The New California Democrat and America’s New Way Forward

I have a new article out with Peter Leyden, the third in our ongoing "California Is the Future" series. This one focuses on the emergence of the New California Democrat and how that could lead the way to a new era in US politics. Here's the beginning of the article:

A New California Democrat is rising, and it’s not Jerry Brown. To use a biblical analogy, the 79-year-old Brown is more like Moses, who got his people to the edge of the promised land — and then handed over leadership to the next generation, who are now pressing on and creating the land of milk and honey.

To be sure, the second coming of Jerry Brown as governor of California from 2011 through 2018 was essential in helping to lay the foundation for the next great progressive era in California politics. But that era is just now fully taking off, with a younger generation leading the way. The New California Democrat is epitomized by a set of leaders in their forties and fifties who blossomed as politicians in the 21st century, well after California’s conservative era (1980s) and its period of polarization and paralysis (1990s). They include:

Gavin Newsom, 50, the current lieutenant governor of California and the leading candidate to succeed Brown as governor. He was a two-term mayor of San Francisco, starting in 2003, at the beginning of the city’s tech transformation. Kamala Harris, 54, a current California U.S. senator who succeeded Barbara Boxer in 2016. Formerly the California attorney general, Harris is frequently mentioned as a possible candidate for U.S. president. Eric Garcetti, 46, the popular two-term mayor of Los Angeles, reelected with 81 percent of the vote; also contemplating a run for U.S. president. Tom Steyer,60, the billionaire former hedge fund manager turned environmental and political activist; currently pressing a national campaign to impeach President Trump. Kevin de León, 50, the president pro tempore of the California State Senate who is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Dianne Feinstein.

The Old California Democrat is exemplified by the 84-year-old Feinstein, who has represented California in the U.S. Senate for 25 years, as well as 77-year-old Nancy Pelosi, a representative in the U.S. House for 30 years and currently the House minority leader. These Democrats rose to political leadership in the pre-2000 era of conservative politics, the tax revolt, and the populist anti-immigrant wave. They were shaped by the urgent need to defend against these reactionary political currents and uphold the basics of progressive governance and social tolerance. This they nobly did.

Unfortunately, both of these long-serving warhorses do not want to give up their positions, and they are distorting the natural succession of leadership. Feinstein is running in the 2018 election for yet another term, which has prompted the candidacy of de León, among others. And Pelosi has resisted pressure for a change in Democratic leadership in the U.S. House, which will only continue to mount. The national prominence of Old California Democrats like Feinstein and Pelosi — and even Brown — has obscured the emergence of what truly is a New California Democrat.

This new political animal can be quite radical in terms of national politics — calling for everything from impeaching Trump to establishing single-payer health care. The New California Democrats understand that a healthy society needs a strong government that’s well funded, and they don’t shy from raising public funds through progressive taxation. But the New California Democrats appreciate the market and the capabilities of entrepreneurial business. They are tech savvy and understand the transformative power of new technologies and the vibrancy of an economy built around them. They understand that to solve our many 21st-century challenges, we need business to come up with solutions that scale and that grow the economy for all.

In a national context, the New California Democrat would be recognizable as a progressive, the polar opposite of the conservatives controlling Washington, D.C., right now. They are rooted in similar values as 20th-century progressives, but they have let go of old ideas and solutions that constrained the solution space in the past. The New California Democrat is less ideological and more practical. In this sense, they are different from many Bernie Sanders Democrats. You might describe them as Practical Progressives, or Pro-Growth Progressives, or Entrepreneurial Progressives. A catchall label might be 21st-Century Progressives, since all the hallmarks that make them different have come since the year 2000. And many of the most distinguishing hallmarks will be determined in the next five to 10 years. For now, let’s just call them what they certainly are: New California Democrats.

Read the whole thing here on Medium (ungated). 

How Doug Jones Can Beat Roy Moore

It won't be easy. But the Washington Post/Schar School poll, a poll that gives Jones a 3 point lead among likely voters, shows how it will happen, if it does happen. First, overwhelming support from blacks, combined with solid turnout (this poll has blacks at about a quarter of likely voters, which is good but not unreasonably high). Then mega-swings in the white vote relative to 2016. Trump carried the white vote by 70 points in Alabama in 2016. In this poll, Moore carries the white vote by a mere 30 points (63-33). 

