/ About / Archive / Other media
Time to fight - 2/19/19
Bernie Sanders is running for president. I could make the case that we should support him here, but a lot of other people are already doing that, and doing it better. Instead, I want to use this space to make a slightly different point: the time to make your decision is now. Because the center is already fighting to win - and if you do want to win the presidency and you do not act now, you will find yourself out-organized, out-numbered, out-resourced, and out-argued before you can even throw your first punch.

Romanticized visions of American democracy imagine the party primary as a discrete moment in collective decision-making usually just lasting about six months. When the Iowa caucus arrives, the playing field is level, every candidate is equally well-positioned, everyone with a worthy platform is still around, and voters make disinterested on-the-merits judgments about policy and competence.

Obviously this is not how party primaries actually work. What actually happens is that the fight for the nomination begins years before Iowa as competing factions of the Democratic coalition struggle for hegemony. Early on this battle is fairly abstract and unsettled - there is an interregnum in the wake of the last election, a consolidation of factions around emergent rival priorities, and a war of position as different groups fight to frame our politics, build alliances, and gather resources. But today, the shadow primary has already been underway for nearly a year. Candidates are now well into the process of building staff; courting donors, institutional allies, and local kingmakers; fighting for favorable party nomination rules and processes; and promoting their candidacy in the media.

And the center is already on the attack. Wall Street is already running attack ads, influential elites are already picking sides, and candidates are already breaking fundraising records.

There is a certain narrative on the liberal-left that finds this urgency objectionable - that counsels deliberation, organization, and strategic restraint. Now, we are told, is the time to learn about the candidates; to build our influence and organizational capacity; and to make candidates compete for our support. In tone, this is the voice of patient wisdom, disinterested independence, and pragmatic savvy; in rhetoric, it is framed against the frenzied partisan, the cult of personality, and the strategically naive.

And this, I think, is actually very good advice - two years ago. If the left hopes to overcome the juggernaut of capital and the entrenched party bureaucracy at the polls, the time to start working is the day after the last election. That is when you start to build your organizational capacity and political influence; that is when you start to develop your agenda, to make demands, to stick-and-carrot politicians into compliance, and to learn who is on your side and who is not. And to their credit, much of the US left has spent the past three years doing just that, which is why I think we are better positioned to fight for the nomination today than we were in 2016.

But obviously, the time for preparation ends when the fighting begins. And ready or not, the fight has already begun. If the left decides to sit on the sidelines, our rivals aren't going to stand down and idly wait for us to step into the ring - they will build momentum, frame the primaries, recruit supporters, raise money, and crush their opposition. Don't let that happen. You've had two years to get ready for this. It's time to fight.
The Green New Deal's magic word - 2/7/19
From November's original draft text for establishing a select committee for a Green New Deal:
The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of...making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.
From the Green New Deal resolution released today:
the "Green New Deal mobilization"...will require...promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal
This is the most important word in the entire text. The first draft text, as I noted when it first appeared, made no reference whatsoever to funding for international development, which has always been and remains the central challenge of climate change. The domestic policy proposals that have dominated our plans for climate change are important, but they are completely inadequate without attention to international development.

The new draft has that magic word - "funding" - but I don't really see the mere acknowledgment of a need for funding as a step forward so much as a return to the status quo. Before Trump, token contributions to the Green Climate Fund were the norm, even from Republican presidents. The challenge facing the left today is not to win mere recognition that climate change is a global problem - it's to get people to recognize that climate change is a massive global problem, requiring international funding on a scale that is both historically unprecedented and well outside the scale of what Washington is presently willing to even consider.

