On Voting for Biden (or not).

Many of my friends and colleagues are trying to decide how they will vote come November. While they have no intention of voting for Trump, they are not sure they can support Biden. This I can fully understand. 

But let me start by saying this -- I do not engage in, nor do I tolerate, vote shaming.

If people decide, based on their political principles and value commitments, to vote for a third party that best represents their political interests, or not to vote at all because they reject the two party duopoly, that is their prerogative and I respect their decision.

There needs to be a recognition and acknowledgement, by the vote shamers, that the two-party system in the US radically narrows the range of political choice and is profoundly undemocratic. Among the 32 OECD electoral democracies, the US has the fewest number of “effective parties”. The number of parties is positively correlated with voter turnout.

Let us also appreciate the need for political parties and candidates to actually mobilize voters rather than taking their votes for granted, simply because they are not the “other” party/candidate; or assuming voters “have nowhere else to go”. Many of those who decide not to vote, or vote for a third party, may very well have been “de-mobilized” by the two parties.

There are many ways to think about and frame the voting decision in this election. I present here just one way in the context of viewing the vote as a political strategy, rather than the vote as a singular expression of one’s political ideological preference.

As a democratic socialist, I certainly have a vision for what kind of society I would like the US to become and this would involve, as a start, building social democratic institutions that both provide expanded opportunities for political and economic democratic participation and expression and, accordingly, a decommodification of the basic necessities of life as has been proposed through an economic bill of rights involving health care, education, housing, and employment.

Right now, we are nowhere close to this vision. But how do we get from here to there?

One way to think of this question is to consider the obstacles that must be removed in order to advance in the direction of a progressive social democratic agenda.

In that context I would consider the Trump administration to be the first and most significant obstacle, not only based on their reactionary right-wing extreme neoliberal socio-economic policies, but also because the administration is veering toward authoritarianism that could translate into a further extension of state sponsored repression directed at left wing activists specifically. Under these conditions, we are in an entirely defensive position.

Therefore, the first obstacle that must be removed is the Trump administration or, to put it more broadly and accurately, removing Trump is a vitally necessary, but grossly insufficient, condition for realizing a more democratic and humane society. If one follows this logic they might decide to “vote against Trump”. I put it that way because many people will have a hard time saying that they support, or are voting for, Biden. This is because they do not, in fact, endorse Biden or his politics. But in the two-party dynamic, to “vote against Trump” is essentially to cast a “vote for Biden”.

But that alone is insufficient because that is only the first of many obstacles to the realization of a social democratic agenda. The second obstacle that must be taken on is the deep-seated neoliberal ideology and policy agenda, that has been embraced by both parties, and which remains firmly established within the centrist corporate wing of the Democratic party. So far, there is no indication that the Biden/Harris ticket will depart significantly from this so-called “return to normalcy” which means a return to the neoliberal status quo that gave us Trump.

This means that, assuming Biden/Harris emerge victorious in November, it should not be considered a “win” because it just represents the removal of the first obstacle in a long-term political struggle. This is critically important because there is a long history of people on the progressive left declaring victory after a Democratic win followed by complacency and political deactivation (see 2008 and the victory of Obama). There is a reason that people say: “the Democratic Party is where social movements go to die”. This cannot happen. Once Trump is removed, the social democratic left can shift its energy, from a defensive to offensive strategy, against the corporate dominated Democratic Party establishment.

So, I offer this as just one way to think about the voting decision in November.

There are obviously many more factors to consider, in particular whether one resides in a “swing state”, and the importance of down-ballot races.

I welcome comments and feedback.

Thoughts on the Kamala Harris Selection

 

The choice of Kamala Harris as Biden’s running mate was not at all a surprise and was largely expected for several reasons. It was decided that it had to be a woman of color and, among those woman considered, Harris had the greatest name recognition, had run as a candidate in the Democratic primary, had participated in the debates, and is a Senator from a major US state. In terms of conventional political calculation, this was clearly the obvious and safest choice.

