This morning we took a sad little look at how the Democrats are fiddling while the world burns in an orgy of sociopathic fossil fuel profiteering. Today RJ Eskow, in a brilliant piece for Nation of Change, his take on the Bill Moyers-Adolph Reed conversation about the demise of the American left that we looked at Thursday. Eskow pointed to why the Democratic Party is not going to come to anyone's rescue any time soon. The relationship between the left and the Democratic Party is central to Reed’s argument, which might be summarized as follows:
1. The Democratic Party has shifted dramatically to the right.
2. The left-- or what remains of it-- has come to identify itself with the success of the Democratic Party.
3. This has led to a rise in social issues and identity politics at the expense of the economic questions which are (or should be) central to any genuinely left-wing movement.
As if to underscore these points, new poll results say that an increasing number of Americans describe themselves as “liberal” while, simultaneously, 80 percent of Democratic voters reportedly want Hillary Clinton to run for president-- despite the fact that she has yet to state her position on many critical issues of the day, from regulatory reform to tax policy to education, and despite the fact that she’s closely associated with the regressive economic policies of the first Clinton administration.
These figures suggest that Mr. Reed is onto something.
“We’re Eisenhower Republicans here,” says Bill Clinton in a devastating Reed quote. “We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn’t that great?” (They were actually to the right of Eisenhower’s Republicans on a number of issues; for example, the 1956 GOP platform celebrated the increases in union workers and Social Security beneficiaries which took place in Eisenhower’s first term. It’s impossible to imagine the Clinton team doing that.)
Mr. Reed is also almost certainly correct when he diagnoses many in the liberal community with “electoralitis,” an over-emphasis on elections (and, by implication, on politicians and their personalities). He writes: “In the absence of goals that require long-term organizing-- e.g., single-payer healthcare, universally free public higher education and public transportation, federal guarantees of housing and income security-- the election cycle has come to exhaust the time horizon of political action.”
At the risk of showing a little electoralitis myself, let me weave these two threads together with a statement Alan Grayson made this week in regard to Democratic paralysis around just sating NO to the Koch brothers' plot to burden the country with the Keystone XL Pipeline. Grayson: Forty-one years ago, when I used to get up at 5 a.m. to get on gas station lines with my parents, I started hearing about "energy independence"-- a secure source of supply for our energy needs. Today, energy independence soon will be a reality.
For China. Thanks to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Q. Cui bono? ("Who benefits?") A. China.
The Chinese economy consists of taking raw materials and energy, making that into stuff, and then selling that stuff-- a/k/a "manufacturing." Chinese leaders understand that in order for that model to work, China needs steady supplies of raw materials and energy. By how do you get a steady supply of energy, in a world where those supplies are dominated by a cartel, and are concentrated in a part of the world prone to war? In America, we've been trying to puzzle that out for four decades, without success.
Well, the Chinese have figured it out. They're going to get their energy from Canada, a stable country, and pass it through the United States, another stable country. They will pay the Canadians the world price for oil. They will pay us nothing, or next to nothing. So Uncle Sam is Uncle Sucker.
And not for the first time. For the past decade, China has pursued an utterly unscrupulous and incredibly successful strategy in "trade" with the United States. China has been importing from the United States roughly $50 billion in goods each year, much of it food, raw materials and energy. China has been exporting to the United States roughly $350 billion in goods each year, mostly manufactured goods. And China has been buying roughly $300 billion in U.S. assets each year, mostly U.S. Treasuries. So we buy their stuff, putting their people to work. And they buy our assets, driving us deeper and deeper into debt. America loses-- twice.
Now China has peeled off a tiny portion of that trade surplus, just $30 billion, and audaciously is trying to parlay that into permanent energy independence. China has put that money into Canadian tar sands.
Canadian tar sands are easily one of the dirtiest energy sources on Planet Earth. Does China care? No. As Deng Xiaoping used to say, "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." China's leaders are so indifferent to environmental concerns that they have no problem with 8-year-olds in Beijing contracting lung cancer from pollution-- but they get upset when the U.S. Embassy in Beijing puts an air quality monitor on the roof, and posts the readings on the internet. Canadian tar sands are a very, very black cat, but China's leaders care only about catching mice.
Chinese leaders have seized key elements of the world industrial supply chain, like rare earths. According to our government, they engage in pervasive industrial espionage. They have threatened American companies like Apple, Google and Walmart. In short, they know how to play the game.
All of the oil that passes through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline has to be sold in the United States. Why not the same rule for the Keystone XL Pipeline? But instead, we allow a tax-free zone, to facilitate Chinese energy independence at the expense of our own. Why does Uncle Sam have to be Uncle Sucker?
There are plenty of reasons to be against the Keystone XL pipeline. Environmentalists recognize it as the ultimate "bonfire of the vanities"-- planet-wide carbon bonfires. The pipeline passes through an active earthquake zone. One bad spill could permanently poison the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water to millions of people, and 30% of our irrigation.