Until we are talking about hundreds-of-billions-to-trillions in funding, we're really just spinning our wheels. Getting the word "funding" into a resolution is a step back to the era of Barack Obama and George H.W. Bush, but we have to do much, much better than that.
What historical materialism can tell us about Trump's shutdown - 1/26/19
Capitalism endlessly intensifies the suffering of the poor, places a hard ceiling on the upward mobility of the middle class, and constantly threatens to drop them back into poverty. This is why Donald Trump got elected: his opponent inspired no hope that she could fix the problem, and he offered to the Republican base a ladder of white supremacy. Trump is politically viable as long as he can channel the anxieties of the middle class towards rage against immigrants; he fails as class consciousness, fostered by the lived experience of oppression under capitalism, exposes his ethnonationalist scapegoating as the ruse that it is.

This is the basic shape of the material forces at work in contemporary politics. They are, incidentally, the same dynamics at work in every administration that has failed to confront capitalism: liberals try to finesse it with increasingly futile welfare and regulatory measures, reactionaries double-down into increasingly rabid bigotry, but both are caught in fascism's pincer. The explanatory power of a materialist understanding of history is not that it can predict every incident and micro-trend that emerges within this framework: historical materialism allows us to understand the cumulative trajectory of all of these different moments, and to anticipate the choice between socialism and barbarism that they will, with increasing force, impose upon our politics.

So let's return, then, to the specific question of Trump. Historical materialism does tell us that, pending a real confrontation with capital, we are increasingly likely to see reactionaries take power - but that does not mean that Trump was destined to win the Republican primary, or that the Republican was destined to win the general election. Historical materialism does tell us that reactionaries will try to channel class anxieties towards various sociocultural scapegoats - towards constructed identities like race, gender, and nation - but this channeling need not occur in any particular way, so long as it happens. One way you can do this is to fixate the reactionary id on building a giant wall against immigrants; but as we have seen in the past, you can also do this by ginning up resentment against the racist image of an indolent welfare queen, or against the devious careerism of the affirmative action beneficiary, or against the anti-Semitic figure of the parasitical Jew.

And indeed, we have seen all of these currents at work in Trump's base - nothing about historical materialism predicts that he would need to focus his politics on any one of them in particular. Nor does it predict that he would need to rely, in particular, on the tactic of a government shutdown in pursuit of that agenda; you can play wall-politics without that, just as he has until now. Nor, moreover, does it predict that he would draw out that shutdown for 35 consecutive days - another tactical choice that might have easily gone another way.

From a materialist perspective, the most we can really say about this shutdown is that capitalism makes the election of reactionaries likely, and makes it likely that they will try to channel class anxiety into a reactionary agenda, and that opposition to these trends will increasingly take the form of class warfare (like labor strikes). But historical materialism is not a crystal ball that lets us predict or explain every little detail of our world within infinite precision and clarity; if you want to understand why the shutdown lasted as long as it did, then it probably makes more sense to look at things like psychology and Trump's ego-entanglement in an escalation of commitment. For the socialist, understanding the explanatory boundaries of historical materialism is just as important as understanding its potential.
Which voter groups give you the biggest payoff at the polls? - 1/24/19
One of the most puzzling things about Nate Silver's new method for evaluating Democratic presidential contenders - or as Libby Watson calls it, "the weird pentagon chart thing" - is his choice of "key" constituencies. Silver insists that his groups -
  • Party Loyalists
  • The Left
  • Millennials and Friends
  • Black Voters, and
  • Hispanic (with perhaps Asian) voters
- were "chosen because they represent the dividing lines in recent Democratic Party primaries"...but what does this mean? Wade into his rationale and it's just an endless parade of conjecture, holistic judgment calls, rehashed media narratives, personal intuitions, and isolated data points. Silver concedes that his approach "definitely reflects a mix of art and science," but there isn't any actual science to be found.

I've been thinking about how you could identify "key" constituencies with some minimal objectivity and rigor, and it seems to me that the main question is whether you care about potential margins or probable margins. On one hand, large groups obviously have the potential to give you larger margins than smaller groups can; that's why you can never take for granted groups that have a high absolute turnout. On the other hand, however, large groups often don't exercise this potential; instead, they split their vote, and smaller groups that overwhelmingly favor a given candidate contribute disproportionately large margins. This is the more probable outcome, which is why so many of these demographic analyses end up looking for decisive group preferences and disregard absolute turnout.

