Samuel G. Howard – Page 3

November 22, 2013November 22, 2013

And the polls tell us…

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It’s slightly less than a year before Rhode Island elects a new governor, and the holiday season is upon us. Luckily, Rhode Island’s political wonks get their gifts early in the form of two brand-new polls, one from WPRI/The Providence Journal (courtesy of Joe Fleming) and the other from Brown University’s Taubman Center overseen by Prof. Marion Orr. The former is for the whole state, the latter just of Providence.

As I’ve stated before, we should be skeptical of polling, especially given its track record. Yes, even campaigns have poor polling, as apparently even the David Cicilline campaign was expecting a far closer result than they got. And yes, there’s some agreement between the polls, so maybe that points to their accuracy? Apparently Rhode Island voters give roughly the same approval rating to Angel Taveras that Providence residents do.

We learn from the Taubman Center that Providence residents like their parks, their police, their trash service, their fire department, their road quality, and their public schools (though not in that order); and are expecting the status quo to remain the same. Which is good news for any mayoral candidates, because all they have to do is not screw up (or slightly improve) the situation and they’ll have a good approval rating. It’s also good news because the general media attitude towards Providence is CRIME-MURDER-AHHH!!!! The headline for the Brown poll was notably not “Providence residents like the services they’re getting!”

As for the WPRI/Journal poll, what did we learn that we didn’t already know? People like Taveras slightly more than Raimondo. Clay Pell and Ken Block are relatively unknown. People like Reed, are not so happy with Chafee. It’s good to check in on these things, but it’s not earth-shattering revelations here.

There were no head-to-head match ups, so it’s not like we have any inkling of how people will vote in the next election. Which is probably a good thing, because at this point, we should be learning more about the candidates and their positions, and hopefully will be.

I just want to give caution to following media narratives about our political scene right now. It’s very easy for commentators to debate the merits of hypotheticals and convince themselves that Raimondo is going to run as an independent, or that progressives will throw themselves onto the Pell bus once it gets running, or that Block is an important figure that all Rhode Islanders are listening to. All of that tends to be conjecture, rumor, and hearsay.

As for the policy polling… I’m unconvinced of its importance to those who dwell beneath the marble dome on Smith Hill. Some of them will cite it as proof of the popularity of their positions, but I wouldn’t expect it to have much of an impact on what passes through the 2014 session.

November 22, 2013

Until the job Is done

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Why does a politician continually raise his sights and leave a job that represented complete satisfaction at one time for a higher position?

Part of the reason lies in the normal desire to move ahead, perhaps the more important part lies in the recognition that a greater opportunity to determine the direction in which the nation and world will go lies in higher office. I’ve come to understand that the presidency is the ultimate source of action.

-John F. Kennedy

There are no small parts, only small actors.

-Proverb

I’ve seen it suggested recently that Angel Taveras shouldn’t leave as Providence mayor to run for governor. The common refrain is some variant on “the job isn’t finished yet.” It’s a similar criticism to that lobbed at U.S. Rep. David Cicilline; that he “cut and ran” from Providence just as the city entered a budget crisis (I believe that Cicilline was the last mayor who wasn’t term-limited and could’ve served indefinitely).

It’s a question that I’ve scoffed at. After all, why would eight years matter more than four years? If you believe someone shouldn’t leave office until every problem a government faces is solved, why not go the old Roman method: appoint a dictator until the crisis is over. See how many dictators for life we end up with.

But it wasn’t until I was watching Part 2 of PBS’ documentary on JFK that an answer appeared. About 13 minutes in, the JFK quote above was played from a dictaphone. And gave me reason to reflect on that question. Why seek a higher office when you’re already good at what you do?

Part of the criticism leveled at the Mayor of Providence is that the citizens of Providence have been blessed with mayors they’ve been pretty happy with. Each time in recent years when the mayor leaves, they’ve been faced with a plethora of choices that are all sort of unknown or not satisfactory to the diverse interests that reside in the state’s capital city. If the polls can be believed, Angel Taveras is perhaps the most popular politician in the state. It’s little wonder that Providence’s citizens would want such a figure to remain aboard.

But why should he? Even if he remained for another four years, by the time he left, Providence would still have problems. Any community, no matter how well managed, is going to have issues crop up. We are, after all, imperfect human beings. The terms of office aren’t organized around issues, they’re organized around arbitrary numbers of years. Every politician can’t all be President James Polk, who came into office with a few goals and refused to run for a second term when he accomplished all of them in his first four years.