In terms of electoral value, I am not sure it will make much difference. If the assumption is that women of color will more likely support a ticket that includes a fellow woman of color, the Democrats pretty much had that demographic wrapped up anyway. Geographically, California is a solid blue state, so there is no gain there either.

While the Harris announcement does provide some level of enthusiasm and resuscitation to Biden’s moribund campaign, which has benefited over the past few months less from Biden’s actions than Trump’s abject failure on every level, there is a distinction between enthusiasm and mobilization. People already planning to vote for Biden may now be more enthusiastic about the ticket. Whether the addition of a woman of color, alone, will now mobilize new voters and expand Democratic support is another matter.

Take, for example, those largely younger voters who actively supported the Sanders campaign. For that population, partisan attachment and/or the identity representation of the candidates are far less important than substantive policy positions and proposals. After all, Bernie Sanders is a 78-year old white male – not the age/race/gender identity characteristics one would expect to galvanize a multi-racial political youth movement – and yet he was able to mobilize and energize this segment of the electorate. What mattered was not identity or partisanship, but an unswerving commitment to social democratic policies from Medicare For All to the Green New Deal to the cancellation of student debt to an economic bill of rights.

But sadly, with the Biden/Harris ticket, the party is squarely in the hands of the centrist establishment and the corporate donors. For this wing of the party, “progressivism” is largely a matter of identity representation and recognition rather than substantive policy positions, with the former serving as a substitute for the latter; what Nancy Fraser has aptly described as “progressive neoliberalism”.

This was clearly the case with Barack Obama in 2008 who, as the first black president, was assumed automatically to be a progressive Democrat. It did not quite work out that way.

Likewise, Harris, as the first black female member of a presidential ticket, is simply assumed to be, by virtue of ascribed characteristics, also possessing a progressive worldview. But in the many media accounts of this historic VP candidate that I have reviewed, there is virtually no mention of what Harris brings to the ticket in terms of a political ideology, value convictions, or coherent public policy preferences. None of that seems to matter.

This does not mean Biden/Harris do not possess, or can’t develop, a policy program, even one that includes some of the progressive policy positions that emerged from the unity task force process, but right now this seems the least significant factor in how the Democratic ticket is currently being promoted.

This void is particularly conspicuous given the fact that the country is facing an unprecedented and monumental depression-level socio-economic crisis begging for a bold progressive and transformative policy agenda. In fact, it requires it. But instead, this is what we are hearing: “fighting for the best we are as a nation”; "rebuild this country"; “fix the mess created in the U.S. and abroad by Trump and Pence”; “Joe has empathy”; “Kamala Harris is smart, tough and a proven fighter for the country’s middle class”; “a president who understands who the people are, sees them where they are, and has a genuine desire to help and knows how to fight to get us where we need to be”. But nothing about the means or the ends.

Maybe simply rejecting, and not being, Trump, will be enough to win the election.

But for those who desire something more, in the sage words of Naomi Klein: “No is not enough!”

On Principled Non-Partisanship

The intense desire to remove the neo-fascist sociopath from the White House has resulted in an unwritten and unspoken, but very apparent, moratorium on critical commentary of Joe Biden or the Democratic Party (and I am sure now Kamala Harris). I and others have been the victims of this policy in the responses we receive from some of our FB colleagues who are now the informal enforcers of this creed.

Because all my classes, maybe with the exception of Data Analysis, are political and politicized, for which I make no apology, I introduce students to the concept and practice of “principled non-partisanship”. This simply means that if you have a set of value commitments or political/philosophical principles – like equality, democracy, transparency, right to privacy, etc – you evaluate political figures or political parties on the basis of those principles independent of the party or party affiliation. So, if as a Democrat you criticized the George W. Bush administration for violating the constitutional right to privacy in revelations on wiretapping Americans during the so-called “war on terror”, you also do the same when you discover that the Obama administration, as revealed by Edward Snowden, also violated the constitution. Selective application of one’s principles based on partisan attachment is “unprincipled partisanship”, something that has reached epic levels within the Republican Party under Trump.

