Why Not “Four Years More"—Theodore Roosevelt, Opportunity, Optimism, and the 2020 Elections
Introduction
In late 2015, as the Republican candidate field was taking shape for the following year's presidential election, I wrote an article on this blog suggesting that Republicans were setting up a losing candidate to be knocked down by a foregone conclusion. I used the words “borderline buffoon” to describe the eventual nominee. Not only was I wrong about that candidate losing, but the thrust of my article: “13 Positions For A Republican Reboot” (suggesting ways for the Republican party to transform itself) was wrong-headed too. The Republican party isn’t about to transform itself, though I’d of course love to be wrong about that, too. What is possible, is a rump Republican party, left behind as the relatively sane split off in a more moderate direction.
The opportunity this presents Democrats, then, is where my focus should've been, and will be, in this follow-up article.
1
The title I’m using, Why Not “Four Years More"—Theodore Roosevelt, Opportunity, Optimism, and the 2020 Elections, looks back at that iconic Republican, T. R., and uses his personality and policies to construct a bridge to disenchanted GOP voters of today.
And, no, I don’t mean to suggest that Democrats should strive for a ‘middle ground’ to accomplish this, such that energetic, partisan positions are left behind in favor of a flaccid ‘compromise'. No, I’m suggesting that in addition to standard Democratic party policy, T.R.’s greatness may show a possible way forward that is progressive, and a natural bridge for the 5-10% of Republicans cut adrift by our current president and his cohorts in Congress.
Perhaps the easiest challenge this project poses is to first separate the historically naive T.R. from the visionary. We’ll then draw on T.R.’s example in identifying our bridge to Republicans. And finally, we’ll see what all this means for the Democratic party. In other words, this article will attempt to identify the likeliest path to the healthiest victory margin in 2020, assuming no significant modification of core Democratic party principles.
1
“Four Years More” was the chant heard 110 years ago at the 1908 Republican National Convention as some delegates encouraged T.R. to run for another term (having become president in 1901, he served out the remainder of the assassinated William McKinley’s term, and then in ’04 was elected in his own right). He declined to run again.
…………..
That Brilliantly Lit Mind
That T.R. was a great president is hardly in doubt. His enthusiasms and accomplishments are legendary and he richly deserves his place on Mount Rushmore in the company of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. A short list of his presidency's highlights would include reining in corporate excess, establishing consumer protections, negotiating peace, creating the first national parks, cracking down on corruption, and fighting for “A Square Deal” to encourage opportunity for all.
Realistically, though, one must admit that in several ways he was all too caught up in the times in which he lived. Did he consider westerners and western culture superior? Did this mean he thought countries like The Philippines benefited from US occupation? And should we use the term ‘imperialist’? The answer to all such questions is probably 'yes', though I'm willing to set that fault aside, along with the lack of progress on Race, Gender and Indigenous Rights. Others may not be so willing. Most importantly, though, we know where we, ourselves, stand on these issues, and can, if we so choose, chalk these matters up to the naiveté of our nation’s early development; and, instead, focus on the good. If so, T.R.’s example is all we need. And adding 5-10% of the Republican vote is likely all it would take to bust up the congressional logjams that beset our political institutions.
……………
The T.R. Agenda
In the order listed above, we have:
1. Reining in corporate excess
2. Consumer protections
3. Diplomacy
4. Conservation
5. Anti-Corruption
6. Opportunity
1. Reining In Corporate Excess
There will be much to undo from the excesses and negligence that describe our 45th president. The problem, though, will be that closing loopholes, breaking up monopolies, net neutrality, re-imposing safeguards, fining wrong-doers, even returning corporate tax rates to their previous levels, are actions that aren't going to get too many people excited. Instead, what's needed are stunning proposals, ...which we'll get to.
