a choice. None of us have a choice, even if we are silly enough to believe a Trump presidency will bring on the revolution.

I was a Bernie Sanders supporter in the primary. I donated to him. And I bought a shirt from him and wore it proudly. But I did not support Sanders because he was perfect. He wasn’t perfect. I’m much more a Jeremy Corbyn kind of guy (not that he’s perfect either), but I’m not a citizen of the UK. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary because he was the best alternative available to me.

Now I am (Like Bernie Sanders himself!) a Hillary Clinton supporter. I have donated to her, and as you can see on the right, I have bought a shirt from her. And I wear it proudly too.

Alternatives Not Choice!

Voting is not an act of personal expression! It’s not about making the voter feel morally superior like those idiots who drive around with bumper stickers, “Don’t blame me: I voted Libertarian!” I think it is best summed up by Guildenstern in Tom Stoppard’s play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, “At least we are presented with alternatives — but not choice!”

“At least we are presented with alternatives — but not choice!” —Guildenstern

Picking Jill Stein or Mickey Mouse in the general election means blue state Democrats (And red state Democrats!) can’t pick between Clinton and Trump. But those are the only alternatives. It simply isn’t the case that our electoral system makes Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or anyone else an alternative. Change the system? Sign me up! But that will not happen before 8 November 2016. So the alternatives are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Blue state Democrats can vote any way they want, of course. But if they think themselves morally superior because they don’t vote for Clinton, they are seriously deluded. We will know what they are: people who left to others the job of picking from the alternatives — people who saw no difference between Clinton and Trump.

Blue State Democrats T-Shirt

I think the shirt I’m wearing above is kind of ugly. I wouldn’t have bought the corresponding shirt if I lived in Florida — a swing state.

But I bought that shirt because I am in a bright blue state. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Clinton a 99.8% chance of winning the state. I’m pretty sure that makes it the bluest state in this election. So I got the shirt for the message: blue state Democrats for Hillary Clinton. Because my vote is not about making me feel better; it is about picking the best alternative for the country.

Swing state Democrats are obviously foolish if they don’t vote for Clinton. But blue state Democrats are too. We have no choice. We have two alternatives.

What About the Revolutionaries?

But what about the revolutionaries? The ones who think Trump will bring on the glorious revolution? They have no choice either! They must vote for Trump. If they really feel the only way forward is revolution and that the catastrophe of a Trump presidency is the way to get it, they must pick Trump. That’s just as true in Oklahoma (FiveThirtyEight gives Trump a 99.5% chance of winning) as anywhere else.

Two Alternatives — That’s All

Such Democrats are stupid and very, very ignorant of political science. They are also, luckily, rare. Any reasonable person must vote for Clinton. And that is just as true for blue state Democrats as anyone else.


[1] Great idea: if you live in a country with a parliamentary system! Otherwise: stupid idea!

More Conservative Sting Operations Go Wrong

Hillary Clinton - Conservative Sting OperationsA Clinton campaign official alleges that the women engaged in several efforts to entrap supporters. In one scheme, described by Clinton staff, a woman attempted to pass a cash donation to Clinton volunteers and interns. In another, a woman approached the campaign on Aug 19 and said both her parents had donated to Clinton the legal maximum of $2700 each and wanted to funnel an additional donation through their daughter, a violation of federal law. On Aug 13, a woman claiming to be Canadian approached another Clinton fellow to ask how to falsify an address for a campaign donation.

In another instance, a woman volunteering with the Clinton campaign on voter registration efforts in Iowa City returned to the campaign’s office in Des Moines and asked whether it was okay that she refuse to register people who don’t support Clinton, the campaign official said. The Clinton campaign maintains that its policy is to register all voters, regardless of their preference in candidates.

The women presented themselves as Allison Holmes, Jess Koski, and Jess Jones, according to the Clinton campaign, which collected names, email addresses, and phone numbers for the women. All gave the same phone number, which is listed on the website for the University of Minnesota-based Students for a Conservative Voice. Messages left at the number by TIME requesting comment were not returned.

—Zeke Miller
Clinton Campaign On Alert For Undercover Conservative Sting

New York, New York — New York District Tossups

There are three open seats in New York where neither party has an incumbent running for re-election. Each is considered a toss up. The funny thing is that all three have some interesting politics going on.

New York District Three (NY-03)

Oddly, Democrat Steve Israel decided to not run for re-election, even though the district is fairly Democratic and he would have won easily. Maybe he wants to become a full time comic writer.