The Post poll allows one to break down the white vote by college and noncollege. The poll has white noncollege voters supporting Moore by "only" 42 points. That sounds like a lot but compared to Trump's 77 point margin among this group in 2016, it's not bad. And there are twice as many white noncollege voters as white college voters so that swing, if it happens, will loom pretty large in determining the outcome. We can't break white noncollege down between men and women but judging from other data in the poll, it seems plausible that white noncollege women will drive the swing. How much they move could determine Alabama's next Senator.

Science Fiction Saturday: David Brin's Startide Rising

One of my favorite space operas of all time is David Brin's Startide Rising. Why is it so great? I'll let Alan Brown on the excellent Tor.com site explain in his retro-review of the book. 

Everyone loves dolphins. And chimps. And everyone loves spaceships. And adventures. So, in the mid-1980s, when David Brin put dolphins, chimps, and humans in spaceships, and dropped them into the middle of a rip-snorting adventure, I (and a lot of other people) immediately jumped on board. And what a wonderful ride it was…. Few books written in the 1980s did as good a job as Brin’s work of recreating the good old “sense of wonder” that I remember from my youth….

In Brin’s future history, as humans begin to reach beyond Earth, they also begin to experiment with other species on the planet to encourage them to sapience. This includes dolphins and chimpanzees. Mankind then finds that the stars are filled with sentient races, races whose histories sometimes stretch back billions of years. The human race, however, represents an immediate mystery to these Galactic aliens. Throughout history, senior patron races have been ‘uplifting’ other races to sapience, and those junior races then serve them through a kind of indenture system. This is similar to what humans have been doing with dolphins and chimpanzees, although while the humans try to treat their junior races as equals, some Galactics treat the junior races as little more than slaves. While uplifting other species confers the humans status as a patron race, there is no sign that the human race has a patron of its own. This makes humans a ‘wolfling’ race, and without patrons, the humans are at a disadvantage in the chaotic civilization that spans the stars….Many races rely upon the Library, a gigantic collection of ancient knowledge, rather than engaging in scientific research or experimentation. There are legends of a race called the Progenitors, who first developed the process of uplifting, but little is known about them....

Partnering with dolphins and chimpanzees, humans are reaching out to the stars, and rather than depending on the Library, they are using research ships to explore the universe and verify the information they have been given. And there is some reason to believe that not all the information is accurate, or has been corrupted with malicious intent. The humans resist simply using existing technologies developed by others, and have made some new discoveries thanks to their efforts—which marks them as either creative innovators, or disruptors of the status quo, depending on the perspective of the races that are observing them.

Streaker, one of Earth’s research vessels, is a mix of Galactic and human technologies, modified with some interesting adaptations in order to best serve its various crewmembers. While dolphins normally live in water and breath air, because of the difficulties posed by keeping air and water separated in zero gravity, many compartments are filled with a highly oxygenated water that can be ‘breathed’ by the dolphins. And while gravity control is possible, the humans have also designed the ship with internal centrifugal wheels that can simulate gravity in a more low-tech manner. The ship is armed, as are most vessels in the anarchic Five Galaxies, but is not a military vessel.

So it's quite a setting and, as the reviewer suggests, a "rip-snorting adventure". Get your sense of wonder ready and give it a try. 

Obscure Music Friday: Strawberry Alarm Clock

Groovy, man! Strawberry Alarm Clock were, like, far out and they had the fabulous 1967 hit, "Incense and Peppermints" (video linked to here in all its psychedelic glory; note the tripped out costumes and the guitar player playing cross-legged). 

I actually saw them live at a show during the all-too-brief incarnation (July, 1967-January, 1968) of the old Ambassador Theater in DC as a psychedelic dance hall. I remember there was an appropriately mind-blowing psychedelic light show and that the band played of course (among more forgettable fare) Incense and Peppermints. I believe the show was sometime in November. My recollection was that the show was quite sparsely-attended--maybe 20 people or so. But a good time was had by all.

Shockingly, the band appears to be still around in some form, playing oldies gigs of various kinds. Too dreadful to be imagined. Glad I saw them when they were truly groovy!

Redistribution Lives!

Most people on the left believe the right has succeeded in their maniacal quest to reverse progressive redistribution by the modern state. This gives the right too much credit. They have, in fact, failed to do this (though a reasonable case can be made that they have slowed the growth in progressive distribution). 

Peter Lindert, one of the great academic experts on inequality (his book with Jeffrey Williamson, Unequal Gains, is the definitive history of American economic inequality) documents this in a recent study that he summarizes on the VoxEU site (emphasis added):

·         Government budgets have shifted resources progressively, from the rich to the poor, within the last 100 years. The middle ranks are neither favoured nor disfavoured.  Before WWI, very little was redistributed through government.