2. Consumer Protection
In T.R.’s day the problem was mislabeled and unsanitary food, along with unscrupulous economic actors, problems the president aggressively, and in some cases effectively addressed. What are the equivalent consumer protection issues of our age? There's the long-term issue of climate change, opioid addiction, lead contamination, the wrong people having access to guns, one could even include health care and retirement security.
3. Diplomacy
Most historians give T.R. high marks for leading the world toward peace during the Russo - Japanese War of 1904-5, and again in defusing tensions in China. And of course he's known for the famous quote: “Speak softly, and carry a big stick…” which suggests strength, but with a deft, light touch. This would translate into modern-day restraint, calibration, and cultivating positive trends.
4. Conservation
Even the most ardent treehugger has to admit that T.R., despite some mercantile instincts, was a godsend for conservation. He helped establish five National Parks, 18 National Monuments, 51 bird reserves, four game preserves, and 150 National Forests. In all, approximately a quarter of a billion acres. In our day, there's a need for speed in protecting the natural world we now enjoy, as well as for sharing it, especially with those having little access to nature.
5. Anti-Corruption
We think of corruption as the scourge of developing economies, like the graft and mismanagement that T.R. dealt with over a hundred years ago. But what is the illegal drug trade, sex trafficking, and illegal resource extraction, not to mention the ’special interests’ badgering our capital, but our own modern-day corruption?
6. Opportunity
In T.R.’s day, impediments to the American Dream were rapacious corporations, unhealthy living conditions, unfair economic structures, and a lack of economic vigor. We share many of those same problems.
Surprisingly, to approximate a winning agenda for 2020, one has only to toss into this diagnostic mix a needed respect for others, at home and abroad (a perspective that we all but take for granted here in the 21st century).
But how does one reach voters who'll yawn at the mention of T.R.? By making his fight for opportunity come alive.
What follows is T.R.'s agenda one hundred and ten years later.
What follows is T.R.'s agenda one hundred and ten years later.
……………...
Our Framework (T.R.'s approach in bold)
* Emphasize “Speak Softly…” Overseas
* Accept and Embrace Both Urban and Rural Perspectives
* Reach Out to Marginally Motivated Voters With Enthusiasm
A. Emphasize “Speak Softly…” Overseas
Realistically speaking, the only way--without raising taxes beyond 2016 rates--that additional revenues can be found--funds needed on the home front for a dynamic agenda, and also to tackle deficit spending—is to:
1. Reduce our involvement overseas
2. Invest instead in diplomacy, and
3. Scale back the upgrade of our nuclear forces, and reduce other excesses and duplication in heavy weaponry, instead emphasizing a light tread.
B. Accept and Embrace Urban/Rural Perspectives
Again, realistically speaking, the sure way to appeal to Republican voters fed up with vulgarity and venality, and seriously thinking about voting Blue, is to chart a way forward for both Urban and Rural America; because, if you live out in the country, an agenda with nothing in it for you is an open and shut case.
To wit:
* a recognition that federal policy impacts farm and ranch size, and thus the vitality of rural economies (smaller farms = more farmers = bigger local economy)
* an appreciation for how a corporate economy differs from homespun, creative livelihoods
* a vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws to promote local and regional businesses
C. Reach Out To Marginal Voters With Enthusiasm
Here we find what will likely transform our approach from plodding to plausible: tapping into pure opportunity--the chance to get rich--to attract broad participation in civic life. We address:
* the weaknesses in our democratic system
* the problem of unemployment as artificial intelligence/robots do ever more of our work
* the erosion of economic vitality in much of our country's interior
Weakness in our Democracy
It's simple. If your congressman is dependent on corporate cash, he isn't representing you and your fellow voters. There are difficult ways to fix this, involving Supreme Court justices retiring, or the even more unlikely constitutional amendment process. Or, there's what I'm calling Approximate Democracy.
For the long version, read my next post.
For the long version, read my next post.
Here's the short version:
1) A participating congress-man or -woman would have a webpage featuring videos (each perhaps five minutes in length) covering both single issues and more general topics.