For the general election it will be Thomas Suozzi on the Democratic side. He is a somewhat perennial candidate who has held elected office before as a county executive. But he also lost his last three races for governor and his re-election bid to the county executive position.

On the Republican side it is State Senator Jack Martins. He has led the way in filing bills that actually get passed. He also really, really hates taxes since most of his bills have to do with that.

The DCCC has already started crazy-gluing Trump to Jack Martins. So this is another seat that the implosion of the Trump Campaign is probably going to have a huge impact on. Martins did say back in May he would support Trump if elected. But as recently as 4 August he has not formally endorsed Trump.

In terms of money, Suozzi has a slight edge. But neither has a huge amount in their war chests. And they are expensive districts to run in, so it is unclear what the money will do for either one.

There is a Libertarian candidate, Michael McDermott, but it is unlikely he will do anything significant in the race.

New York District

New York District 19 (NY-19)

This race is going to fun. The district has gone for Obama twice, both times fairly decisively. But the retiring incumbent, Chris Gibson, is a Republican. So the district is considered a toss up.

On the Republican side, the winner of the primary was John Faso. In the 2006 Democratic wave election, he ran in the general election against Eliot Spitzer and lost. After that, he kind of fell off the radar. Instead of politics, he worked on things such as Autism Speaks, a program that helps kids with autism.

On the Democratic side, the primary winner was the fabulously named Zephyr Teachout. She is best known for running against Andrew Cuomo and getting a surprising 34% of the vote. In addition, she has been a big supporter of Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders.

The fun thing about this race is that John Faso is using red baiting. This is at least a bit odd. Faso has said he supports Trump for President, even though he hasn’t endorsed him formally. But, of course, Trump and his campaign have a lot of ties to Russia.

I also found out today that a hedge fund billionaire has decided to spend a small sum of money against Teachout. Luckily Teachout seems to be one of the few people who can pull a Sanders off when it comes to fundraising and the national and state parties are willing to help her out. With a firm effort by Teachout, this may be a pick up.

New York District 22 (NY-22)

This race is not as wild as the other two. And it is the one New York district most likely to go Republican.

It went for the Republican candidates in the past couple of presidential elections even while being represented by a Democrat for ten years before redistricting. So it is possible that this is a pick up for the Democrats.

On the Democratic side is Kim Myers who is related to the Dick’s Sporting Goods family, but runs her own business. She also has been a member of the governing legislature for her county. So she has some experience running for office.

On the Republican side is Claudia Tenney. She is a state assembly member who endorsed Trump prior to her winning the primary. She was considered the underdog and pulled off a bit of an upset. Otherwise, she appears to be boilerplate Republican.

What is interesting about this race is this is a rare situation where a woman is running against another woman. Generally speaking, that doesn’t happen. Otherwise it is ye olde politics.

What Will Be the Outcomes of Each New York District?

I think these may all wind up being Democratic pickups. None of the three districts are heavily Republican, and this is shaping up to be a Democratic wave year based on how well Clinton is doing. She is taking steps to try to have a Democratic Congress to work with for at least the first two years (especially since she knows exactly what is going to happen if she doesn’t). The word is that the RNC is ignoring Trump and trying to salvage races like these.

So with that mess going on at the top on the Republican ticket, and the Democratic side working their tails off to avoid any losses, New York will be so blue it will be visible from space. And that will likely include each New York district discussed here.

Radical Feminism Versus the Gauzy Apple Pie Version

Caliban and the Witch - FeminismI was chatting with Elizabeth last night on Facebook. The subject of feminism came up and I wrote, “I’m not exactly sure what a feminist is. I guess I’m one because I like women. Equality, sure…” And the conversation went on to different subjects from there. But today, I started reading Silvia Federici’s book, Caliban and the Witch. And it got me thinking about feminism in a deeper sense.

Many years ago, I was on the blog of a friend of a friend. She had written something about the subjugation of women. And I posted what I thought was an encouraging comment. But I used the phrase “radical feminism” to discuss what she had been talking about. She went ballistic. It was pretty clear to me that my use of the phrase was tantamount to calling her a “feminazi.”

Indeed, entering “feminazi” into Google causes it to spit out: “a radical feminist.” But this is wrong, as I will get to in a moment. I had two reasons for using the term. The first was that the woman responsible for my intellectual and political awakening was a radical feminist. The second was that the word “feminism” has largely lost its power.

What Does “Feminism” Mean?

At this point, what does it mean to say you are a feminist? Nothing really. It says something about you if you aren’t a feminist. But feminism itself has fallen into the “mom and apple pie” category of something so nonthreatening that only psychopaths are against it. And what is the point of that?

