Massive Right-Wing Money

In last night's State of the Union Address, President Obama called to raise the minimum wage. Less than 10 hours after the President's speech, a full page attack ad attack in The Wall Street Journal (page A14) appeared on the Nation's doorsteps and desks.

                   "In his State of the Union address President Obama endorsed a nearly 40 percent increase in the minimum wage."

The ad was paid for by "The Employment Policies Institute."  According to Wikipedia, EPI is led by Richard Berman, who was described by 60 Minutes as "the booze and food industries' weapon of mass destruction." Reportedly, Berman previously fronted for the tobacco and booze industries. His past targets include PETA and MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving).

The Journal charges somewhere between $150,000 and $250,000 for a black/white full-page ad. To build and contract the ad in a tight time line adds more costs.

This expensive overnight ad highlights the massive power of right-wing money in today's politics. EPI's real message goes far beyond the minimum wage. EPI's not-so-subtle message is that it has immediate stores of disposable dollars in the millions - and it can as easily target a Congressman or a Senator as target a President. Beware any politician in a swing state who challenges right-wing interests. EPI and its siblings will deliver immediate, professional and overwhelming confusion in state elections.

After the Citizens United case, we may think we saw the high point of money in the 2012 elections. Not so. A tsunami of special interest, right-wing money is heading our way. 

Why I Am Pro-Choice

“Religious war” is a pathetic oxymoron, unnecessarily repeated throughout history with murderous effects. Open any history book; read millennia of examples where humans dishonored God in the purported name of honoring God. The most vicious and long-lasting violations were internal civil wars: Northern Ireland; India’s Partition; the Thirty Years War; the Holocaust; and, on and on and on. These violations are not simply fossils of antiquity; they continue today: 9/11; Israel-Palestine; Sudan; Bosnia; Iraq; Nigeria; and, Lebanon. Religious violence is, regrettably, a proven part of humankind’s DNA.

America is hardly immune. Pilgrims fled the church-state establishment that outlawed their beliefs, then hanged Quakers on Boston Common for preaching their beliefs. Roger Williams founded Rhode Island and the Calvert family founded Maryland as sanctuaries against religious violence.

America’s constitutional framers understood this human failing. The framers’ solution was as revolutionary as democracy: build a “wall” (Jefferson’s word) separating church from state. By law, the American government must stay completely out of religious matters. No citizen can use government to impose his/her religious beliefs on anyone else. The first words in the First Amendment declare:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

Well-meaning Americans repeatedly chip at this prohibitive wall. They ignore its existence (with prayers at public schools) or ridicule its extreme interpretations (no Christmas mangers on courthouse lawns). Yet, Americans intuitively appreciate the goodness of separating government and religion. Politics demands compromise while scripture condemns it. As our Union requires uniform laws, individual conscience require absolute religious freedom. Ergo the remaining words in the first phrase of the First Amendment:

… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…

America’s freedom of religion spans every degree and spectra. One in five Americans follows no religion at all. A third attends services at least weekly. One in ten Americans holds religion as their primary reason for being; twice as many give the same status to money. While Christianity is the dominant religion in America by far, it is splintered into irreconcilable sects with long histories of internecine slaughter. Different Christian bibles omit entire books. Jews spilt along Reform, Conservative and Orthodox lines, each with further subdivisions. Islam, Baha’I, Buddhism, and Hinduism have completely separate tenets of morality and visions of the afterlife. Unitarians, Deists, Druids, and hundreds of other faiths in America expand the spectrum of beliefs, commitment and resolve toward infinity. The First Amendment brilliantly protects religious freedom from itself by precluding any sect from using government to enforce religious uniformity in the face of America’s intractable diversity. Today’s Americans have benefited so much from the constitutional framers’ hard-won wisdom that we have forgotten its necessity.

Which brings us to abortion.

When anti-abortion zealots base their crusades solely in religious terms, they take sledgehammers to the Constitution’s brilliant wall between church and state. Because their personal consciences and religious beliefs condemn abortion under any circumstances, they want government to prohibit any of their fellow citizens from aborting a pregnancy. The question is, why?

Are anti-abortion crusaders trying to turn America into a theocracy that imposes specific scriptural laws on everyone? If so, they pose a historical threat to America’s democratic survival.

Are anti-abortion crusaders trying to protect America’s respect for life? In the 40 years since the Roe v Wage decision, America’s respect for life has INCREASED, not decreased. The homicide rate is down by half. So is the highway fatality rate. Life expectancy increased 8½ years. All these advances required massive investments. Four decades of data prove there’s no threat to the social compact posed by abortion.