2) Voters, after viewing a randomly assigned video, would register their opinions by choosing from among multiple-choice options on a series of questions.
3) Polling firms would sample these opinions, then publish results. Politicians could choose to represent constituent opinion, could decline to offer this service in the first place, or could select from individual polling results as they saw fit. That is, they wouldn’t be legally bound to concur with these polls, but could advertise their willingness to do so.
4) The public would be encouraged to participate, with the drawing of 10 names per month per House district. These 10 constituents would each receive $1,000 in savings bonds. The chance to win such a prize would likely generate enough participants to make the system work, and would cost a mere $52.32 million a year.
First, return the federal budget to its 2016 near-balance.
Second, commit some savings from 'speaking softly' overseas to expanding those $1,000 payouts to $100,000.
Third, take on additional wasteful government spending, and redirect it (subsidies for fossil fuels, for example) to larger prizes, say $500,000.
And, fourth, winners are encouraged to drop out of the corporate economy's labor force and start their own break-even business/craft.
First, create tax and benefit incentives for those who live and work at home (farmers who live on their own farm), and remove them for absentee owners and overly large land-owners (with regional variability: large states, large ranches).
Second, coupled with enforcing and promulgating anti-trust laws, this allows small-scale, locally based businesses to flourish and reinvest in their community.
Third, similarly, encourage coop business models that give farmers and other producers bargaining power.
And, fourth, nurture a land-based, craft economy that is shielded from the efficiencies of our other, corporate economic system.
What This Means For The Democratic Party
The above proposal highlights the enthusiasm and Square Deal opportunity that T. R. represented, and the way we might reimagine those political assets in our own time.
Here is additional detail:
1. Balance The Books
Economics 101 teaches that an economy needs stimulus during a recession, and can then return to balance during an expansion. We're in a long expansion, and the prudent thing to do is to return to the near-balance of 2016's taxing and spending levels. We can then disengage militarily, overseas, to free up additional money to be used at home.
2. 'Speak Softly' Overseas
Being prudent with money is the hallmark of a conservative approach, and in this case, disengaging militarily is also the progressive--and responsible--thing to do.
A small portion of our savings could be reinvested in diplomacy, so that we're in step with our fellow democratic allies around the world, and seen as a steady, reliable partner.
3. Helpful Anti-Trust Action
If a country's economy is dominated by huge corporations, profits will flow out of far-flung localities and into centers of commerce, effectively drying up economic activity in small- and medium-sized towns. This hollowing out leads to joblessness and misery (addiction, suicide, broken families, etc.). This is our current situation.
T.R. had a remedy for this problem, and it pertains today: break up and restrict larger corporations in favor of those that enrich local economies. Link: Here is a good overview of our anti-trust argument. The overall case for how corporate monopoly drives an under-performing economy with low wages, can be found here.
4. A Modern Online Democracy
The importance of corruption in politics is hard to ignore. Those with the most money will simply buy their way to victory--or will try to do so. We can fight back with facts, humor and popular positions, but a quicker way may be to cut out the middleman's role representing public opinion, since that is where money plays its part.
If the electorate is encouraged to, as citizens, take twenty minutes every month to tell politicians what they think, this gradually:
A. Educates voters,
B. Forces representatives to listen and respond, and
C. Means a more rewarded and satisfied electorate
In this way we've cut out the core corruption, rather than trying to handle its many, troubling manifestations.
This approach handles the house of representatives. The senate, with its tilt toward low-population, rural states is the reason we need that 5-10% of the Republican vote--in other words, the reason for this ' T.R. Bridge ' article. Note: In a subsequent post, here, I address how the original problem with the senate (dating back to the founding of our nation) could be partially resolved.
A. Educates voters,
B. Forces representatives to listen and respond, and
C. Means a more rewarded and satisfied electorate
In this way we've cut out the core corruption, rather than trying to handle its many, troubling manifestations.