Caliban and the Witch is an explicitly Marxist look at sexual politics. Marx, understandably, saw things from a male perspective. He saw capitalism as a transitory system between feudalism and socialism. Thus it was a good thing. This is something most people miss about Marx: he was one of capitalism’s greatest admirers. Federici is not convinced, since she looks at the subject from a female perspective. She’s particularly interested in witch trials that became much more common during the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

I’m very much with her on that, although I come at it from a different perspective. The move from feudalism to capitalism just changed the way that we divided up private land property. There has never been a serious attack on what is, ultimately, an absurd system. Federici’s feminism is in the service of answering a question, “Why are women subjugated?” In fact, in the preface of her book, she discusses the two dominant feminist theories: Radical Feminism and Socialist Feminism. The former focuses on patriarchy whereas the latter on systemic oppression of all people.

Making Feminism Radical Again

I find this far more satisfying than gauzy notions that eventually we will get sexual equality through laws and norms. And that’s because when you have an unjust, unequal society, it’s always going to be bigoted against women, racist, and so much more. It reminds me of Nicole Aschoff’s great book, The New Prophets of Capital. As I described it, “The fundamental idea with all of [the ideas of these titans of industry] is that the problems that capitalism creates can be fixed by capitalism itself.”

And I don’t believe that. Yes, I will vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate because that is the system that we have. But I am fundamentally at odds with the vast majority of my fellow Americans about the system itself. What’s more, I think we have DNA problems that make us naturally hierarchical. We need to get past that.

So where am I on the issue of feminism? Am I a feminist? Sure — in the same way I’m a Democrat. But I’m also a Radical Feminist. And a Socialist Feminist. We must fix ourselves. And we must fix the system. If we don’t, Homo sapiens probably don’t have but a few thousand years left.

Pennsylvania 08 (PA-08): A Bellwether House Race?

Steve Santarsiero - PA-08As we finally get to the meat of the general election, we are off to Pennsylvania’s Eighth Congressional District (PA-08) which is an open seat and a toss up. When I checked the Cook Political Report today, there were a lot more toss ups than there were a month ago. This is more evidence that the top of the ticket is having a real impact down ticket.

The District

PA-08 was one of the pick-ups in the 2006 Democratic wave year, and kept in 2008. However, it was lost to the Republicans in 2010 and has stayed that way since then. When people talk about gerrymandering, they typically point to Pennsylvania as a particularly bad case, which greatly benefits the Republicans. But President Obama only narrowly lost PA-08 to Mitt Romney in 2012, so it is possible pick-up for the Democrats.

There also has been enough time with enough people moving around to allow it to flip. My general impression is that about six years after redistricting, seats become open enough to flip. We’ll see if that’s the case this year.

Incumbent Michael Fitzpatrick has decided to honor a pledge he made to serve only a certain number of terms and is not up for re-election. But don’t consider him too honorable. His brother, Brian Fitzgerald, is running for his seat now. It seems kind of like a trick — a loophole in Michael Fitzpatrick’s promise, but I guess the people of PA-08 will decide.

The Candidates for PA-08

Brian Fitzpatrick - PA-08Brian Fitzpatrick is a former FBI agent who is campaigning on a “law and order” appeal. He has several obvious advantages. Primarily, he has name recognition and a great list of campaign donors thanks for his brother. But also, having worked the Campaign Finance and Election Crimes Unit at the FBI, he speaks with authority on “law and order” issues. He is definitely playing down the partisanship based on his Facebook page. But overall, his campaign website has the standard Republican boilerplate with only one thing that looks like it comes from the candidate personally.

Over on the Democratic side, State Representative Steve Santarsiero from District 31 won his primary on April 26th. Serving at the statehouse since 2013, he has pushed quite a few reforms regarding campaign finance, fracking, and gun control. He even called for a constitutional convention for campaign finance reform. Santarsiero is not only not running from his party, he is embracing it. He is also definitely trying to tie Fitzpatrick to Trump.

Who Will Represent PA-08

As usual, it is difficult to say how this election will turn out. (I don’t write about races where the outcomes are clear.)

On the one hand, Fitzpatrick may be considered an interloper merely running to keep the seat for the Republicans (and in the family). On the other, he has actual experience fighting campaign finance crimes and knows what he is campaigning on.

Santarsiero is an experienced campaigner who is well known in his own district while Fitzpatrick is a political newbie. So Fitzgerald may be tripped up by common beginner mistakes. His refusal to take a position on Trump might hurt him as well.

Time will tell.