Therefore, if the Democrats and Republicans both violate a principle I hold dear, but I only criticize the Republicans for that violation, it would be hypocritical generally, and specifically with regard to a principle I am asking my students to adhere to (do as your told, not as I do).

The fear and reluctance to criticize Biden if you want Trump defeated has a structural source in the American electoral system, or more specifically the two-party duopoly (on this I strongly recommend Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop by Lee Drutman). It produces a binary/zero-sum logic that has enormous implications for current political dynamics and discourse but as it applies here it means that any gain or advantage given to one party is automatically at the expense of the other party. Hence, to criticize Biden is to indirectly help Trump, almost by default. If we had a multiparty system, this would not be the case.

So, here is the alternative aphorism promoted by the moratorium enforcers: “if you don’t have anything nice to say about Biden or the Democrats, don’t say anything at all.” Just censor yourself.

Thoughts on Cancel Culture: ‘Faming’, ‘Shaming’, and Wokeness

The mass uprising over racist police violence, and the rise of the BLM movement, is one of the most significant political developments of the past thirty years. The extent to which it translates into an organized and effective social movement producing substantive, systemic, and structural change remains to be seen. In the interim, there is no doubt that we now have a vigorous anti-racist movement with widespread support among the US population.

While I do not want to downplay the importance of this level of social acknowledgement of the deep-seated racism that permeates American society, it has taken one form that I believe is ultimately counterproductive. This has been described most recently as “cancel culture”. This term has many meanings and is applied to many different politically motivated actions. Here is one definition: “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”

As a strident left-wing democratic socialist who takes pleasure in exposing the dysfunctions, irrationality, and hypocrisies of both the operation of the capitalist system and the actions of its functionaries, I can certainly sympathize with the intrinsic motives fueling the desire to call people out and cut them down to size. But my own need to destroy the ideological position and arguments of my adversaries is tempered by a larger commitment to the principle of freedom of thought, speech, and expression.

It is along these lines, in the midst of the recently heightened level of cancel culture activity, that the practice of cancel culture received widespread critical attention in the form of a Harper’s magazine letter signed by a large number of writers, political commentators, and public figures – including the unlikely bedfellows of David Brooks and Noam Chomsky – admonishing those who engage in this behavior. The objection to the practice was based largely on the broad principles of free speech, expression, and tolerance for open debate which they view as the “lifeblood of a liberal society.”

As one who shares with my students the University of Chicago statement that takes a strong position on the need for free expression on the college campus, I would be a hypocrite to object to the Harper’s letter. Generally, I agree with the spirit of that letter. On the other hand, I think it is an error to equate in any way the shaming/canceling actions by groups and organizations on social media with the institutionalized forms of state/corporate sponsored censorship, silencing and prosecution of whistle-blowers and journalists, and criminalizing protests and boycotts. Canceling from below is not the same as canceling from the top.

But my critical comments on cancel culture, pertain primarily to the practice as a political strategy. I think that politically it is not terribly productive and in some ways is counter to what we would like to emphasize and achieve as a progressive movement.

When we constantly make reference to racism in the anti-racist movement as systemic and structural, but we have people spending their time canceling individuals for verbal transgressions or insufficient acknowledgement of oppression, we are engaged in the “bad apples” logic -- reducing the problem to certain individuals and their attitudes and behavior. Changing or canceling these bad actors, or bad apples, will not address the source or the most pernicious aspects of a system generating racial oppression.

Further, it seems that many of the cancelled victims are often trivial figures that are not really in any position to translate their personal dispositions into any substantive negative consequence. At the same time we have lots of powerful individuals who have promoted racist, regressive, reactionary, neoliberal, neoconservative domestic and foreign policy that continue to play a role in government agencies and administrations, both Democratic and Republican, who deserve to be exposed for not what they say, but what they have done.

