Time to end the romance?

The reason you’re looking at this right now on a high speed network that doesn’t cost so much that only rich people could afford it can be traced to the breakup by the federal government of AT&T way back in the Stone Age of the 1980s.

I think it’s time for some more break ups, and this is why Elizabeth Warren has my attention.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Scott Olso/Getty Images)

 

I was “there” in the 1980s when AT&T was broken apart. Thanks to that action, I spent a large part of my early career working for new competitors who never could have come into being without the forced breakup of AT&T’s monopoly.

In Warren, I see someone with the courage to go after rich and powerful corporations. I applaud her for that, and for making this a visible plank in her campaign.

There is a fundamental truism about monopolies that everyone should understand and that everyone should talk about when it comes to conversations about the balance between capitalism and so-called free markets, and the role of oversight and regulation government is supposed to play. That truism is this.

Monopolies are terrible for everyone except for the people who own them and run them.

Monopolies have zero incentive to innovate. Why would they invest any profits into innovation when the market has no alternative but to use their goods and services?

Monopolies have zero incentive to offer their goods and services at competitive prices. Same rhetorical question as before tells you why this is true.

Monopolies have zero incentive to be good corporate citizens. Do I need to say it again?

And, no, you don’t have choices. Choice is an illusion. Just ask George Carlin or the Merovingian.

By definition, monopolies mean you have no choice but to use whatever they offer at whatever price they choose, and in whatever manner in which they choose to operate.

Ok. Fine. You can choose not to participate at all in the market they rule, but understand this reality, too. A monopoly cannot arise unless they offer something people want or need; otherwise, no one would be in that market.

And, yes, I suppose you can choose to chuck it all and move to Alaska or Belize or some off-the-grid locale. May not be a bad idea. Hell, maybe you can even sell the rights to your own “reality” show to those empty-headed nitwits at The Discovery Channel. Watch out, Swamp Loggers.

Seriously, I hope people will think about what’s been happening when it comes to corporate power and influence, especially during conversations with people who complain about, scoff at, or mock Elizabeth Warren and people like her who are now calling for this era’s tech giants – and big banks – to be broken up.

That’s advice for my fellow tech business people, too. Put greed and every last nickle of profit as the goal aside, and think long-term and for the greater good on this.

As for politicians, Democratic Party apparatchiks, and industry groups, we can expect to hear from the likes of Rob Atkinson, the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, and Ed Black, president of Computer and Communications Industry Association, whine and wail and gnash their teeth over Warren’s plan. They’re shills for big money; it just happens to be Big Tech Money, and not Big Oil Money or Big  Bank Money. It’s still Big Money

There are no shortage of articles on Warren and this topic. Here’s one from the Washington Post in which the aforementioned group leaders are quoted.

“Does Elizabeth Warren’s breakup plan for the tech giants mark the end of a political romance?”

Certain liberals and progressives nowadays have no shortage of litmus tests they seem to relish in applying to every candidate.

It will be interesting to see how they test for the idea of breaking up with Silicon Valley and their money.

 

You’re a patsy if you agree with Michael Dell

Unless you’re a One Percenter, it makes no sense for you to be against taxing the rich with much higher marginal rates.

How far away are you from being a One Percenter?

On average, you’ll need to make $422,000.00 a year to become one.

Good luck getting there. Seriously. I hope lots of people reading this make piles of money if that’s their goal and how they measure success and are made happy. That’s for each individual to decide for themselves.

But, if you’re not a One Percenter and you’re cheering Michael Dell for asking to see the evidence of where and when higher marginal tax rates have ever worked, the answer, as the historian in this video from Davos points out and which is documented here, is the United States in the years right after WWII and during what many people see as this country’s greatest economic expansion for working class people.

And, yes, by most measures the American economy today can be said to be doing well, but shouldn’t the real questions be how well and for whom?

Look, even if you don’t give a shit about anyone else, and even if you’ve bought the lie of trickle-down economics hook, line, and sinker, and even if you think you’ll someday be a One Percenter if you just work hard, play by the rules, and vote Republican to get government out of your way, here’s the truth.

If that describes you, you’re a patsy to the One Percenters.

You have been duped, and you are siding with the very people who don’t give a fuck about you or anyone else. All they care about is money. Their money.

Be pissed off at me for calling you a patsy and accusing you of being duped if it makes you feel better, but here’s another truth you need to accept.

It’s not me voting for people who want to make the rich and powerful richer and more powerful.

Centrist and independent voters, do not be fooled.

Howard Schultz isn’t as terrible as Trump. No one is, but if you think a guy with a $3.1billion net worth sees the world, thinks about what life is, and has good policy vision and strategies for how government and capitalism and private enterprise are supposed to operate FOR THE COMMON GOOD, you are terribly mistaken.