This approach handles the house of representatives. The senate, with its tilt toward low-population, rural states is the reason we need that 5-10% of the Republican vote--in other words, the reason for this ' T.R. Bridge ' article. Note: In a subsequent post, here, I address how the original problem with the senate (dating back to the founding of our nation) could be partially resolved.
5. A Transition To A Robot Economy
At first glance the idea of randomly rewarding 10 voters in each congressional district with $1,000 each, every month of the year, seems jarring (not to mention increasing that amount to $500K). But let's look at the other possibilities as artificial intelligence begins to displace our economy's workforce:
B. We collect the same taxes, and find the same savings as above, but we give everyone a share; this is often referred to as UBI (Universal Basic Income). The advantage here is that everyone gets something. The problem is that getting $50 a month from the government (or even expanding that to $500) is not going to reduce the number of people needing a job.
C. We do nothing, and the rich get richer, there are more and more poor, and those poor have more and more problems. This is our present course.
And, if we wait too long to choose, there is...
D. Eventually, we collect the same taxes as 'A' and 'B', but, since we've waited so long, we find we need that money to ameliorate all the problems brought about by un- and under-employment.
This comparison makes our Approximate Democracy idea look pretty good.
6. A Secondary, Land-Based, Craft Economy
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) gradually replaces workers, a secondary, home-based economy will develop, either as growing numbers of un- and under-employed (many soon to be homeless), or, possibly, if we make it happen, crafters, rural dwellers, break-even small businesses, and artists at leisure in the world.
If our Approximate Democracy system is allowing one of every two thousand people, let's say, to retire from the corporate economy each year, they'll be living life as a leisure activity. And, we can make this workforce reduction more dramatic by also encouraging those with small farms, business skills, artistic ability, or just the necessary imagination, to start a new career outside corporate America. For example, paying no taxes on an individual's first $15,000 of income (see footnote, below). Or, again, for those who earn less than a certain level, rewarding them for care-taking historically significant property, for rehabilitating housing, for restoring degraded landscapes etc., or eventually, even for simply maintaining a beautiful home. The rate at which AI/robots will displace the human workforce is hard to predict, of course, and initially, we won't be able to afford subsidies for those living as crafters and small farmers, but something like these ideas is surely preferable to staggering unemployment.
If our Approximate Democracy system is allowing one of every two thousand people, let's say, to retire from the corporate economy each year, they'll be living life as a leisure activity. And, we can make this workforce reduction more dramatic by also encouraging those with small farms, business skills, artistic ability, or just the necessary imagination, to start a new career outside corporate America. For example, paying no taxes on an individual's first $15,000 of income (see footnote, below). Or, again, for those who earn less than a certain level, rewarding them for care-taking historically significant property, for rehabilitating housing, for restoring degraded landscapes etc., or eventually, even for simply maintaining a beautiful home. The rate at which AI/robots will displace the human workforce is hard to predict, of course, and initially, we won't be able to afford subsidies for those living as crafters and small farmers, but something like these ideas is surely preferable to staggering unemployment.
The Overall Strategy
Using a broad brush, I've sketched a way for Democrats to conceivably win large enough majorities in congress to overcome inertia and turn the country back towards sanity.
This involves channeling T.R.'s enthusiasm and message of opportunity in order to attract not only borderline Republicans, but low-information, impulsive voters.
First, let's review our strategy, then entertain contrarian arguments.
Initially, the goal is to set up a congress and president who'll follow through on our agenda. We emphasize easily attainable building blocks, like:
*a return to 2016's tax structure (fairness, as well as fiscal responsibility) which can be passed with a 50-vote majority in the senate.
*an end to overseas wars (investing instead here at home)
*enforcing existing anti-trust, pollution, and consumer protection regulation
*taking the initial steps towards Approximate Democracy with $1,000 in savings bond prizes
Secondarily, our long-term goal is a country once again based on opportunity.