So with the opening in the governor’s office, it’s fine for a politician like Taveras to seek a greater source of action. Why does a legislator seek to be in leadership? Why do advocates seek to take political office in the first place. If you’re driven by a mission, whether that be a cause or your own ego (or more likely, a heady mixture of both), why not?

But we as voters might think about taking into account the Peter Principle: “people rise to the level of their incompetence.” Which is why I’ve included the second quote, a famous proverb, above. It’s a rare politician who decides to look downward. Off the top of my head, I can think only of John Quincy Adams who took up a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives after his presidency, and Jerry Brown of California who served at Mayor of Oakland between his two times as Governor of California.

We might pause to ask ourselves why this is. Smaller roles may be more mundane, and less imbued with the power to act, but they’re important nonetheless. We forget how much power a local government has to shape our outlook, our options, and our lives.

November 17, 2013November 19, 2013

The Columbus’ Revival! 2013 rocks Providence

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

For music Saturday night, there was no other place to be than the Columbus Theatre on Broadway in Providence from Revival! 2013, which featured a full cohort of 15 hometown heroes and visiting acts across three locations; including a barbershop. I didn’t get beyond the main stage, so this review will only encompass the four headliners.

Leading off the night as “the first note of our first act of our second year,” (in Columbus’ Cooperative member Bryan Minto’s words) were Roz and the Rice Cakes. I have had the fortune of being one of Roz Raskin’s many classmates, and I will say this: there’s no better pleasure than seeing someone you know opening a night like this. Drummer Casey Belisle and bassist Justin Foster form a tight rhythm section that backs and complements Raskin’s excellent keyboards and vocals.

Pinning down what exactly the music the Rice Cakes play is difficult, but the usual selection could be described as almost trance-folk, as the driving rhythm pushes along underneath Raskin’s distorted keys and faded vocals. Occasionally, the instruments drowned out Raskin’s words, making the lyrics difficult to describe. But despite this difficulty, the Rice Cakes had dancers on the floor in a relatively short period of time, bouncing along to the dance numbers. The craftsmanship of the Rice Cakes is exemplified in their closer; “Yellow Fields” which includes a bit at the beginning that almost feels as though the song is about to fall apart. The recorded version is varies from foot stomper to tension-building staccatos. Here it was transformed into a barn-burner.

After, Anais Mitchell took the stage with just her guitar, opening with two songs from her folk opera about Orpheus set in hard economic times. Both “Wedding Song” and “Why We Build the Wall” feature other vocalists on the album versions, but Mitchell managed to transform them for a single person; though “Wedding Song” showed its roots far more. As Mitchell noted, she’s only just given birth to a daughter three months ago, but that added to her stage presence, especially as her newborn daughter cried as Mitchell performed. Mitchell’s delivery is crystal-clear and her finger-picking is an excellent complement. That was notable on her performance of Child Ballad 100 “Willie O Winsbury” a traditional Scottish ballad over 200 years old. Mitchell’s rendition of it was perfect.

Mitchell’s ability is a songwriter might best be demonstrated in “Young Man in America,” the title track from her second album, which manages to speak directly from within American masculinity’s hopes and insecurities. It’s a pretty impressive feat, and that Mitchell pulled it off while enrapturing the crowd was pretty special to see.

The Low Anthem might best be described as the shining light of the Providence music scene, and here they showed their skill; “This Goddamn House” required that lead singer Ben Knox Miller play a saw, producing wailing trills. The tempo for most of the Anthem’s set was slower and relaxed, ignoring the more danceable numbers in their repertoire like “The Horizon is a Beltway” or “Boeing 737”. The band’s showmanship was on display in songs like “When I’m Dreaming Drunk,” also featuring vocal talents of Columbus’ Cooperative’s Minto. The most rousing of the band’s regular set included a whirring drone videotaping the crowd from above. While no doubt the recording will be amazing, it abruptly ended when the drone operator accidentally steered it into a backdrop, putting the drone out of commission. One can only hope that similar fates befall other surveillance drones.

When joined by the ‘Mericans’ Chris Daltry and Michael Moore, the Low Anthem crackled. On the first number, Moore’s lead guitar was excellent; well-played without being overpowering, and the Anthem was energized and on point. The second number was lead by drummer Jeff Prystowsky, a raucous tribute to former Cardinal’s shortstop Ozzie Smith; driven by Prystowsky’s thumping drums, it was complete with Daltry and Miller tearing it up on guitar.