Here is another reason, perhaps the best reason of all: It doesn't do us any good. China, yes. The Koch Brothers (who own the refining capacity that would be used), yes. Us, no.
When are we finally going to have a government with the courage to ask that simple question: Does it do us any good? Cui bono?
I would like to see environmental safety true believers like Paul Clements (D-MI) and Marianne Willimson (I-CA) take on Fred Upton and the rest of the self-satisfied elites in Washington who haven't gotten the urgency of Climate Change into their skulls yet-- and probably never will.
I got very nervous this week after seeing 4 fundraising requests from an outfit I had never heard of, Environmental Majority. They appeared to be trying to raise money to defeat House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Fred Upton, a vulnerable Michigan Republican totally under the protection of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel. Blue America has endorsed progressive environmental activist Paul Clements, the Democrat opposing Upton and the DCCC and their Beltway media lackeys completely ignore the very winnable race. (You can help depose Upton, who the L.A. Times accurately dubbed him the biggest enemy of the earth, by contributing to Clements' campaign here). This was the first of the e-mails, I got from them and is clearly meant to appeal to folks concerned with Climate Change and environmental safety: The Koch brothers have a very clear and ruthless agenda: build the Keystone XL Pipeline, stop meaningful climate change legislation, and make it easier for large oil companies to drill in our nation's wilderness.
To implement this agenda, they have a man in Congress. His name is Representative Fred Upton. Upton has been on the receiving end of millions from big oil companies and anti-science far-right groups. He is powerful, but we have a chance to beat him this year-- we need your help to do so.
This year marks a critical juncture in the fight for the environment. To beat Fred Upton this year, we need your help before our critical February deadline. Will you click here and chip in so we can hit our goal of another $6,891 before Friday?
The Koch brothers and Fred Upton have been teaming up for years to stop any progress on climate change legislation. Unseating Upton from his powerful chairmanship this year could allow us to finally breakthrough the anti-science firewall that the he has erected, and make progress on this critical issue.
We can stand up to the far-right's big money donors, because we have you. Click here to contribute before our February deadline-- we only have three days left. Our grassroots team, thousands deep, is fighting every day to defend the environment from the Koch brothers and Upton.
Thanks for standing up today for an environmental majority. Please contribute what you can today!
A few days later, this one was in my in-box: We have a real chance to beat the Koch brothers' main man in Congress this year, Republican Fred Upton. The Koch bros love Upton's ability to push through their anti-environment legislation as the chair of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. That is why we need your help before tomorrow's vital deadline. We need to stop them.
If we are going to unseat Upton, we need your help now. Our crucial February end-of-month deadline is tomorrow, and we still need to raise $3,987 to meet our goal. Can you click here to contribute now?
If we can beat Upton, we can finally start to make progress on climate change legislation and really diminish the Koch brothers' influence in Congress.
Click here to help us take on the Koch brothers and their man in Congress, Fred Upton. We must hit our goal by tomorrow if we are going to have the necessary resources to do this.
Thanks for standing with us
I knew they weren't raising any money for Clements so I wondered if they were planning to run an independent expenditure campaign against Upton. I got in touch with the executive director, Mark Longabaugh, who I remembered from the successful battle to depose Dirty Dick Pombo nearly a decade ago. One environmental activist warned me that the group was connected to the DCCC, which is, at best, neutral on the environment, but frequently recruits anti-environmental candidates like Ohio coal and fracking shill Jennifer Garrison. I was having queasy visions of a DCCC operation to suck contributions from grassroots environmental activists by promising to go after Upton-- a worthy goal the DCCC adamantly refuses too get behind-- while funneling the money into Garrison's vehemently anti-environment campaign. My fears appear to be unfounded and the operation is legit and not connected to the DCCC or other Inside-the-Beltway corporate shills that cater to Big Oil and Big Coal.
How tragic is it that one has to worry that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee could play this disreputable a role? But the certainly that they could sparks this kind of reaction from grassroots and progressive Democrats outside the Beltway, like these tweets from, former Seattle area congressional candidate Darcy Burner yesterday:
And meanwhile, what are our Democratic leaders doing about stopping planetary extinction? Right now, doing what they do best-- fighting a turf war over who will replace Henry Waxman as the ranking Democrat (or Chairman) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The two contenders are New Jersey progressive Frank Pallone (who has the seniority) and California garden variety Democrat and Pelosi ally Anna Eshoo. Pallone has a much better environmental record, though Eshoo's isn't terrible. The internal battle, of course, has ZERO to do with which one is a better fighter for the environment. The internal drama over who will take the top Democratic slot on the Energy and Commerce Committee next year has spilled into public view, with some lawmakers unhappy with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for taking sides so early-- or at all.
Pelosi stunned colleagues on Thursday with a letter outlining support for her fellow Californian and close friend Anna G. Eshoo against Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, and now some Democrats find themselves in a difficult position. House Democrats put significant stock in years of service when doling out plum committee assignments, and the simple choice of picking the Energy and Commerce Committee’s current No. 3-- Pallone-- now has been complicated by Pelosi’s endorsement of Eshoo, who is No. 5 in seniority.