Governments are NOT businesses, and they should NEVER be run the same way.

It’s the whole point of having a government – to counter-balance private enterprise.

 

Trump’s Monument

Trump’s supporters who care about facts are invited to review “Trump Revises History on Mexico’s Wall Payment” from FactCheck.org and to explain a few related questions from their point of view.

First, what’s the real purpose for having a wall, but only on the southern border? Even Chris Wallace of Fox News confronted Sanders about the trumped up threats on the southern border.

Second, the existing ports of entry aren’t going away, so how about instead of a 2,000 mile 30-foot tall physical barrier we add Ellis Island capabilities to the existing ports of entry so refugees and immigrants know where to go and can be processed quickly?

Ellis Island processed over 12 million people over the course of 60 years, including my 4 grandparents.

 

Third, and without apology, I think Trump is playing his supporters for fools yet again. This time, it’s about how the wall gets funded.

The comprehensive body of work by FactCheck.org shows that, as much as anything, apparently lots of Trump’s supporters either have very short memories, or they’re unwilling to acknowledge that Trump is playing a shell game simply so the country can pay for a monument to him.

Think about it.

He’s a person who ostensibly makes money by having his name on buildings. It requires very little imagination to conclude that a narcissist like him sees a 2,000 mile wall as his version of a Lincoln or Jefferson or Washington monument.

I believe even he knows he’ll never earn such accolades and enduring tributes to his leadership or his presidency, but he’s enough of a master marketer and manipulator to believe he can get his base to pay for one.

Imperfect allies versus actual enemies

(This is a redacted post from a Facebook Group I’m in. It was the OP’s comments and a few that followed that inspired this response from me.)

Thanks for your post, Lenard. It got me thinking. (This is pretty long. Sorry.)

 

I don’t know if you mean this literally, Lenard, but you seem to be stating that the DNC picks a president’s running mate. I suspect they have some influence with the candidate. Such decisions are rarely – and shouldn’t be – made in a vacuum solely by the candidate. Ultimately, though, it is the candidate’s decision to make, so chastising the DNC for not putting Bernie on the ticket, with apologies, makes very little sense.

 

That said, having him on the ticket got me thinking.

 

How and why would having Sanders as Clinton’s VP have changed the outcome?

 

Did leaving him off exasperate voter apathy and disillusionment?

 

Perhaps, but turnout in 2016 according to FairVote (https://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101) was actually pretty good comparatively speaking.

 

That’s not to say that this country doesn’t have a problem with apathy as evidenced by the United States of Apathy (https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/11/voter-turnout-midterm-election-statistics-map/574939/), but we should remember that Trump lost the general by 3 million. That’s a wide margin even if only 60% of eligible voters voted.

 

We also mustn’t forget that he only won the EC thanks to 77,000 voters in PA, MI, and WI.

 

Which leads me to this question; would those 77,000 have voted for Clinton with Bernie as VP?

 

Seems unlikely to me thanks in no small part to the hate on both the Right and on the Left for Hillary, the latter thanks in no small measure to die-hard Sanders supporters who then refused to vote the way Sanders asked them to, and that was for Hillary.

 

So, if we do conclude and concede that turnout would have been even greater for Hillary across the board but especially in the battleground states with Bernie on the ticket, does this mean that “Sanders voters” in those places who refused to join me as a Sanders supporter in voting for Clinton are now taking responsibility for Trump?

 

Seriously, if you call yourself a liberal or progressive or Sanders supporter, and you didn’t vote for Clinton as Bernie asked – begged – us to do, for whom did you vote, why, and will you do it again?

 

The reality was there were two choices in 2016. Two.

 

One was Trump and the other wasn’t.

 

We all knew and understood that. It’s simply intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise.

 

I get that if you live in a “safely” blue state like CA, you feel safe voting for Jill or Rocky or whomever, but that safety is afforded you only because the vast majority of your neighbors are doing what they believe and they know they must do. This isn’t an insult, it’s just how I see it nowadays. Voting your conscious is all well and good, until it isn’t for anyone but you.

 

Now the big question. Are some Sanders supporters becoming cultists? It seems so to me.

 

Look, I’m a Sanders supporter. What worries me is what I’m seeing in other FB groups that are total hardcore pro-Sanders Groups.

 

Their demand of the DNC distills down to this: “Give us Sanders, or you’ll get more scorched earth.”

 

This raises three questions for me.