But lately, all that seems to be required to avoid getting canceled is merely are representative gestures and expressions of “wokeness”, or what is more generally described as “virtue signaling”.

On this count, I have noticed two reactions. There is what I call “woke faming” in which performative expressions of wokeness award people, organizations, or corporations with accolades for what are purely symbolic gestures independent of actions or policies (e.g. Wells-Fargo, AT&T Nike etc). This is come to be known as “woke-washing” – just another corporate Potemkin Village.

Then there is “woke shaming” for those who fail to express the desired or expected endorsement or acknowledgement. They are the victims of cancel culture.

All this reminds me of commentary by the political scientist Adolph Reed on Democratic Party liberals who, he argued, are always willing to “bear witness to the suffering” of various marginalized and oppressed groups, but never seem to be willing to put in place the policies that would meaningfully alleviate or eliminate that suffering. (Ironically, Reed himself was recently “deplatformed” when a NY chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America cancelled his appearance on a panel for his published piece on race and “disparitarianism”).

Finally, there is a reason that this form of woke anti-racism is so easily embraced and accommodated by corporations and the elite – it does not in any way threaten the institutions and structures on which their class privilege and domination rest. Expanding wokeness does not deduct from their wealth or property. They are more than happy to bring in the consultants such as Robin DiAngelo to train their employees on white fragility. But raising wages, sharing profits, or allowing workers to organize a labor union? That is a bridge too far.

I would hate to see cancel culture substitute for a more radical political movement and agenda that includes demands for defunding and demilitarizing the police, putting an end to policing, decriminalization of poverty, and public investment in community services. That will just play into culture war politics and do little to benefit marginalized and working class populations.

The National Disgrace of Student Debt Peonage

The National Disgrace of Student Debt Peonage  

Student loan debt has now reached $1.6 trillion and continues to grow. The average student loan debt obligation is now around $35,000, a record high. While there seems to be no end in sight to this madness, it is finally getting the attention of the political class. There have been some proposals by Democratic candidates to reduce or cancel entirely this monumental debt load. That is a positive development. 

But how did we get here in the first place?  

It is important to consider the factors that have contributed to this situation because they have broader socio-economic implications and are not confined to simply borrowing money to pay for a college education. Like most of the socio-economic horrors in the US, this one can be traced back to the 1980’s, when the neoliberal economic policy regime was being imposed and instituted under Reagan.

There were two simultaneous developments that would inevitably fuel a student loan debt crisis.  

First, you had a growing gap between the college and non-college educated population in terms of average earnings. This itself was a product of the neoliberal policies that accelerated outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing (aka deindustrialization) while also launching an attack on labor and the ability of workers to form unions.   As well-paying union jobs in manufacturing disappeared, replaced by non-union service sector jobs, so too did a critical avenue to a middle-class, economically secure, life among those with a high school degree. Between 1979 and 2005 average hourly wage for those with a college degree went up 22%; for those with just a high school degree it declined by 2%. 

At the very same time, the ideology underpinning neoliberalism emphasized market rather than government solutions, private rather than public investments, and a rollback of social welfare programs. Students receiving public support for higher education through Pell grants and similar sources were lumped in with the so-called welfare freeloaders, leeches, and “tax eaters”. Rather than viewing higher education as a public good that warranted public investment, it was instead regarded as a private individual investment in one’s human capital and, therefore, the responsibility of the individual to finance on their own.  

For parents interested in their children’s future economic well-being, the human capital ideology informed a central feature of the parent-to-child socialization process. Every child was told at the earliest age that they must get a college education, without a college degree they would be losers in the game of life and would suffer from perpetual economic insecurity.  