Many lawmakers and aides told CQ Roll Call they don’t see stark enough differences between the members to justify waiving the seniority precedent and allowing Eshoo to leapfrog over Pallone. Both lawmakers, they have argued, are equally able to do the job, and there is little reason for Pelosi to choose sides so publicly in a move surely aimed at influencing undecideds.
One House Democrat said Pallone has paid his dues.
As leadership’s point person for coordinating the party’s messaging on the House floor, Pallone has been “a loyal lieutenant,” said the lawmaker, who asked to remain anonymous and still hasn’t decided whom to back. “It’s a thankless task, it’s drudgery, and he does it every day. And Pelosi threw him out like yesterday’s trash.”
Eshoo boosters see it differently.
“I think Frank Pallone has done a really good job heading our messaging team, but I think Anna Eshoo is a woman who’s dynamic, who is from the high-tech community out in California, and can bring some real energy to Energy and Commerce,” said New York’s Nita M. Lowey, who became ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee without being the next in line.
But seniority is an especially sensitive issue for the Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses, whose members believe that giving deference to tenure is the only way to protect minority members from slights, accidental or intentional, in getting promoted on Capitol Hill.
The CBC in particular is poised to benefit from respect for the seniority system: Its members currently hold ranking member slots on five of the 22 House committees, and that number could increase to seven in the 114th Congress. CBC members are inching ahead on a number of other panels, too, painting a viable picture of a day when they could wield unprecedented influence on just under half of all House committees.
Many of them did not take kindly to Pelosi’s public disregard for precedent.
“She officially buried the concept of seniority today,” Charles B. Rangel of New York said Thursday.
“I respect those who respect that system,” Eshoo stressed to reporters in early February. “It’s been around a long time. But I don’t believe it’s sacrosanct.”
Arizona Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, who launched an unsuccessful bid last year against more-senior Oregon Rep. Peter A. DeFazio for ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, believes a transformed caucus has shifted the norms.
“Pallone’s saying, ‘It’s my turn, it’s my seniority,’ and I don’t have a problem with him doing that … but with almost 50 percent of our caucus members being members of the Democratic Caucus with six years or less under their belts, then maybe for the seniority question, attitudes are changing.”
…[I]n 2008, emboldened by colleagues clamoring for a more progressive legislative agenda on climate issues, Waxman ousted longtime Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich.
An organizing event for Team Eshoo at Sona Creamery and Wine Bar on Capitol Hill was hosted by business-friendly, conservative-leaning Democrats, Jared Polis (New Dem-CO), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA), Ami Bera (New Dem-CA), Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA), Lois Capps (New Dem-CA), Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT) Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH) and Adam Smith (New Dem-WA).
Her public statement on Climate Change isn't focus-group tested or anything that Beltway consultants would ever allow their candidates to say in public. It's the kind of statement that gives DCCC and EMILY's List operatives colitis. If Marianne is elected, this is what CA-33 will be contributing to America: Too much of America’s energy-- 81%, in fact-- continues to come from fossil fuels that pollute our air and water, causing global warming and weather disruption more intense with each passing year.
This is not just unfortunate, or even critical; it is a clear and present danger to the future not only of our country but to life on earth.
Our reliance on oil makes us dependent on energy supplies from other countries, particularly in the Middle East, drawing us more easily into military actions to defend access to oil. The federal government supports the use of fossil fuels by handing out massive tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies that are among the most profitable corporations in the world. The top five oil companies made $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011, yet they receive $10-52 billion in tax breaks and subsidies every year.
Legalized corruption makes it almost impossible to truly take on the power of Exxon-Mobil and other oil giants that receive massive tax breaks from the government. Once again, until we deal with the issue of money’s undue influence on our political system, none of this will truly change.
Technological innovation has developed increasingly affordable energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, water, biofuels, and geothermal power. The U.S. government should be investing-- and investing massively-- in clean, green energy, that can lower costs for all of our homes and businesses, as well as improve public health.
Transitioning to clean, green energy is one of the great moral challenges of our time. In fact, we can save half the oil we use through improved efficiency and get the other half from renewable energy sources. Making this fundamental change in how we as a nation use energy is not something that any one set of legislative actions can manage; rather, this shift will take a change in how all of us-- not only government, but also individuals-- treat the earth on which we live.
I see no need whatsoever for the domestic use of nuclear energy. Since the Fukushima disaster, we have seen the tragic consequences of thinking that just because something was made by the likes of General Electric-- the same company that makes our own nuclear generators-- that we need not worry about catastrophes due to human error or natural disasters like tidal waves and earthquakes. If anyone should stand for that realization, it’s Californians! And most importantly, we do not need nuclear energy to fulfill our energy needs. Given that it provides 9% of our energy, that need can be met with the kind of investment in green technology called for above. As an American and as a mother, I strongly reject the notion that the domestic use of nuclear energy is “worth the risk.”