 

1. Do they think the DNC controls who runs for office?

 

2. Whom do they think they’re hurting by refusing to vote for the Democrat on the ballot?

 

3. Why would anyone take conscious actions to perpetuate what we have now with Trump in office?

 

The answers I come to are framed by what starts to look to me as the same basic thinking as Trump’s cult, and that starts with making demands for change without understanding how things work. The second is to willfully decide to vote against oneself and everyone else without regard for the adverse affects just so they can pat themselves on the back for “winning” while putting someone they love into power as self-affirmation that they’re right and everyone else is wrong.

 

This is how Trump’s cult behaves. It’s as if they thought he would take office, wave a magic wand, and everything he – and they – wanted would become real. Well, I can’t help looking at many of my fellow Sanders supporters and concluding they believe the same would be true with Sanders in the White House. We all know that’s not how politics or our form of government works.

 

As for the DNC’s role in all of this, I have to say it’s childish to keep demanding that the DNC give us what we want or we’ll punish them at the polls.

 

Who is it that gets punished?

 

Is it the rich and powerful at the top? That would be silly and naive to believe.

 

Is it the Democratic politician who loses the election? Do you mean the people who are our best, albeit imperfect, allies but who aren’t actual enemies like Republican candidates? They’ll go back to doing whatever it is they were doing, or they’ll get a job on K Street, or whatever, but they’ll be fine. You aren’t “hurting” them, either.

 

No, the people who are hurt when Democrats lose and Republicans win are everyone outside the One Percent, and especially those who aren’t cisgender, white, evangelical, men.

 

We on the Left need to stop being our own worst enemies. We need to stop talking about the DNC as if it were a cabal of evil scientists building candidates out of corporatist Democratic body parts in a lab. Real people decide whether or not to run for office. Those real people must decide to run as Democrats or Republicans, Greens or Libertarians, or as Independents.

 

(Yes, here it comes.)

 

Sanders – for all the love and respect I have for him – is NOT a Democrat. If he were perfectly true to his stated beliefs, he would’ve run as an Independent. No one is perfect.

 

That’s why I suggest that we and he should stop pretending he’s a Democrat. I’d respect the hardcore Sanders-supporting Democratic Party haters more if they started calling Bernie out for being a Democrat of Convenience. After all, many of them refused to follow his advice to vote for Hillary, so shouldn’t they be attacking him for that and his convenient relationship with the DNC? Shouldn’t they be demanding that he run as an Independent? I’ll guess we’ll know soon enough.

 

I think we on the Left should be more supportive of the Democratic Party. I think we should vote for Democrats because they are clearly our strongest, albeit imperfect, allies against the actual enemies of Trump and the GOP. No, the Dems aren’t perfect. No one is, but they are exponentially stronger than any other Party other than the GOP.

 

Something else to remember about 2016 is that Bernie lost the primary in a race that wasn’t close.

 

The lesson to be learned is NOT that the DNC wasn’t supportive enough of him. I sometimes get the sense that many of my fellow Sanders supporters actually believe the DNC capable of stealing 3 million primary votes. Yes, yes, she had the superdelagates locked up early, and Nevada, and yada yada yada, but all I’ll say to all of that is that Sanders wasn’t a Democrat until it was convenient for him to register as one. What the hell did he and we expect, a loving embrace from the rank-and-file members and the leaders of a Party he has spent almost as much of his career pillorying as he has Republicans?

 

Again, if Bernie’s going to be a voice of independence from corrupt Parties, than he should run independent of them.

 

In my view, this is the absolute most important thing to remember about the primary: More people chose Hillary over Bernie. That’s how the system works.

 

So, if the Democratic candidates on your ballot aren’t liberal or progressive enough for you, then run for office yourself, but let’s stop this arsonist’s strategy of wanting to burn down the Democratic Party because the people who choose to operate within it and who choose to run as representatives of it aren’t pure enough for us. If that’s how you feel, then join the Party, run for office, and change it from the inside; otherwise, what makes you think you should have a voice in how the Party operates and who runs under its banner? Talk about privilege.

 

And, if you’re left with another choice in 2020 that doesn’t include Sanders and you vote for anyone but the Democrat at least have the courage to publicly own it. I see precious few Sanders supporters who claim to despise the Democratic Party with the courage to reveal for whom they did cast their vote. I’m proud to say that I registered for the first time in my life as a Democrat so that I could vote for Bernie in the closed PA primary. I’m just as proud to say that I voted for Hillary.

 

No one is perfect. My view is that the Left needs to find a way to coalesce and to stop being our own worst enemies by constantly fighting intra-movement purity battles. Yes, the Democratic Party should be more Liberal with a capital “L”, but how does attacking it or refusing to work with and within it lead to the change you want? It doesn’t.

 

I think that we must remember that the Left has a lot of imperfect friends and allies in the Democratic Party.

 

We have none in the Republican Party.