Listen now | Congressman Ritchie Torres is joined by Watson Institute fellow Marc Dunkelman to discuss where progressivism went wrong and how to get government working again
This is a great discussion, but it is very status quo-limited, as though there are only two options: a lot of government or little government. There is no notion that perhaps the underlying issue is capitalism or our conception of property rights.
You are not solving the affordability crisis by simply allowing more developers to build more buildings with fewer regulations in NYC. It will not work. Because if you lower the regulations, they will build nightmares like the Hudson Yard, high rent, unaffordable housing that serves as a tax haven or money laundering scheme.
Jefferson and Hamilton are irrelevant now, because we are approaching Victorian England, not pastoral America. Too much is owned by too few, and they must be accommodated at every turn. You will claim that politics is about possibility, but we are in an impossible situation.
If we try for abundance under the structures we have now, even with some changes in regulation, we will destroy the world, because we are not solving the underlying issue that we cannot make some people unfathomably wealthy, and the rest extremely comfortable, without destroying the earth.
Hitler rose to power due to the hyperinflationary period of post WW1 He was the people's choice to lead Germany to nirvana and out of the economic catastrophe that they were in
The Orange Cheeto and his Gestapo lied to the American electorate to garner power and now it's a power down(putting power into the hands of WE the people) using Marc Dunkelman's phraseology much like Hitler did And the analogy holds that part of Cheeto's promise was to deal with inflation
And one could argue that both Cheeto wants to use the power to ascend the uberwealthy and influential and make the subservient middle class powerless ie get rid of power up movements(giving power to elected officials)
There is only one way out according to Dunkelman's model and that's exactly what's happening as did in the late 1700's in France The people took to the streets protesting against the monarchy who lost their heads literally
This is why the most recent Cheeto Executive Order to begin the process of martial law by arming local law enforcement with military weapons is a step toward trying to quell the street protests happening across the country much like what Hitler did with the Gestapo creating a police state
Nonviolent protests worked for India's independence in the 1940's and for the civil rights movements in the 1960's
Very good clarification of how we got here, which I appreciate. As for why and where we are now: MONEY has won. No one in government or anywhere else can overcome the costs of anything, while the billionaires just keep raking it in. I see no solution, unless we can find a way to deal with capitalist greed and unfettered consumerism.
He says we don't understand what has happened to us. Let me explain: Both parties have been captured by the same donors and have abandoned the voters. The voters have nowhere to turn. The only way this can be fixed is by actual campaign finance reform.
It's funny that this is coming from Ritchie Torres, who has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from AIPAC in order to shill for genocide and oppose anyone who protests the US's complicity in the IDF's war crimes.
The best, most important word and concept that Dunkelman uses here is "balance." First, a balance between the federalism of Hamilton and the "states rights" position of Jefferson. Because I think we would all agree that there are certain things the federal government can do and get accomplished that the individual States would have a much harder time with (and might not even be "suited" for). On the other hand, there are aspects of governmental "oversight" and power on the State and "local" levels that the States can - and should - be given, and which they can do better than the larger, broader focuses and responsibilities of the federal government (whatever those end up being).
The question here, as both of these men point out, is how do we determine which areas of "power" and "oversight" should the federal government have, and which should the States have? And at what point should individual States, if and when necessary, "cede" all of part of their power because they realize that the federal government can better address a given issue?
Then there is the balance between government (particularly State) and "the people." Because, setting aside elections for federal representatives, it is the State and municipal representatives that are "closest" to "the people," and SHOULD be best able to serve their needs via the State government apparatus. In this case, it is a matter of efficiency and accountability to the constituents.
This is why we also have local school boards, community boards, etc. - to provide DIRECT input of constituents into the various plans, projects and issues that may affect their lives. In an efficient system, the results of the "votes" or other consensus of these bodies then goes "up the ladder" to the elected local reps (Council members, Assembly members, State Senators) and then, again if the system is efficient, the local and/or State government "honors" the wishes of their constituents.
Of course, the main issue HERE is that "you can't please all the people all the time," so no specific stakeholder is always going to "get their way" on a given issue; sometimes one "side" will get their way, and sometimes the "other" side will. But the elected reps must honor the majority decision.
Sadly, we are now living in a country in which "winning" is everything, not winning means something was "rigged" or "paid for," so local communities end up in fierce battles that lead to inconclusive ends. At that point, they have unwittingly ceded their own "people power" to the (local and State) government, who will simply make the decision FOR them - even if it is not the one most people want.