·         The shift toward progressivity has not been reversed, contrary to allegations of a rightward shift since the 1970s.  Among democratic welfare states, the closest thing to a demonstrable reversal was Sweden’s partial retreat since the 1980s. Globally, the most dramatic swing has been Chile’s record-setting return towards progressivity after the regressivity under Pinochet. 

·         As a corollary, the rise in inequality since the 1970s owes nothing to a net shift in government redistribution toward the rich, despite the lowering of top tax rates.

·         Since the late 1970s, several governments have shown a mission drift away from investing in lower-income children and working-age adults, while concentrating social insurance on the elderly. Japan, the US, and some Mediterranean countries have missed an opportunity for pro-growth income-levelling. 

The full study is available in a working paper, The Rise and Future of Progressive Redistribution" (warning: much wonkery! But lots of great data).

What's Less Popular Than a Tax Hike? The GOP/Trump Tax Cut, That's What!

How do those geniuses in the GOP do it? They are hell-bent on passing a tax cut bill so bad that it polls behind tax hikes of the past. That's impressive; a triumph of ideology over common sense. Harry Enten of 538 has the goods: 

George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut plan, for example, had approval and disapproval numbers that were basically the reverse of the 2017 Republican tax plan. A May 2001 Harris Interactive poll taken just before the bill passedshowed 49 percent of Americans in favor and 37 percent opposed. Two years later, a May 2003 Harris Interactive poll put Bush’s 2003 tax cut plan at 45 percent support to 39 percent opposition just before its passage. And when President Barack Obama signed a bill temporarily extending these Bush tax cuts in December 2010, 54 percent of Americans supported that decision compared to 42 percent who opposed it, according to an ABC/Washington Post poll.

Basically, none of these major tax cuts were net unpopular, as the current GOP bill is. Instead, the current Republican plan’s polling numbers look more similar to those of past tax hikes.

Ah, but perhaps just the very act of passing something, even if it is unpopular, will save the GOP? This seems highly doubtful. You don't solve the political problem of being unpopular (see Trump approval ratings, generic Congressional ballot) by doing more unpopular things. That makes no sense. As Amy Walter of Cook Political Report put it:

Getting a tax bill across the finish line isn’t going to be enough to change the mood of the country. It is going to take something much more significant to do that. A good economy is helpful to the GOP as it can cut down on some of the headwinds coming at them right now. But, it’s not clear to me that it’s enough to fundamentally alter the way voters see Congress, the GOP and the President.

In 2016 we made the mistake of rationalizing away the prospect of a Trump victory. He was too unorthodox. He couldn't possibly sustain momentum through the grueling primary campaign. We should not make same mistake in 2018. Sure, a lot can change between now and next November. And, Democrats have a narrow path to 24 seats - even with a big wave or tailwind.  But, do not ignore what’s right in front of us. A wave is building. If I were a Republican running for Congress, I’d be taking that more seriously than ever.

The Democratic wave-watch continues....

Can the Democrats Take Back Ohio?

The results in Ohio in 2016 were particularly ugly for the Democrats. Obama carried the state by 3 points in 2012; Hillary Clinton lost the state by 8 points. That's quite a swing. How did the Democrats get hosed so badly?

In this state the story is quite simple. It's all about white noncollege voters. In the Rustbelt troika of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the story gets muddled because, even though there were big swings among white noncollege voters in these states, they were so close that better performance among black voters could conceivably have turned these states to Clinton.

Not so in Ohio. Not even close. Democrats could completely replicate Obama's high water performance among black voters in 2012 and still lose the state handily, probably by around 5 points. There is really no way around bettering Democratic performance among white noncollege voters, where the Democrats' losing margin roughly doubled from 16 to 31 points between 2012 and 2016. 

Of course, some may argue that you could achieve the needed improvements among white voters by appealing to the other part of the white population--white college-educated voters. This is theoretically possible but very, very difficult. Start with the fact there were about twice as many white noncollege voters as white college voters in Ohio in 2016, a ratio that is likely to change only slightly in 2020. So to achieve the same effect as a given shift in the white noncollege vote, you need twice the swing among white college voters. 

Since Clinton split the white college vote evenly with Trump in the state, that means to neutralize the big white noncollege shift away from the Democrats, you would need to carry white college-educated voters in Ohio by 30 points in 2020. Not gonna happen.

Sorry folks, no way around it: if the Democrats hope to be competitive in Ohio in 2020 they must try to do the hard thing: find a way to reach hearts and minds among white noncollege voters.