Paul Ryan’s Reputation Was Never Deserved

Brian Beutler - Paul Ryan's ReputationIt’s easy to forget, after the horrifying Republican National Convention we just witnessed, and after Clint Eastwood lectured a chair at the RNC four years ago, that [Paul] Ryan’s VP-acceptance speech in 2012 was censured by the often-adoring press for being unusually misleading. He blamed President Barack Obama for the closure of a General Motors plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, that had been shuttered before Obama became president; for doing “exactly nothing” to implement the findings of a debt commission Ryan himself had driven to gridlock; and for several other tendentious or false things. When confronted with skepticism from the press, he hid behind bad spin and technicality and deception.

Back in 2011, when House Republicans were trying to extort fiscal policy concessions from Obama, Ryan used his intellectual cachet to claim that briefly defaulting on the national debt — for “a day or two or three or four” — would be harmless if it ultimately forced Obama to accede to GOP demands.

Ryan and his colleagues precipitated a sharp drop in consumer confidence. Their antics alone threatened to send the economy into recession, and if they had actually defaulted on the debt, per Ryan’s guidance, the economic carnage could have been far graver.

Today, the stewards of Ryan’s reputation are aghast when Trump says he might refuse to meet the country’s obligations to creditors, but they mostly overlooked Ryan’s comments five years ago, and he’s never really walked them back. It took his ascension to the House speakership, when the onus to raise the debt limit was falling on him, for his office to admit he now believes the debt limit deadline set by the Treasury Department “is the date.” But if Hillary Clinton becomes president, it’s easy to imagine him reverting to his prior, more reckless view.

—Brian Beutler
Nobody Should Be Surprised That Paul Ryan Is Supporting Donald Trump

Minnesota 02 (MN-02): Will Politeness Win? Will Trumpism Lose?

Angie Craig MN-02Minnesota’s Second Congressional District (MN-02) is open because Representative John Kline (R) has decided to go do more interesting things than be a congressman.

Currently the district is fairly well to do with an average income of $76,000. So naturally all of the people running are millionaires.  Yes, that includes the Democrat.  It is considered a battleground district since it has gone for Obama at the top of the ticket, even though it has gone Republican for about a decade at the House level.

The usual happenstance of a crowded field of Republicans fighting for the seat was the situation here with four Republicans battling it out. Two were simply regular Republicans, while two are very much of the Tea Party type.  What was different this time was that the Republican establishment fell in line behind one of the extremists: Jason Lewis.  He was the clear front runner, and managed to line up most of the major endorsements while having the highest name recognition. Not surprisingly, he ended up winning.

Republicans in the MN-02 Primary

Jason Lewis MN-02The primary ran last Tuesday. But the field was interesting.

First, was former state senator and candidate for Minnesota Secretary of State, John Howe. He only served a single term as a state senator. But that did make him stand out: he had actually won elected office. None of the others have. He was largely self-funding, but that wasn’t a problem. Except that he lost with less than 14% of the vote.

Second, was Darlene Miller. She is a business owner. Thus, she had some advantages in being one of the demigods of the Republicans: a “job creator.” But otherwise, she didn’t offer much. She did have outgoing Congressman Kline’s endorsement for MN-02. It wasn’t enough, but she did manage to get almost 31% of the vote.

Third, was Matthew Erickson whose main selling point was his extremism. He served as a spokesman for Trump’s campaign as well as the volunteer coordinator for the state party. According to him, he was running because other politicians are cowards. Erickson does have some “interesting claims.” For example: he thinks he’s basically JFK:

I am basically John F Kennedy. I look in the mirror and I ask myself each morning “Matthew David Erickson, what can you do for your country today?” And the answer comes back, “I will do my goll-danged darnedest.”

Erickson’s goll-danged darnedest garnering him less than 7% of the vote.

Fourth, was Jason Lewis, the winner with 49% of the vote. His background is in radio. He’s had a local show going back 25 years. And he has been a bit outspoken in his right wing views, to say the least.  His main focus has been taxes where he takes a fairly libertarian line.

Democrats in the MN-02 Primary

The Democrats started with a three person primary, but two of the candidates withdrew. That left just Angie Craig. She is a former medical executive.  She has done very well with fundraising and has major endorsements from all of the usual liberal groups as well as the Democratic political establishment.

The MN-02 General Election

This race is rather like the national presidential race.  Trump’s struggles thus far have moved this race from one that would clearly lean Republican to a toss-up.

The question is how tightly Craig will be able to duct tape Trump to Lewis. If this is a wave year, and there are signs pointing to this, MN-02 will be one of the 29 minimum seats that the Democrats need to pick up to flip the House.