*initial financing comes from curtailing overseas military excess in favor of multilateral alliances and actions with other democracies ("speak softly...")
*additional financing is part of a dramatic expansion of opportunity, which becomes a feedback loop that demands even more of a scaling back of military and other corporate special interest spending
*in the corporate economy, we emphasize rising wages through a reduction of the workforce; otherwise, as AI/Robots remove jobs, wages will fall
*in the secondary, creative economy, we remove impediments to break-even livelihoods (a higher no tax threshold; other subsidies), allowing further workforce reduction
*we fund the drivers of economic expansion (targeted R&D, affordable education, and long-term infrastructure), as would old-time Republicans like Abraham Lincoln
Eventually, our opportunity economy:
*leads to vigorous regional growth, as anti-trust legislation takes effect
*has both a cutting edge corporate sector, as well as a creative, small-scale sector (these will tend to be found in our larger cities and rural areas, respectively)
*keeps workforce numbers in line with jobs
But...What About...?
Ok, let's tackle the naysayers in the back of our minds.
What about the war on terrorism?
Besides the importance of our own problems at home, and the reality that some terrorism is due to our troops taking sides on foreign soil, there're the casualties. Who are we asking to die? Our own children.
Could there be face-saving ways we might exit, in places like Afghanistan? Here's a link to one possibility. Simply make salaries paid Afghanistan's own soldiers so attractive that they'll be fighting for high-paying jobs (compared to the average Afghan), rather than, in some cases, half-heartedly fighting for little more than room and board. Couple this with diplomacy, in an effort to keep Taliban fighters out, and we could probably withdraw with few repercussions.
What about our nuclear deterrent and other heavy weapons?
The current set of dangers we face involve terrorist actions, cyber warfare, and other covert threats. To bankrupt ourselves over showy, unusable symbols of power is at best an unlikely gamble, and at worst totally crazy. But, for the last nearly hundred years fear has driven us to spend enormous amounts on defense--much more than have other countries with our level of wealth. This time could be different. If there's an alternative way to spend that same money that appeals to everyone's sense of a dream come true (our Approximate Democracy system with its $500,000 payouts), rather than yet another nuclear missile, voters will have a personal stake in the alternative.
Won't there be a big gap between Approximate Democracy's initial implementation, and big enough payouts to attract attention?
Not necessarily. $1,000 will likely attract enough participation to get the program up and running, quickly--perhaps even just a few months. After all, we live in a viral world where websites crash on less important matters.
Once legislation can be crafted to redirect spending on military hardware, to instead, $500,000 payouts, the response will be self-sustaining.
Won't those who haven't won be jealous of those who have?
If winners are announced every month, there's always the chance that the next winner could be you; this continuing hope should effectively deal with any jealousy.
Aren't we ignoring the plight of those who need the most help?
No, we're describing a policy focus that overlays traditional Democratic goals like raising the minimum wage, increasing education funding, enforcing civil rights laws, and supporting ObamaCare.
Yes, but aren't the payouts for Approximate Democracy a form of gambling?
No. The original action that is randomly rewarded is letting one's representative know one's opinion, and does not require any payment from the participant. Plus, if not for the payouts, the truly needy would not be participating, since they wouldn't likely have the leisure time that the wealthy have.
Second, randomly selecting winners is the least bad solution to the loss of jobs brought about by digitization/AI/Robots becoming evermore adept at doing our work. There are no better options, including doing nothing.
Does it matter which political party represents these ideas?
No.
T. Roosevelt in Kansas speech, 1910
"No man is worth his salt in public life who makes on the stump a pledge which he does not keep after election; and, if he makes such a pledge and does not keep it, hunt him out of public life."
Obama, 2010:
...
At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.
Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.
But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices....