As for the topic at hand, progressivism went wrong by overplaying its hand. As Dunkelman notes, if we can't identify with the frustrations" of ALL of the voters, we will continue to lose. In a country in which a large swath of the electorate believes in "traditional" values (and, yes, is predominantly Christian, even if the country was not founded as such), that swath - usually estimated at b/w 25% and 45% of the voting electorate - has "had to live through" abortion being legalized, the rise of the LGBT+ movement and the legalization of gay marriage, etc. Note that I am both pro-choice and support the LGBT community without reservation. But for "traditionalists," al of the things that we now call the "culture wars" were a VERY hard pill to swallow. But instead of recognizing this, and at least ACKNOWLEDGING their concerns and "frustrations," we alienated them further and further.
The very public rise of the pro-choice movement, White Supremacy, Christian nationalism, etc. was the result of three primary things. First, it was a "backlash" against the first Black president, and the was that was stoked by Trump. Second, Trump gave "permission" for the MAGA members to tap into their worst selves; to openly express their anger, grievances, hatreds (which he carefully nurtured), and mean-spiritedness via racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and their own inner narcissists. Third, Democrats failed - utterly - to take any of this into account (to "identify people's frustrations," as Dunkelman says), to make any attempt to "reach" these people (many of whom are admittedly unreachable), and instead ignored, marginalized, dismissed and/or denigrated them as if they were a monolithic group who all shared everything in common.
This leads us right back to Gary's earlier post ("Are You Ready to Lose Again?"), since for the most part, Democrats continue to engage in this self-defeating behavior. Thankfully, they finally seem to be waking up - with the Sanders/AOC "tour" being welcomed by Dems and MAGA members alike and drawing huge crowds even in very "red" places; with protests growing against Trump and his policies - including in very "red" (read MAGA) areas; and with MAGA members actually WELCOMING Democratic leaders who fill in at town halls that the local Republican representatives refuse to attend, there does seem to be a growing movement toward bringing MAGA members "into the tent" and helping them see "reality" - particularly when it is affecting them and their loved ones.
Progressivism ultimately went to far with all the (arguably legitimate) issues that they have raised over the past few years ("woke," DEI, cancel culture, etc. etc.) In doing so, they sought to build a society that most of us would probably appreciate - but which MAGA sees as a Democratic vision that dismisses even their legitimate grievances.
Liberals/progressives need to start backing away from "identity politics" and find a more middle ground that can help ease the division and polarization. This does not mean giving up on a more long-term plan for a more progressive society. But it does mean biting some bullets, and giving at least a little ground.
A very thoughtful discussion in the video, thanks.
Actually, everything does work in the US. It just works mainly for the benefit of those who control the system. This is large for-profit corporations and their owners, the super-rich, sometimes manipulated by another more sinister group: would-be autocrats. The tendency of those with greater competitive advantage to cultivate a government to increase their advantage is a reinforcing feedback loop that has come to visit countless countries. A cycle ends when economic or authoritarian oppression becomes so intolerable that the people rise up and throw the ruling elite out, peacefully or not.
What Dunkelman traces in his book is yet another cycle of this loop. The previous cycle ended when the Great Depression caused US voters to throw out Republicans who supported economic overheating in the form of the Roaring Twenties, with its rampant stock market speculation, much buying of consumer goods on credit, and lax economic management, nationally and internationally. While the exact causes of the depression are complex, these appear to be the major factors.
These social forces ushered in FDR, the New Deal, and the golden years of progressivism, where "everything worked" because the cycle was still young, and social momentum encouraged system improvement. WW2, where democracy triumphed over autocracy, encouraged this still more. But eventually, powerful special interests began to gain control of the system once again.
This tendency began in earnest in 1971 with the Powell Memo, written at the request of the US Chamber of Commerce. This essentially created a detailed strategy for the conservative movement to takeover the US political system. It was implemented and it worked. The opposition, which is you and me, and many others visiting The Next Move, has no equivalent counter-strategy. I've written about this extensively:
So who killed progress and how to bring it back? From my analysis, I would tend to look at factors other than those Dunkelman proposes. While these explain much superficial behavior, they don't go as deep as needed. For that, tools like root cause analysis are required. It also helps to have a brilliant long-term master plan, such as the equivalent of the Powell Memo. Hmm, perhaps the Progressive Memo?
I’m sure that’s a common sentiment, but it’s not mine. As a Gen-Xer from a family of firemen, cops, and social workers, my experience has coincided with the neoliberal project, and four decades where both parties campaigned on the very thin veneer of their ‘principles,’ but were indistinguishable in their actual policies (which were basically to privatize every aspect of public life, make the world safe for venture capitalists, and then wring their hands at how the other side prevented them from achieving their purely symbolic goals.)
I might be more sympathetic to the argument if I believed that either party *actually wanted* to achieve something, but all I’ve seen in my lifetime has been a program to use government to capture wealth, while providing enough symbolic effort to placate two distinct ‘working’ populations while essentially picking their pockets.