Are anti-abortion crusaders trying to save their own souls? Some might argue that any government program that underwrites abortions (however infinitesimally) inflicts a “sin” on every taxpayer. But this is the same logic that opponents of the Vietnam and Iraq wars used to avoid paying income taxes. They went to jail. Because government and religion are completely separate in America, government actions do not convey religious culpability to every citizen.

The pro-choice movement has many sound arguments for its positions, including women’s health and the primacy of individual conscience. Yet these arguments routinely fail to sway millions of middle class Americans who routinely vote against their economic interests because of their religious stand against abortion. Democrats need to sever this link.

Religious fervor during times of economic uncertainty is understandable. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no atheists in unemployment lines. Personal fervor, however, should not drive into government into the hands of priest, ministers or mullahs.

It is a constitutionally protected right for every American to make individual decisions on abortion based on their own religious beliefs. At the same time, it is a constitutional prohibition for any American to use government to impose individual religious beliefs regarding abortion upon everyone else. In the face of committed religious diversity, history teaches us that a wall between church and state is absolutely necessary for national survival. If Americans tear down that wall we risk repeating humankind’s history of religious violence.

The Democratic Brand

In 1965, Virginia’s Democratic Party published a progressive platform.

“We believe that government exists to serve the people, that public office is a public trust, and that the policies of government must adapted to changing times. We are for:

·   “Stronger conflict of interest laws.”

·    “Improvement of consumer protections laws.”

EDUCATION

·    “Expand resources and facilities for state institutions of higher learning.”

·   “Higher teacher salary scales, and retirement and sick leave benefits above, not below, the American average.”

TRANSPORTATION

·   “Provide more funds for improved commuter roads and highway maintenance.”

·   “Create a rapid transit system for Northern Virginia.”

MENTAL HEALTH

·   “Alleviate shortages in mental health facilities.”

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

·   “Improve workmen’s compensation laws.”

Half a century ago, these progressive values were controversial, aggressive -- and winning. 1965 was a Democratic sweep.  It was the last time, prior to 2014, that Democrats won all of Virginia’s state-wide offices (Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General) while holding both Senate seats. In 1965, Democrats also held the Presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.

These bullets still speak to voters in 2014. They share an overarching message that binds them into a Democratic Party “brand” that endures over time, regardless of candidate or crisis.

Democrats are the party of everyday working people. A level playing field, where every American has opportunities for success, is the Democratic goal. Democrats have the backs of the Middle Class.

Just as each bullet point from 1965 fits under this brand, so do 2014’s big issues that separate progressive Democrats from right-wing Republicans. Medical care, income inequality, Social Security, consumer protection, tax fairness, mass transit, public education, workers rights, pensions, campaign finance – all are schisms between progressive Democrats and right-wing Republicans. All are subsets of the larger and unending struggle between working Americans and corporate wealth.

Under the American political system, working people and corporate wealth have own political parties. This divide is the battlespace of politics, setting the starting conditions for every campaign. While individual candidates must define themselves, energize their supporters and get out the vote, national parties convey the overall brand that colors every contest.

The corporate Republican brand is “less government, lower taxes.” This brand benefits management, shareholders and the wealthy. The Democratic brand is “a level playing field, where every American has opportunities for success.” This brand grows the Middle Class.

Each party can, and should, articulate why its brand is best for America as a whole. Republicans do this; their message is clear, concise and unified. Pull the string on any Republican and you will hear, “less government, lower taxes.”

Democrats, wanting to be all things to all people, shy from uniformity. Pull the string on any Democrat and you hear a string of unrelated talking points ranging from abortion to gun safety and the minimum wage. Unlike FDR with the New Deal and LBJ with the Great Society, today’s Democrats refuse to define themselves.

Perversely, when today’s Democrats refuse to define themselves, Republican do it for them. Republicans define Democrats as the party of “bigger government and higher taxes.” This damning characterization handicaps every Democratic candidate from the starting whistle.

The Democratic brand of “a level playing field, where every American has opportunities for success,” is both good politics and good policy. Democrats have always been the builders of the Middle Class, whose defenses are even more valuable to voters today due the harms levied by corporate wealth over the last two decades. With information age technologies concentrating more and more power and influence in fewer and fewer people, armies of lawyers, lobbyists and PR pros have skewed wealth in America to unbalanced levels unseen in a century.

Highly concentrated wealth is simultaneously a threat to liberty and to economy. As Justice Brandeis said in 1941, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Historically, aristocracy is incompatible with democracy. With the 400 richest Americans controlling wealth equal to the GDP of Russia, we have already reached Czarist levels of concentrated wealth. Unless the Middle Class regains control of government, we risk even higher concentrations which will inevitably lead to Czarist consequences.