So it seems that there are two metrics one needs to look at to identify "key" constituencies: absolute turnout and absolute margins, which is what you get when you adjust the margin of preference by turnout. These numbers have changed over the years, but since Silver seems to be focusing exclusively on 2008 and 2016, I'll follow suit with an average of numbers from those years.

  1. Black voters. No surprise here: black voters are typically less than a quarter (23%) of the voting public, but since they often have decisive preferences for particular candidates they end up contributing huge margins. On average, in fact, they end up contributing a ridiculous 13.3 points to their preferred candidate's total.
  2. Women. Women gave Clinton a 14 point bump in 2016 - comparable to what she got from black voters - but only gave her a 5 point bump in 2008, putting their average at nearly 10.
  3. Boomers. Strong preferences and superior turnout mean that olds still contribute significantly bigger margins than young people. Voters over 65, for example, have contributed 7 point margins on average, compared to 5 from those younger than 30.
  4. Electability voters. As with women, this number varies dramatically from election to election. In 2008, Clinton won a paltry .2 points from voters who thought she had the best chance to win against John McCain; but in 2016, she won 12 from those who thought she was better positioned to beat Trump than Bernie Sanders.
  5. Economy voters. Voters who rank the economy as their "most important" issue typically contribute about 6 points to a candidate's margins.

  1. White voters. 2016 was a paradigm year for white voters: they made up nearly two-thirds of the voting electorate, but since they split their votes evenly between Clinton and Sanders, their marginal contribution was roughly zero. Nevertheless, their size means that even slight preferences can have big consequences. In 2008, for example, they gave Clinton nearly as many points as black voters gave Obama (10 vs. 13) even though their preference for her was much less strong than the black preference for Obama (55% vs 82%).
  2. Women. Women have an average turnout of about 57%.
  3. Liberal. This label is a bit misleading - as the leftmost option in polling that typically includes "moderates" and "conservatives", it probably encompasses respondents who would otherwise identify as leftists, progressives, and even socialists. In any case, whatever this group actually is, it typically gives you a turnout of around 54%.
  4. Suburban voters. 46% of primary voters, compared with 38% urban voters and 19% from rural areas.
  5. Economy voters. Also 46% on average, though in 2016 there were slightly more male voters (41% vs 42%).

Narrowing this down to five "key" groups would probably just be a question of strategy, though a few conclusions seem inevitable. There is certainly some overlap here with Silver's scheme (in particular, with black voters and the left); but these numbers also suggest groups that he omits (most significantly, women) and contradicts those that he includes (favoring olds rather than Millennials). Concerns about electability and the economy probably vary in importance from year to year, but their presence here suggests that Silver's omission of issue or priority defined groups is probably significant.

Thanks to Michael for helping me pull these numbers.
Racial polarization in the 2020 primary draft - 12/31/18
How would you feel if Bernie Sanders ran for president in 2020? That's what USA Today and Suffolk University asked Democrats and independent voters in a recent poll - and the results, some pundits argue, don't look good for Sanders. "Sanders has the highest 'don’t run' of any candidate," John Aravosis writes. "Bernie’s negatives are shockingly high."

Shortly after this poll was released, however, Jacobin's Seth Ackerman spotted another curiosity:

There may be significant opposition to a Sanders run - but it overwhelmingly comes from white voters. Black voters, in contrast, generally want Sanders to run again. I was curious how these numbers compare with other candidates, so I looked through the rest of their data and pulled out the crosstabs:
These numbers simply subtract opposition from support for any given candidate among different groups. Visualizing the data this way, one can already see a few interesting patterns: for example, Beto and Klobuchar are the only two candidates with less support among black voters than white voters. Here, however, I want to draw attention to the polarity of support between racial groups. Bloomberg, for example, has more white opposition than black opposition - but only 5% more. Since the difference between white opposition and black opposition is so small, one might conclude that it isn't racially inflected - people just dislike Bloomberg across the board. With that in mind, consider the differences between black and white support among the candidates:

Here we see the real significance of Seth Ackerman's numbers: support for Sanders is extremely polarized on racial lines, significantly moreso than with any other candidate. His net 19 point support from black voters is separated from his net 23 point opposition by an enormous 42 point gap. 

