As Democrats gather in Sioux Falls for the McGovern Day fundraiser and a possible snap election for chair, I note the following immediate dangers to the Republic:
- The greatest nation in the world is now led by an incompetent who thought being President would be easier than running a business.
- A “President” who doesn’t know where his own Navy is sailing is threatening war with North Korea.
- Trump is ceding the authority to send more of our young people into harm’s way in the Middle East to his generals.
- Trump’s tax cuts would redistribute wealth from most South Dakotans to himself and a few other rich people.
- Trump’s tax cuts would raise the national debt by as much as $7 trillion, further weakening the economy that he’s counting on to voodooistically pay for his blind budgeting.
- Trump’s party would cut Medicaid, putting 120,000 South Dakotans at risk of losing affordable health coverage.
- Trump’s only action to help rural South Dakota (that’s pretty much all of South Dakota) is to call for a task force to think about rural America.
- The Trump budget would decimate arts programs in South Dakota, reducing the quality of life and our ability to recruit and retain residents.
- Trump continues to stir fear and hatred that is embraced by South Dakota Republicans and is does more harm to America’s Constitution, values, and safety than any one alleged terrorist act.
- Trump’s border wall threatens the environment, international relations, and the federal budget.
I’m sure readers can add to that list of dangers, Trump-inspired or otherwise. Electing a South Dakota Democrat to Congress to help retake the House and stop the blindly destructive Trump agenda, as well as electing Democrats as Governor, Attorney General, and legislators to use all the tools available to our state government to resist Trump’s predations on the common wealth, should be the guiding theme of every decision South Dakota Democrats make at their Central Committee meeting tomorrow and every decision our party chair, staff, and volunteers make in the coming eighteen months.
Please reconcile this for me: now that President Trump has reached the 100 day benchmark and we have a clear view of his presidency, a presidency that is devoid of promised legislative victories, plagued with mismanagement and scandal, and at a historic low approval rate, how is it that his support is INCREASING? In fact, among his supporters, evidence of his failure INCREASES his support.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/poll-suggests-american-voters-are-stupid
Back to the sports team/brand mentality of politics. How does one get people to stop loving the Vikings? That to me is the question that Democrats have to answer about our GOP neighbors. How do Democrats compete in an electorate where Cory’s well-reasoned, on-point, and truthful ten-point analysis either makes no difference, or counter intuitively, cements support for the President doing those things?
O, I have no easy answer for those questions. If people are voting on emotional preferences and self-image affirmation rather than logic and evidence, then it seems our only recourse is to organize and outnumber those people at the polls.
I don’t want Trump to do his damage, but we may have to wait for his damage to become so clear, widespread, and personal to South Dakotans that they can no longer resist the facts: Trump makes America weaker. He makes groceries and lumber for our homes more expensive. He makes our lives shorter and poorer.
Solutions for climate change and job creation (i.e. with higher salaries) do not make the top ten?
As to why support the arts, there is a difference between just being alive and living a full life.
The GOP outrage/propaganda machine has figured out how to non-surgically lobotomize Americans. GOPs stood behind Bush Jr. despite all of the evidence of his failure as President until almost the end of his 8 years when the wheels completely came off. Only then did they abandon him. The same will happen with Trump, though it should only take 4 years.
Rorschach, assume we can all go back in time to 2000 and retain our memories of events – we all know what the Bush presidency will bring and can vote with that knowledge of the future. Would Gore beat Bush? Would Gore beat Bush in SD?
Yes and Yes.
I don’t think national Democrats are on the same page…..
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/28/montana-special-election-2017-early-voting-237751?cmpid=sf
LS, I take from your linked article this quote: “you don’t spend that much money until you’re sure it pays off.” I understand that sentiment… but that refusal to invest in red states like Montana and South Dakota leads to the GOP cementing its hold and making it impossible for another Herseth, Johnson, or Daschle to rise to the House and offer coattails that will help recruit candidates and build the state party. We need a 50-state strategy going after every seat, House, Senate, Governor, and Legislature. If Democrats don’t have a fighting chance, we need to invest the resources to give them that fighting chance. If Donald Trump can win the Presidency, a Democrat can win a statewide race in South Dakota.
National Democrats seem to be always falling into the same old rut of irrelevance. Montana is like South Dakota in many ways. All it needs is money to get the word out and vote out as well.
Cory: “If Donald Trump can win the Presidency, a Democrat can win a statewide race in South Dakota.”
One of the most important keys to President Trump’s success was taking the rust belt. For that to happen two things had to occur: 2) he had to make them believe he had something to offer them, but more importantly, 1) rust belt workers had to be fed up with Democrats – they had to see that the party they had been so loyal to for so long was no longer looking out for their interests. Absent the dissolving of that bond first, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio don’t go shopping for a new party. The GOP broke the Democratic brand adhesion.