American growth and stability go hand in hand with Middle Class growth. America was strongest when average working Americans were the direct focus of government investment. Indirect, trickle-down benefits channeled through corporate sieves have proven to only produce arid and isolated crops of stunted economic growth.

The Democratic Party should trumpet its traditional roots with a full-throated, unified and singular focus on -- Middle Class growth and opportunity. The Democratic brand is “a level playing field, where every American has opportunities for success.”

$85 Billion for Afghanistan

The House of Representatives voted yesterday to spend $85 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The money covers only fiscal year 2014 – which is one-third over.

For what? After 13 years in Afghanistan, can the average American name 3 Afghanis? Does the average American know how many US servicemembers died in Afghanistan last year? Exactly what American objective in Afghanistan is worth $85 billion this year to America?

The 19^th Century German theorist Carl von Clausewitz coined the aphorism, "War is the continuation of policy by other means." This bumper-sticker is true but misses a crucial point. Once wars start, emotions take over. The emotional demand to justify those who have already died compels nations to order more men (and now women) to kill and die. Nations become dedicated to winning as opposed to achieving. The beginning of war may be a “continuation of policy by other means," but war’s continuation is often an emotional justification of blood already shed.

Because World War I and Vietnam did not teach this warning sufficiently, Afghanistan 2014 is another lesson. National interests in Afghanistan do not justify another $85 billion this year.  Nonetheless, we will spend it without a whimper from average Americans – even though no one can give a simple and compelling justification for continuing the war. Raw appeals to emotion evidently suffice.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln gave Americans an emotional goal at Gettysburg, “… we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…” But the end of the same sentence he gave a rational justification for continuing the slaughter of war: “… government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Americans deserve an equally simple and compelling case for why the enemy in Afghanistan poses a “clear and present danger” that justifies spending $85 billion this year. Lacking such a case, we must tell the families of our dead that we have achieved all that is necessary to achieve. There is no more worth dying for.

127 Americans died serving in Afghanistan last year. 2307 have died to date.

Create Your Own Job

America is moving from an employment-based workforce to an entrepreneurial workforce. Today’s employment question is less, “where can I find a job?” and more “how can I create a job?”

Seeking jobs that someone else builds reflects an Industrial Age paradigm. Compare the small teams who create massive wealth for Information Age billionaires (Gates, Buffett, Ellison, Brin and Zuckerberg) versus the masses who toiled incrementally for Industrial Age barons (Ford, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Duke and Rockefeller). Information Age employers simply do not need many employees. Only the likes of Walmart and McDonalds hire in great numbers. They need bodies not brains – and pay accordingly.

Our Industrial Age grandparents sought career-long jobs in a single factory, shipyard or store. They “knew” their company would span a career. Those days are gone. Does anyone think our Information Age grandchildren envision 40 year careers with the same corporation? Yes, they may work for someone else. But that “someone” will change in purpose, pay and personage many times.

Jobs of the future will be less corporate and more entrepreneurial – because wealth in the Information Age comes less from employing thousands of others and more from building small temporary teams to create technologies and applications.

Like it or not, workers must keep pace. Employees must align and realign with employers, not vice versa. As workplace projects change so must workforce skills.

Employers will pick teams, not for hierarchical careers, but for uncertain and transient projects. Candidates for employment must anticipate emergent value and re-create their value and contributions accordingly. They must do this repeatedly throughout their working life. They must also re-create their value simultaneously; working for several employers at the same time will become the norm, not the exception.

Jobs in big companies and in government will certainly exist. Just as we still have Agrarian Age farmers, we will always have Industrial Age workers. However, fewer field and factory jobs will be “good” jobs. Workers who expect others to create their jobs will be left standing in dispiriting unemployment lines or staring at barren recruiting websites.

The implications for this shift on retirement, healthcare and education are profound. Retirement will continue shifting away from job-stable defined benefit plans and towards job-flexible 401k’s. The greatest contribution of Obamacare is guaranteed medical coverage despite constant career changes. Obamacare and 401k’s are aligned with the tough realities of the emerging Information Age.

Education is the great problem. Schools remain enslaved to the mass-production priorities of the Industrial Age. Schools treat confidence-building activities (such as sports and clubs) as “extracurriculars” when the self-reliant courage they instill is absolutely necessary for entrepreneurial success. Our society institutionalizes expensive education from K-through-college, but it’s no longer enough to educate a young person and expect a lifetime of self-sufficiency.  The Information Age demands continual cycles of education. This system of renewal does not exist and Luddites oppose its formation.

Breaking fealty with education’s mass-production and entry-level paradigm is the next great revolution. States and societies that instill personal courage while aligning life-cycle education with workplace demands will equip workers to create their own jobs. This is how to germinate and grow the jobs of the 21^st Century.