Intuitively, my explanation is that Sanders is advancing a vision of politics that challenges white privilege in a way that black voters broadly support. But however one wants to explain these differences, it seems clear that broad declarations about opposition to another Sanders run simplify a much more complicated racial divide. 
Why Chait and Yglesias are arguing about the Sanders left - 12/29/18
Friday morning, Jonathan Chait wrote that
Sanders attracts the intense support of a small left-wing intellectual vanguard who see American politics in fundamentally terms than most Democrats do. The primary struggle in American politics as they see it is not between liberalism and conservatism, but between socialism and capitalism.
Within hours, Matt Yglesias rolled out a response:
I think [Chait]...ends up wildly overstating the policy content of pro-Bernie's not fundamentally "about" policy - it's about specific human beings' control over the levers of's fundamentally about *who gets to be in charge* rather than about what the policy is going to be.
What's going on here? In the tradition of speculating about pundit motives instead of just asking them what they think, here's my theory:
  • Chait is simply rehearsing the core argument that centrist groups like Third Way will make against Sanders in the coming year: that democratic socialism is extremist and unpopular. He concedes that Sanders pundits have a distinct ideology - but he only does this because he wants to vilify it, and to insist that the broader mass of Sanders supporters don't actually buy into it.
  • Yglesias is positioning himself on the left wing of respectable punditry. Here, this means defending himself against Sanders pundits who threaten to outflank him by insisting that they're engaged in an empty power-play rather than in a substantive fight for policy.

This kind of disagreement will probably define Sanders-skeptical Democrats for the foreseeable future.

And for what it's worth, I think that Chait's camp has the clearer view of the fight at hand. Yglesias belongs to a camp of Democrats that forged its identity in reaction to third way centrism: skeptical of cooperation with Republicans, and even open, in theory, to politics once vilified as "leftist". Today, however, that position has become much less coherent as it encounters a left politics - democratic socialism - that it hesitates to take seriously. Yglesias is struggling to maintain a political identity that is somehow distinct from Chait's left-skeptical centrism, and that's why he keeps getting mired in speculation about the motives of his critics, or in definitional arguments about what "democratic socialism" really means. Chait, meanwhile, knows exactly what it means - and that's why he wants to see it fail.
Why Sanders supporters are attacking Beto - 12/25/18
On November 26, Texas Democrat Beto O'Rourke announced that he would not "rule anything out" regarding future political ambitions - which the media unanimously reported as a sign that he might run for president.

Immediately, O'Rourke received a surge of positive coverage from pundits like Chris Cillizza, Dan Pfeiffer, and Timothy Murphy. A new Political Action Committee launched dedicated to drafting Beto. The Hill reported a "lovefest for O’Rourke"; Vice Asked Beto's Biggest Fans Why They Love Him So Much, Newsweek headlines declared "Beto O'Rourke 2020 wave grows" and TMZ breathlessly informed us that Beto wanted to be in the Beatles.

All of this happened before the major milestones in the Vast Anti-Beto Conspiracy: a banal tweet from David Sirota on December 2nd, and a Washington Post column from Elizabeth Bruenig on December 5.

People are talking about Beto because the press gave him a massive wave of swooning coverage at the end of November. Critics are responding to this because people tend to talk about what is going on in the news. Clinton partisan Jill Filipovic criticized the press's "Beto-mania"; reactionary and rumored vampire Kevin Williamson declared that Democrats are "mad for Beto"; and yes, socialists like Branko Marcetic also noticed the "Beto-for-president mania sweeping liberal America".

Of course Sanders supporters are talking about this too. The only real mystery is why so many journalists are playing dumb about it, and pretending that there is some unique significance in the Sanders camp responding to the same news that everyone else has been responding to.