The closing act, The Felice Brothers, brought a no-holds barred New York countryfied rock set, starting slow. But by their second song they’d brought dancers back to the front of the stage. The next song, “Run Chicken Run” was an accordion-driven dancer that had the audience dancing in the aisles, and on the next song virtually the entirety of the crowd was on their feet, where they remained for the rest of the night. Brothers Ian and James Felice center the band, with Ian’s ragged vocals providing much of the character of the band’s songs. But James Felice is showcased not only for his keys and accordion, but also for his crooning voice, with “Whiskey in My Whiskey” being the best example. Fiddler Greg Farley is also a beautiful complement to band, deployed exactly where he’ll have the most effect. The Felice Brothers seem relatively tireless, capable of knocking out songs reminiscent of back country hoedowns or shouting out punkish numbers with bass solos. They’re a pleasure to behold.

Revival! 2013 was a great success, marking a year since the Columbus Theatre returned to operation under its owner Jon Berberian and the Columbus Cooperative. Future shows can be found on their website.

November 14, 2013

How not to announce permanent austerity

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

At a feast, in a white tie and tuxedo, from a golden lectern, after rising from your gilded chair.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron shows us an example of the wrong way.

Regardless of where you stand on British austerity (hint: it’s not working), you should be able to agree this was an incredibly tone-deaf visual. For more in the study of contrasts, here’s the opinion of a waitress at the dinner.

November 14, 2013November 14, 2013

Progressive dissatisfaction and the Democratic primary

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In the last few years the General Assembly has passed legislation that slashed pensions, cut taxes on the wealthiest Rhode Islanders, recklessly combined the State’s boards of education, and instituted a discriminatory and unnecessary Voter ID law. And, of course, all while under the auspices of the Democratic Party.

It’s no secret then, that progressives are dissatisfied with the status quo of Rhode Island. There have been victories; notably marriage equality. But marriage equality only arrived after a compromise of civil unions riled up enough people that there was a large-scale campaign to gain true equality before the law. Full progressive change in Rhode Island happens when there is a confluence of outrage and money.

What has tided progressives over is a series of compromise: the most progressive change possible, the most progressive candidate possible. U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, and Gov. Lincoln Chafee are all beneficiaries of this. While some of them have not been the most progressive candidate in their races, they have been the most progressive candidate possible.

But recent events in New York City and Boston have empowered progressives across the country, and Rhode Island progressives especially have taken note (sandwiched, as they are, between those two regional poles). Candidates with explicitly progressive campaigns have won mayoral races in those cities in off-election years. The New York City example of Bill de Blasio is especially hopeful. NYC has a population of somewhere around 7 times larger than the entirety of Rhode Island, which despite a Democratic majority has been ruled by non-Democrats since 1994, the last full year in which there was a Democratic governor in Rhode Island.

If it can happen in New York and Boston, then it can happen here, the reasoning goes. As Rhode Island progressives eye the governor’s race, they may start drawing parallels with New York City. This may explain the hoopla over Clay Pell, the untested scion of Rhode Island’s greatest political legacy.

There are a few factors to consider. First, progressives may believe they are the Democratic Party, but that’s ultimately false. Many of Rhode Island’s Democrats are more accurately described as “Christian democrats” generally socially conservative but supportive of social justice and welfare. These are the elder type of Democrats, part of the party before the progressives split from the Republicans. The reality is that Rhode Island’s Democratic Party incorporates three general sections; the progressives, the Christian democrats, and the neoliberals. There are also some genuine conservatives.

However, of these three wings, the progressives are by far the most politically dangerous and important. Time and time again they’ve proven they can break or make Democratic candidates. Therefore, it’s not surprising to see all Democratic candidates in the gubernatorial primary proclaim themselves progressives.

Progressives have a pastime of DINO-hunting, which generally means weeding out the Christian democrats or neoliberals. But as the gubernatorial race approaches, they may find themselves hunting progressives-in-name-only instead. I doubt I’m wrong in thinking that progressives believe that if the first elected Democratic governor is coming in 2014 they’ll allow that governor to be anything short of a true-blue progressive.