So, I agree that there is an argument to be made that SD could vote for Democrats, but before that is even considered, how does one peel those voters from the GOP flock? Does all of SD need to look like downtown Detroit to show the promises of prosperity have not materialized? Does it take an epidemic of opiate abuse to see that a new direction is needed? Things really had to go from pretty good (for middle-class/union workers) to awfully bad before those Democratic faithful broke ranks.
Jerry, I would draw two distinctions between SD and Montana that make huge differences: 1) Montana has strong union membership, and 2) Montana has (had) resource wealth that kept the money available to spend. Those lead that state – quite red in population – to more blue politics. As the unions and wealth dry up, that state becomes more red.
True that o. As you note when good jobs and wealth dry up, you get that anger and a feeling of what the hell went wrong. Democrats will need to reach out to those that feel lost and helpless to show there is another way.
Jerry, I don’t think wealth and good jobs dried up – it wasn’t passive. Wealth and good jobs were created in the first part by strong public policy and labor unions, that wealth is still being created, just now has been diverted to the wealthiest owners and investors and away from the workers by policies spurred by both Republican and Democrats. NAFTA hurt the US middle class, and it is the stain on Democrats that they allowed/helped that to happen. Union disbanding hurt the middle class, and the Democrats allowed/helped that to happen. Wealth has been actively channeled to the top 1% with policies that reduce top-end taxes, promote exploitation of foreign labor and environmental policies, outsource labor training costs onto the labor force . . . America is not getting poorer.
Democrats have become too beholden to big money. Democrats turned their back on the middle class. Democrats bailed out Wall Street in lieu of main street. All the while, Democrats took for granted they were the party of the working class and the working class would be there for their candidates. Democrats hid and cowered from the “libby” label when they stood for middle-class, American, family values.
o, so sorry to pop your cork, but NAFTA was done under George H. W. Bush. The republican congress ratified it under Clinton and Clinton signed it. If NAFTA was so bad, then why has it survived under so many republican congress majorities? America is not getting poorer…no, I would argue that the 565 new billionaires are far from being poor.
I do not deny that Democrats turned to Wall Street instead of main street just like the other fellers did. This same Wall Street bunch just won the white house. What changes everything is jobs and so far, those are not there for the 1st quarter. The second and third many be difficult as well with immigration being what it is. A libby is a brand name for some peaches, that is all.
Jerry, fair enough not to put all NAFTA on the Dems, but I give them equal measure for not drawing a line in the sand to say that the US trade policy will put helping middle-class workers at least on par with helping the top, wealthiest to profit. Clinton did not veto. “Free trade” is a mantra for both parties. NAFTA is not bad for the 1%, the owners and stockowners who profit from the exploitation of foreign workers and lax environmental protections; my argument is that it has been bad for the US workers who are now asked to compete with the low-wage workers of foreign countries.
My point is that Democrats, to have value, have to get back in the fight for those who supported them – not for the 1%. The 1% has a political party, they don’t need two.
An article linked in the Islam gunslinger better than… post has this buried in it. It unfortunately also seems to apply to Trump supporters who will end up being screwed into the ground by the Deceiver in Chief.
“The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.”
Democrats need to convince Trump supporters in this economic wasteland that they are being used as useful idiots or as useful tools in supporting an administration that views all of them as disposable in maintaining support for Trump and the national GOP business machine.
Mr. Wiken … Are you still affiliated with the hate group, John Birch Society?
Trump capitulated on NAFTA after Canada and Mexico pressured him to take a hands off approach, at least for now.
This is just one more of Trump’s broken campaign promises.
How could Clinton veto NAFTA and why would he do that? NAFTA has worked very well for all parties concerned over the years. The problem has been manufacturing. That is not a NAFTA issue, but an issue with China. Manufacturing jobs were sent to China without any kind of trade off. Mexico buys products from the US and so does Canada. Tell me what part of the manufacturing sector has favored Canada? How bout Mexico?
Also, I want to clarify the similarities between Montana and South Dakota regarding politicians. Montana already had a crook and liar by the name of Zimke that has now moved on up, his replacement is a russian guy with deep ties like trump https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/28/greg-gianforte-republican-candidate-congress-russia-companies In South Dakota, our politicians were tied in corruption with China and the EB5, so there is that corruption bond that seems to hold us all together.
O asks how we persuade rust belt and rural folks to come back to the Dems. Part of the answer is in Wiken’s statement about helping those voters see that Trump and the GOP are using them, playing them for fools, and destroying their economic security and way of life, which depend on Democratic principles and policies. Remind them, as Roger C. does, of Trump’s broken promises. Show them that Republicans in general are inveterate liars about their plans, principles, and motivations.