Update (11/11/18): On this Veterans Day, as we look back to the end of World War I, a few additional thoughts:
* The 2018 midterm elections have come and gone. The 'rump' party status of the president's politics was confirmed. Without the warped effect of a senate tilted towards low-population states, the results would have been a complete repudiation.
* The '18 election results tracked fairly closely with pre-election polls, lending credence to our using them for our Approximate Democracy idea.
* A significant backlash among rural voters, regarding issues such as immigration and guns, may indicate how an even larger electoral majority could be had, without compromising principles.
On immigration: Take into account factors such as crowding (traffic jams, for example) and reduced natural habitats (land development for housing, for instance) in addition to the current emphasis on economic benefit (a larger tax base, etc.) and moral imperative (helping those in need). Doing so allows for wavering voters to feel more comfortable, even if their preferred outcomes aren't endorsed.
On guns: See if there isn't a compromise that allows rural areas, small towns, and more conservative urban areas to have whatever laws they wish regarding the carrying of firearms, while enforcing tight background check laws at the national level. And, allow urban and suburban areas the ability to pass whatever laws they wish to limit guns--aside from the outright banning of all guns. Making everything but background checks up to localities allows everyone to, in effect, set the issue aside. Plus, this allows for natural experiments to see which approaches result in the least violent crime, accidents, etc. Obviously, there may be limits to what the courts will allow, but advocating for a compromise will tend to allow voters to reach a comfort zone on the issue.
Update (11/11/18): On this Veterans Day, as we look back to the end of World War I, a few additional thoughts:
* The 2018 midterm elections have come and gone. The 'rump' party status of the president's politics was confirmed. Without the warped effect of a senate tilted towards low-population states, the results would have been a complete repudiation.
* The '18 election results tracked fairly closely with pre-election polls, lending credence to our using them for our Approximate Democracy idea.
* A significant backlash among rural voters, regarding issues such as immigration and guns, may indicate how an even larger electoral majority could be had, without compromising principles.
On immigration: Take into account factors such as crowding (traffic jams, for example) and reduced natural habitats (land development for housing, for instance) in addition to the current emphasis on economic benefit (a larger tax base, etc.) and moral imperative (helping those in need). Doing so allows for wavering voters to feel more comfortable, even if their preferred outcomes aren't endorsed.
On guns: See if there isn't a compromise that allows rural areas, small towns, and more conservative urban areas to have whatever laws they wish regarding the carrying of firearms, while enforcing tight background check laws at the national level. And, allow urban and suburban areas the ability to pass whatever laws they wish to limit guns--aside from the outright banning of all guns. Making everything but background checks up to localities allows everyone to, in effect, set the issue aside. Plus, this allows for natural experiments to see which approaches result in the least violent crime, accidents, etc. Obviously, there may be limits to what the courts will allow, but advocating for a compromise will tend to allow voters to reach a comfort zone on the issue.
Footnote:
From Third Way's website (item #9):
"...The Working Wage Break would eliminate all taxes on the first $15,000 of wage income. No income tax. No employee Social Security tax. No employee Medicare tax. And it would do it without changing earned benefits at all.
The Working Wage Break will give an immediate and lasting raise in take-home pay of $1,500 for those currently earning the national minimum wage. It will give roughly $1,000 to those earning $60,000 in wages, and it will benefit every worker earning up to $128,700 in wages. The break will be fully financed by a modest, 1.1% hike in the payroll tax rate applied to wage income between $15,000 and the Social Security taxable maximum; a two-point surcharge on wages over $200,000 paid by workers and their employers; and by returning the top tax rate on individual income to its Obama-era level of 39.6% and dedicating those funds to the retirement trust funds. No individual earning less than $200,000 in wages will see a tax increase, and the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds will be held harmless.
The Working Wage Break will fully preserve other tax benefits to families, like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, but it will have a broader reach. It will help middle-aged and older workers without dependent kids, and it will provide an outsized benefit to women and minority earners."
No comments:
Post a Comment