Providence Mayor Angel Taveras is especially vulnerable to the whims of progressive fervor. He’s managed to position himself somewhere between the neoliberal position and the progressive position. Meanwhile, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo has been firmly defined as part of the neoliberals; the “Wall St. Democrats.” But that line-walking is not playing as well as it should. On a recent appearance on WPRI’s Newsmakers, when pressed by Ted Nesi, Taveras was unable to draw a distinction between himself and Raimondo in terms of actual policy, suggesting that it’ll come out in the campaign.

On one hand, that’s correct; and politically it’s unnecessary to draw a distinction this early when Rhode Islanders won’t be paying attention for another year or so. But on the other, those contrasts should be clear already, especially as activists begin examining the candidates closely and building enthusiasm for campaign season.

Taveras’ vulnerability is clear in Clay Pell, as ill-defined a candidate as ever there was. We know virtually nothing about him beyond the name, a brief biographical sketch, and that his wife is Olympian Michelle Kwan. Yet Pell is bending progressives towards his center of gravity, and that should be worrying this early. His grandfather was also a relative unknown who defeated two former Governors for his U.S. Senate seat.

Despite their strengths, one shouldn’t think of the progressives as a wholly deciding factor though. For one thing, the movement is, like most things in Rhode Island, fractious and full of personalities. With the disbanding of Ocean State Action, the main meeting table and organizing presence for progressive groups has been removed. For another, what gets defined as truly “progressive” is open to debate. And finally, while the gubernatorial race will gain the most attention, the real power lies in the General Assembly, where progressives will have to focus on electing more friendly candidates as well as protecting those they already have.

2014 will be a serious test for progressives in Rhode Island. Can they elect a governor who represents their values? Can they take a controlling majority in the Assembly? And should they manage that, will they be able to produce results and right Rhode Island after years of neoliberal failure?

November 1, 2013

Bicameralism: Why in RI?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The past few weeks have brought me to a couple of intriguing talks, which I’m just getting my head around now. First was one by the authors of Dollarocracy. The second was Common Cause RI’s Annual Meeting, which featured a keynote speech by Prof. Sanford Levinson about rethinking the U.S. Constitution. It had seemed timely during the shutdown, though during his speech the U.S. Congress began the process of voting to reopen the government. The heart of Levinson’s argument (as I remember it) was that if the most we interact with the U.S. Constitution is through interpretations of the Bill of Rights and a handful of the amendments, then we’re not really interacting with the document. After all, if the meaning of a comma and the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment is The Great Constitutional Debate of the day, then we’re really debating a really tiny fraction of the document. We’re leaving so many of the provisions of the Constitution alone. “Like bicameralism!” Levinson exclaimed, more than once in his speech. He was really negative about bicameralism in state constitutions. Maybe it was just the repetition, but that stuck with me.

I’ve discussed the idea of a unicameral legislature before, and GoLocalProv’s Dan Lawlor has also suggested it’s not a terrible idea. And should a Rhode Islanders approve a state Constitutional Convention in 2014, I think it’s something we should really discuss. Let’s talk about how weird our bicameralism is.

Ostensibly, state bicameralism is based on the national bicameralism. A state Senate is supposed to mirror the U.S. Senate; its members represent a lower rung of government (states in the U.S. Senate, municipalities – originally – in the R.I. Senate) rather than a number of people. In Rhode Island, for a long time, that was how things were: there were an equal number of senators to towns and cities. In practice, this kept the Republican Party in power far longer than they should have been, and it wasn’t until the Bloodless Revolution in the 1930s that that changed. Similarly, a state House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people, and thus are tied to districts rather than government areas. Because it represents the People, the House is usually where a budget originates from.

In Rhode Island, this difference doesn’t exist any more. Rhode Island really just has two Houses of Representatives; the big one which produces the budget and the small one approves appointments. Other legislation It’s not a great system because it’s mostly redundant, but it’s not a totally broken system, because it’s more or less worked for a long time.

What if we applied the principles of bicameralism to other branches of government though? Like, what if instead of a single Governor we had two Co-Governors, each elected to four-year terms but elected in syncopated cycles. And what if, like the legislature, it took the signature of both Co-Governors to pass legislation? If both were from the same party, perhaps there would be negotiation and they’d pretty much agree. But if different parties each held a Co-Governorship… expect nothing to get done.

Or what if there were two state Supreme Courts? If you had to argue your case before one court, and then argue it again before the other court; and neither court needed to take into account the ruling of the the other. And only if both courts reach the same verdict could anything be done.