And, thus, the higher education bubble was formed. Like the housing bubble where everyone was encouraged into home ownership, everyone should own at least a college degree. Just as the home is paid for with a home mortgage loan, one can pay for this indispensable college degree with a financial loan; just as home buyers were told that the home would increase in value and be a great investment, so too were students told that a college degree was the best investment for which there would be a healthy labor market return; just as home prices continued to rise, so too has tuition increased steadily over this period. When the value of homes collapsed, homeowners were under water and millions foreclosed; when college-graduate labor market opportunities collapsed, student borrowers were financially pinched, and are now defaulting on their loans in large numbers. And the two financial crises are related. A recent study found that that families assuming the financial burden and borrowing to pay for college, are also more prone to face home foreclosure.

There are also a broader range of negative consequences as a result of the combination of student loan debt alongside a labor market that provides far too few well-paying jobs. In the past, a student graduating with a college degree would find a job that allowed for independent economic security, the ability to rent or buy a home, and purchase all the amenities associated with a new residence. This provided an enormous stimulus to the macroeconomy through the demand for a wide range of goods and services. But under the current situation, we see far less positive macroeconomic benefit from college graduates. This is because today, among the population 18 to 34, 43% are living with parents or relatives, the highest percent since 1945.

As a logical consequence, the millennial generation is also the least geographically mobile compared to prior generations. Geographic immobility among members of younger generations was usually the result of three factors -- marriage, home ownership, and having children. What is significant today is that millennials are less likely than prior generations to meet any of these criteria. Again, we can attribute this demographic anomaly to the accumulation of student loan debt coupled with poor employment prospects.

More generally, every dollar used to pay off a student loan is a dollar that is not used to purchase goods and services in our larger consumer capitalist economy. So, what would happen if we cancelled all student loan debt? If we had a good old-fashioned debt jubilee?

A group of economists at the Levy Economics Institute conducted an econometric analysis to answer this question in their report titled “The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation.”  Here is their conclusion: “the current policy of encouraging the expansion of debt-financed higher education has been a failure, and therefore a radical departure is in order….Student debt cancellation results in positive macroeconomic feedback effects as average households’ net worth and disposable income increase, driving new consumption and investment spending.” 

Of course, cancellation of student debt would only make sense alongside free tuition to prevent the next generation from ending up in the same debt-ridden hole. If everyone today requires a college degree, it is no different than a high school degree 50 years ago. Just as primary and secondary education has been viewed as a public good for which we all benefit as a society, and should therefore be provided cost-free to all citizens, so too today for a college degree.   

At the same time, we should ask: why should a college degree be the singular avenue to an economically secure, middle-class, life? It was not always this way. There are many high school graduates who might prefer a different path, and who have no interest in going to university. There should be economically viable options through apprenticeships and vocational training that provide students with an alternative career path, if they so desire. The key is to ensure that such careers are economically rewarding, and this will require, for these and all workers, the right to organize, and negotiate the terms and conditions of employment.

The current student debt crisis should stimulate some creative thinking about debt relief, universal free-tuition, and alternative career paths for young adults.

When the most highly educated generation in history is also the most economically insecure, there is obviously a serious structural problem with our socio-economic system. It can no longer be ignored.

David Jaffee is Professor of Sociology at University of North Florida.

Exit-Voice-Loyalty and Kneeling

Back in 1970, the political economist Albert O. Hirschman published a widely influential treatise titled “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty”. He introduced this conceptual triad to analyze the three options available to those who are dissatisfied with a particular organization, institution, or situation. 

Under the “exit” option, one simply leaves or “takes their business elsewhere”.  This is regarded as the market-based solution.  Alternatively, one can exercise “voice” individually, or through the organization of like-minded others, and demand change, so that the unsatisfactory situation can be acknowledged and addressed. Hirschman considered “voice” most consistent with the principles of democratic citizenship. Finally, there is the default option of “loyalty”, where one faithfully or silently supports the existing state of affairs.

How does the exit-voice-loyalty scheme apply to the current debate over professional athletes kneeling during the national anthem?