This is a great discussion, but it is very status quo-limited, as though there are only two options: a lot of government or little government. There is no notion that perhaps the underlying issue is capitalism or our conception of property rights.
You are not solving the affordability crisis by simply allowing more developers to build more buildings with fewer regulations in NYC. It will not work. Because if you lower the regulations, they will build nightmares like the Hudson Yard, high rent, unaffordable housing that serves as a tax haven or money laundering scheme.
Jefferson and Hamilton are irrelevant now, because we are approaching Victorian England, not pastoral America. Too much is owned by too few, and they must be accommodated at every turn. You will claim that politics is about possibility, but we are in an impossible situation.
If we try for abundance under the structures we have now, even with some changes in regulation, we will destroy the world, because we are not solving the underlying issue that we cannot make some people unfathomably wealthy, and the rest extremely comfortable, without destroying the earth.
Yep, capitalism is the basis of all the problems.
Nazis and Power Grabbing: Arming the MIilitia
Hitler rose to power due to the hyperinflationary period of post WW1 He was the people's choice to lead Germany to nirvana and out of the economic catastrophe that they were in
The Orange Cheeto and his Gestapo lied to the American electorate to garner power and now it's a power down(putting power into the hands of WE the people) using Marc Dunkelman's phraseology much like Hitler did And the analogy holds that part of Cheeto's promise was to deal with inflation
And one could argue that both Cheeto wants to use the power to ascend the uberwealthy and influential and make the subservient middle class powerless ie get rid of power up movements(giving power to elected officials)
There is only one way out according to Dunkelman's model and that's exactly what's happening as did in the late 1700's in France The people took to the streets protesting against the monarchy who lost their heads literally
This is why the most recent Cheeto Executive Order to begin the process of martial law by arming local law enforcement with military weapons is a step toward trying to quell the street protests happening across the country much like what Hitler did with the Gestapo creating a police state
Nonviolent protests worked for India's independence in the 1940's and for the civil rights movements in the 1960's
It will work again now
Very good clarification of how we got here, which I appreciate. As for why and where we are now: MONEY has won. No one in government or anywhere else can overcome the costs of anything, while the billionaires just keep raking it in. I see no solution, unless we can find a way to deal with capitalist greed and unfettered consumerism.
He says we don't understand what has happened to us. Let me explain: Both parties have been captured by the same donors and have abandoned the voters. The voters have nowhere to turn. The only way this can be fixed is by actual campaign finance reform.
It's funny that this is coming from Ritchie Torres, who has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from AIPAC in order to shill for genocide and oppose anyone who protests the US's complicity in the IDF's war crimes.
The best, most important word and concept that Dunkelman uses here is "balance." First, a balance between the federalism of Hamilton and the "states rights" position of Jefferson. Because I think we would all agree that there are certain things the federal government can do and get accomplished that the individual States would have a much harder time with (and might not even be "suited" for). On the other hand, there are aspects of governmental "oversight" and power on the State and "local" levels that the States can - and should - be given, and which they can do better than the larger, broader focuses and responsibilities of the federal government (whatever those end up being).
The question here, as both of these men point out, is how do we determine which areas of "power" and "oversight" should the federal government have, and which should the States have? And at what point should individual States, if and when necessary, "cede" all of part of their power because they realize that the federal government can better address a given issue?
Then there is the balance between government (particularly State) and "the people." Because, setting aside elections for federal representatives, it is the State and municipal representatives that are "closest" to "the people," and SHOULD be best able to serve their needs via the State government apparatus. In this case, it is a matter of efficiency and accountability to the constituents.
This is why we also have local school boards, community boards, etc. - to provide DIRECT input of constituents into the various plans, projects and issues that may affect their lives. In an efficient system, the results of the "votes" or other consensus of these bodies then goes "up the ladder" to the elected local reps (Council members, Assembly members, State Senators) and then, again if the system is efficient, the local and/or State government "honors" the wishes of their constituents.
Of course, the main issue HERE is that "you can't please all the people all the time," so no specific stakeholder is always going to "get their way" on a given issue; sometimes one "side" will get their way, and sometimes the "other" side will. But the elected reps must honor the majority decision.
Sadly, we are now living in a country in which "winning" is everything, not winning means something was "rigged" or "paid for," so local communities end up in fierce battles that lead to inconclusive ends. At that point, they have unwittingly ceded their own "people power" to the (local and State) government, who will simply make the decision FOR them - even if it is not the one most people want.