That seems ridiculous, but that’s exactly what happens with dozens of bills each year in the legislature. Advocates and legislators make their case before one chamber and then have to make the case again before the other chamber. If one key legislator, say a committee chair, has a problem with the bill… that bill dies. On the face of it, having to make the same argument twice is not necessarily a negative, yet it does make the General Assembly slower at dealing with things than it could be; requiring that each piece of legislation has a doppelganger also has the consequence that should one chamber request changes to a bill, then those changes have to be approved by the other chamber, the original bill withdrawn and a Sub A be submitted.

It also means that the two chambers can hold up legislation they don’t see eye-to-eye on as negotiating tools over one another. Within a single branch of our government, we can have a conflict that goes beyond the simple partisan or ideological divides. One that’s more about where power resides. This is not a productive conflict to have within government.

Reducing the legislature to one chamber would create a General Assembly that did not need to re-argue each piece of legislation it wished to pass. It would eliminate a nonsensical duplication of the legislative process. It would strike out a whole section of political conflict.

In today’s political reality though, this is impossible to do. First, Senate Democrats disproportionately benefit from incumbency as compared to their Republican peers. Second, the change is so radical that finding a way that doesn’t anger every senator is impossible. The most feasible strategy seems to be putting all politicians into one chamber with the next redistricting, so that 113 districts are drawn instead of 75. But too many politicians aspire to the leadership positions, and it would be impossible for politicians to be satisfied that their smaller districts were “safe” enough that they’d stand a good chance of regain their seats. It certainly would be impossible without other changes to how we do districting and elect our legislators.

Which is why a Constitutional Convention is the sole place it could happen. But even with that such an amendment would face two major hurdles to winning an affirmative vote from Rhode Islanders. First, it would be campaigned against vehemently. Second, it would require overcoming the “tradition” of bicameralism. Too many of our political institutions have become sacred totems. Bicameralism is one of those. As Lawlor points out, it only was defeated in Nebraska thanks to Great Depression politics, the idea that bicameralism led to corruption, and high voter turnout thanks to a vote on legalizing horse racing. A similar confluence of events seems unlikely to happen in the next few years.

October 28, 2013October 28, 2013

Block eliminates own relevance, Moderate Party in one fell swoop

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Break out the dirges, Ken Block put the nails in his own political coffin with the announcement he would become a Republican and run in that party’s primary for governor.

Block has been saying for months that he would only seek the office of governor if he saw a clear path to victory. That path for victory did not lie in the political party he’d spent the last half-decade building and advocating for. This does two things. First, for everyone who ever accused Block of being a Republican in sheep’s clothing, it confirms that their suspicions were reality. Second, it makes it appear that Block is less dedicated to his causes and more dedicated to himself. Switching affiliations from Moderate to Republican doesn’t further the causes Block has championed. It only furthers his own career.

Republicans should no doubt be both happy and annoyed about this latest shapeshifter in Rhode Island’s political landscape. They should be happy because it removes Block as their personal gadfly; GOP partisans have long suggested Block’s candidacy is what prevented a Gov. John Robitaille from being inaugurated in 2011. Now, come September 2014, Block will either be their standard-bearer or defeated. The smart money is on the latter.

But therein lies the problem. Until now, it seemed as though Cranston Mayor Allan Fung was going to have a easy waltz to the nomination, leaving him free to beat up on the Democratic candidates. Now he has a contested nomination. Resources that otherwise could’ve gone toward tamping down the Democratic nominee’s inherent advantage are now going to have to go to fending off Block’s challenge.

For the Moderate Party, this appears to be its death knell. It never existed much outside the persona of Ken Block. This is exactly what I wrote about in March of last year; that the Moderate Party has an issue of a lack of identity. Block has been very successful at garnering media attention. But that attention has never translated into much support for the Moderate Party. It’s not even clear if there are other Moderates beyond Block. It seems likely the Moderate Party will end its existence as a second most successful third party in modern Rhode Island politics; right behind the Cool Moose Party.

Whether Block will become the new Robert Healey is anyone’s guess.

October 24, 2013

Interview: Gayle Goldin on election year lawmaking (Part 3)

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Freshman Sen. Gayle Goldin (Democrat, District 3 – Providence) won national praise for Rhode Island this session when she helped shepherd through legislation that expanded the state’s Temporary Disability Insurance to cover workers who need to take time to care for a new addition to the family or a seriously ill relative. Recently, she was kind enough to sit down with RI Future for a wide-ranging interview. The following transcript has been lightly edited for written media.