Despite the effort by detractors to interpret these protests as unpatriotic or disrespecting the military, the original act by Colin Kaepernick was explicitly designed to protest the widely reported police violence against black American citizens. The national anthem served as an occasion to express dissent and expose the hypocrisy of espoused American values alongside the brutal reality of racial injustice. As Kaepernick stated: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color”. Thus, Kaepernick and others were responding to what they considered to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs and chose, among the exit-voice-loyalty options, the constitutionally protected and non-violent act of voice, in the hope of raising awareness and improving conditions.

Those opposed to these actions often demand, instead, unconditional loyalty to the nation and its symbols, despite the well-documented record of disproportionate police violence against unarmed black men. In this context, loyalty means blind conformity and ritualized obedience.

It is interesting that the very conservatives who endlessly trumpet and celebrate the American virtues of individual freedom and liberty, are the first to demand that those citizens who dare exercise these freedoms be sanctioned, disciplined, and fired.  Freedom in theory; authoritarianism in practice. 

   

And if the disaffected are unwilling to exhibit loyalty, the only other option is “exit”. Those who protested the Vietnam war will be familiar with the phrase “America, love it or leave it”. Such invective is now directed at those who take a knee during the national anthem.  If you have a problem with the way law enforcement operates, move to another country.

In short, the opponents of dissent want to eliminate the option of “voice”; the one course of action Hirschman associated with democratic expression. There are now only two options – loyalty or exit. Take your pick.

Such a sentiment is a dangerous threat to democratic vitality. As the former General and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned: “May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”

Ironically, sports fans are now faced with a similar array of choices.  Dissatisfied with the way athletes are expressing their dissent, fans are weighing their options – “exit” through boycott, remain loyal to their team, or actively voice their disagreement with the protest tactics.

I would suggest that sports fans and others keep in mind the original source for the athlete’s actions, and support the athletes in raising awareness and ultimately addressing the well-documented failings of the law enforcement and criminal justice systems. Rather than attacking the messenger, it is time to heed the message.

It's The System, Stupid

Imagine if we had a self-regulating political system that responded automatically to efforts to expand political participation and the freedom of expression, but in a negative fashion. For example, suppose every time a policy was proposed, or put in place, to allow citizens greater ability to express their preferences, the system automatically responded by reducing the range of policy issues that would be accessible to popular input.  Thus, expanding political participation and freedom of expression in the name of democracy would actually result in less democracy. How would we respond to such a situation? Would we simply give up trying to expand the opportunities for democratic expression? Or would we question and seek to change the political system that produced these perverse results? 

Now consider a comparable situation but in the economic system. Suppose every time we proposed a policy that would improve the working and material conditions of the citizens through, for example, a minimum wage or unionization, the self-regulating market system responded by producing  fewer jobs or by disinvesting and capital flight. Thus, attempts to improve the lives of workers would actually result in negative consequences for workers, and this would then be used as the basis for opposing any such labor reforms. How would we respond to this situation?  As it turns out we are much less likely than in the case of the political system to consider the system itself as the problem. Instead, we assume the system is a natural force that cannot be changed or modified [aka TINA – “there is no alternative”] and therefore our only choice is either to abandon all efforts, or work to accommodate the system to minimize the negative consequences.   

When people tell us that any effort to improve material conditions won’t work because the “market” will respond negatively and the action will be counterproductive, we need to consider the problem to lie not with the policy proposal but with our economic system itself.

The economist Michael Perelman [in The Invisible Handcuffs of Capitalism] has framed this issue similarly and more colorfully in the context of the Greek myth of Procrustes and the infamous Procrustean Bed. In that fable, Procrustes invites travelers to spend the night but they must conform to the dimensions of his bed which results in his sadistic practice of amputating limbs that are too long, or stretching the bodies of those who are too short. The Procrustean bed is the metaphor for a system that requires absolute conformity to its logic and the negative consequences for those who deviate.  This is how Perelman describes the operation of the capitalist market.

Recognition of the systemic sources of our problems has fueled a several movements aimed at fundamental political-economic change. One prime example is “TheNext System” project.