Of course, to win a “Liar Liar Pants on Fire” campaign, we Democrats need to show that we can get back to our principles, stop bowing to big business (as O says we have), and stand for our principles.
It’s being said nationally that Democrats, after nationwide, statewide and Gubernatorial losses need to embrace Pro-Life Dems into the tent. It’s a big tent and this seems more necessary in SoDak.
Sometimes I overlook that hate speech is free speech. *But hate speech absolutely requires ridicule, demonization and strong retort whenever it raises it’s serpent head just so as not to appear tolerated in message.
Jerry, we still disagree on NAFTA working well for all parties over the years. To me that is the error of perspective: US industry has done well, the owners of corporations have done well, but the workers and the cities of the US have not fared well. The drive to lower the price of goods for consumers only works to allow the owners to succeed – their profits are stabilized, conversely, it is also the formula for the failure of those who produce those goods as their wages and benefits are squeezed to make the products they produce less expensive (yet still profitable).
I am for fair trade – not free trade. I do also acknowledge that my stand here gets me very close to protectionist by some standards, but I also believe that we have shied away from fair trade policies because of the protectionist boogieman.
I would raise similar objections to the shift of our economy from production to investment. That shift has created wealth and prosperity for the US (on a national measure), but it has not created wealth for the whole of the country – in fact the opposite when you consider who really pays for the bust in the bubble cycles.
Both of these issues saw the Democrats help move forward policies that allowed the concentration of wealth to the most affluent few and away from the true drivers of long-term success, the middle class.
But tell me how the workers have failed due to NAFTA, that is where you were going. If you say auto workers, I say robots. If you say textiles, I say China. Neither of these rust belt job loss’s were due to NAFTA. Keep in mind that the drive to lower prices has a lot to do with subsidies provided by the government of both Democrats and republicans. The situation now with NAFTA is that if there are changes made with the way things are now, the US will be the one who suffers the most. Yes, of course we can damage Mexico, but a damaged Mexico will do more to undermine the economy here that there.
Tell me specifics of what your argument is.
NAFTA was one element in the divorce from social responsibility for the factory owner. I also think you undersell NAFTA and Mexican auto production as a negative pressure on US auto workers. The bond between a factory’s success and a communities was more intrinsic years ago when workers were the method of production. Henry Ford was right in that creating a workforce that had both the ability and time to purchase products was the rising tide that floated all boats (including his).
Robots and foreign (cheaper) workers you reference were also elements in the divorce of the social responsibility when profit for the owner (and stockholder) outstripped the concern for the health of the community. Robots or imported products kept the price down, but also robbed the market of middle-class workers able to purchase goods. I again point out that this was not a fight over pieces of a shrinking pie, wealth both increased and concentrated with the 1%.
The price of goods would have increased (as we kept the lesser-cost-effective manufacturing), but a market of consumers for higher priced products would have also been created and maintained. Now the economy has seen a one-two punch of concentrated wealth and the creation of a low-cost economy, a WalMArtization, that provides low-cost goods and services to low-wage earners. This all creates a spiral to the bottom killing previously vibrant cities and communities.
I suppose my point is the Democrats were the political party that gave voice and power to the social concept that success of America was embodied in success for the great majority – not for the elites and not only a macro-economic view (a macro-economy that serves the interests of the elites only). Democrats have lost their way by not speaking to that basic philosophy of who they work for.
You are now catching on o, the divorce, as you say, happened between main street and wall street. Wall street demands quarterly profits and manufacturing has got to produce or they are sold or moved. The argument should never be between the Mexicans, Canadians and American workers, it lies completely with the greed of Wall Street. Wall Street, not NAFTA, is the real enemy. They are the ones that are holding us all back on our potential. The greed is staggering and they even have their corporate Wall Street owned media telling us how great they are and how wonderful it all is.
This 1st quarter, we are in the toilet yet again. South Dakota has been there for so long, we are starting to like the smell. The part where it all gets strange is that no one wants the jobs these Mexicans are supposed to be taking. Yet South Dakota thinks trump is doing one helluva job because he is deporting Mexicans. Doesn’t make much sense but since when does talking sense to racists ever make sense? Democrats have not lost their way, Americans have.
Best o’luck Paula H&thx4 your leadership Ann T. Am ‘delighted’ to spit in the eye of Heritage Fdn CWA schill Kaufman&predict british spy Steele’s heroic dossier sent to Sen McCain thru back channels WILL bring down Trump for election collusion w/ Putin. Gaurdian42817J.Borger