As for the topic at hand, progressivism went wrong by overplaying its hand. As Dunkelman notes, if we can't identify with the frustrations" of ALL of the voters, we will continue to lose. In a country in which a large swath of the electorate believes in "traditional" values (and, yes, is predominantly Christian, even if the country was not founded as such), that swath - usually estimated at b/w 25% and 45% of the voting electorate - has "had to live through" abortion being legalized, the rise of the LGBT+ movement and the legalization of gay marriage, etc. Note that I am both pro-choice and support the LGBT community without reservation. But for "traditionalists," al of the things that we now call the "culture wars" were a VERY hard pill to swallow. But instead of recognizing this, and at least ACKNOWLEDGING their concerns and "frustrations," we alienated them further and further.
The very public rise of the pro-choice movement, White Supremacy, Christian nationalism, etc. was the result of three primary things. First, it was a "backlash" against the first Black president, and the was that was stoked by Trump. Second, Trump gave "permission" for the MAGA members to tap into their worst selves; to openly express their anger, grievances, hatreds (which he carefully nurtured), and mean-spiritedness via racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and their own inner narcissists. Third, Democrats failed - utterly - to take any of this into account (to "identify people's frustrations," as Dunkelman says), to make any attempt to "reach" these people (many of whom are admittedly unreachable), and instead ignored, marginalized, dismissed and/or denigrated them as if they were a monolithic group who all shared everything in common.
This leads us right back to Gary's earlier post ("Are You Ready to Lose Again?"), since for the most part, Democrats continue to engage in this self-defeating behavior. Thankfully, they finally seem to be waking up - with the Sanders/AOC "tour" being welcomed by Dems and MAGA members alike and drawing huge crowds even in very "red" places; with protests growing against Trump and his policies - including in very "red" (read MAGA) areas; and with MAGA members actually WELCOMING Democratic leaders who fill in at town halls that the local Republican representatives refuse to attend, there does seem to be a growing movement toward bringing MAGA members "into the tent" and helping them see "reality" - particularly when it is affecting them and their loved ones.
Progressivism ultimately went to far with all the (arguably legitimate) issues that they have raised over the past few years ("woke," DEI, cancel culture, etc. etc.) In doing so, they sought to build a society that most of us would probably appreciate - but which MAGA sees as a Democratic vision that dismisses even their legitimate grievances.
Liberals/progressives need to start backing away from "identity politics" and find a more middle ground that can help ease the division and polarization. This does not mean giving up on a more long-term plan for a more progressive society. But it does mean biting some bullets, and giving at least a little ground.
A very thoughtful discussion in the video, thanks.
Actually, everything does work in the US. It just works mainly for the benefit of those who control the system. This is large for-profit corporations and their owners, the super-rich, sometimes manipulated by another more sinister group: would-be autocrats. The tendency of those with greater competitive advantage to cultivate a government to increase their advantage is a reinforcing feedback loop that has come to visit countless countries. A cycle ends when economic or authoritarian oppression becomes so intolerable that the people rise up and throw the ruling elite out, peacefully or not.
What Dunkelman traces in his book is yet another cycle of this loop. The previous cycle ended when the Great Depression caused US voters to throw out Republicans who supported economic overheating in the form of the Roaring Twenties, with its rampant stock market speculation, much buying of consumer goods on credit, and lax economic management, nationally and internationally. While the exact causes of the depression are complex, these appear to be the major factors.
These social forces ushered in FDR, the New Deal, and the golden years of progressivism, where "everything worked" because the cycle was still young, and social momentum encouraged system improvement. WW2, where democracy triumphed over autocracy, encouraged this still more. But eventually, powerful special interests began to gain control of the system once again.
This tendency began in earnest in 1971 with the Powell Memo, written at the request of the US Chamber of Commerce. This essentially created a detailed strategy for the conservative movement to takeover the US political system. It was implemented and it worked. The opposition, which is you and me, and many others visiting The Next Move, has no equivalent counter-strategy. I've written about this extensively:
https://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/017_PowellMemo/index.htm
So who killed progress and how to bring it back? From my analysis, I would tend to look at factors other than those Dunkelman proposes. While these explain much superficial behavior, they don't go as deep as needed. For that, tools like root cause analysis are required. It also helps to have a brilliant long-term master plan, such as the equivalent of the Powell Memo. Hmm, perhaps the Progressive Memo?
I’m sure that’s a common sentiment, but it’s not mine. As a Gen-Xer from a family of firemen, cops, and social workers, my experience has coincided with the neoliberal project, and four decades where both parties campaigned on the very thin veneer of their ‘principles,’ but were indistinguishable in their actual policies (which were basically to privatize every aspect of public life, make the world safe for venture capitalists, and then wring their hands at how the other side prevented them from achieving their purely symbolic goals.)
I might be more sympathetic to the argument if I believed that either party *actually wanted* to achieve something, but all I’ve seen in my lifetime has been a program to use government to capture wealth, while providing enough symbolic effort to placate two distinct ‘working’ populations while essentially picking their pockets.