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.

RI Future: Given that that would actually be a pretty controversial move in 2014, I’ve heard observers cynically remark that nothing big happens in an election year in the General Assembly, what’s your opinion on that kind of sentiment?

Gayle Goldin: I think big pieces of legislation pass when there’s the will to get them done. The value of an election year is that it’s an opportunity for constituents to be even more engaged with their elected officials and share with them their ideas about what is really important to them.

RIF: Given that 2014 will be an election year, if it yields a governor elected as a Democrat, do you think that relationship between the governor and the General Assembly will change much?

GG: I feel like as a new member of the Senate I can’t really talk too authoritatively about that, certainly I have worked with Chafee’s staff on my legislation this year, I have worked with different parts of the administration on that legislation, and I would assume that would continue, but I don’t really know all the levels of relationship. I only know my personal experience.

RIF: 2014 is also likely to see a vote on whether we have a constitutional convention, what are your thoughts on that?

GG: Our last constitutional convention was 1986, which is before I moved here. I have spoken to a lot of advocates about their opposition to having a constitutional convention. One of the things I really understand from those conversations is the level of risk to important issues that can come up through the process. I went back and looked at the ballot questions from 1986 and you can see how important issues, like reproductive rights, can be at risk during a constitutional convention. I think we can really see how many issues that are important to the progressive community come up to play and can be manipulated inappropriately through this process, given the amount of money that could now come into the state to sway the outcome of the convention.

October 24, 2013October 24, 2013

Maybe later, People’s Pledge

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Yes, I was smiling when I read the news that Angel Taveras had called for a People’s Pledge in the RI Democratic Primary for Governor. Common Cause RI pointed to the study by Common Cause MA that the 2012 People’s Pledge for the race between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown reduced the amount of influence of outside groups in the election.

Then, I read Gina Raimondo’s response: we’ve already been attacked by special interests, donate the full amount AFSCME paid for the Seidle Report. I may have boiled it down a bit.

My initial thought was “savvy move, Raimondo, savvy move.” Except when I pause to think about it, it’s not really. Taveras has already been attacked as well; notably in totally unfocused ones by the American LeadHERship PAC that couldn’t decided whether the mayor was a political insider or a political novice. Taveras could’ve opened his push for a People’s Pledge by suggesting that would be a place to start for Raimondo, but he didn’t. Which is rather congenial, considering those were nutty political attacks.

It appears that the harrowing few weeks of negative press from progressive left media like Salon and Rolling Stone and the center-leftish The New York Times on pension reform (something which Raimondo could’ve foreseen when she started accepting awards from right-wing think tanks) have raised hackles in the Treasurer’s camp (after decades of ignoring them, suddenly every Rhode Islander is an expert on investing pensions).

Asking Taveras to donate money for something AFSCME is independently angry about makes as much sense as Taveras suggesting Raimondo donate the People’s Pledge amount of the attacks on him over the Davey Lopes pool. When you make decisions that are part of your office, criticism of you by the people effected is expected (and justified). Just because you’re about the engage in political campaigning doesn’t mean you get to wave a wand and say “politically-motivated, don’t have to listen.” You take it, even if it sucks.

Political observers are free to read the tea leaves as they will. I’m sure pro-Raimondo partisans will read this as a political ploy on the Mayor’s part, attempting to handicap the Raimondo campaign (who seems most likely to benefit from outside spending). Pro-Taveras partisans will read this as unease on the part of the Treasurer, who even with a nearly 3:1 money advantage may be unsure if she can win a Democratic primary likely to tilt to the left without outside help.

I’m sure people think I’m marked in the Taveras camp because I write for RI Future and other reasons. But I want to be clear. I don’t see much, policy-wise, that differentiates the two candidates. I think Gov. Raimondo will make policy choices that a Gov. Taveras would also make, and vice versa. I wasn’t just calling for a People’s Pledge in this post last month, I was calling for a substantive (and civil) debate on issues. For one thing, I’d like for the RI Democratic Party to have a primary that wasn’t just a referendum on whether the 2011 pension reform is popular among Democratic-affiliated voters and Democratic primary-voting unaffiliateds.

What it appears to me is that there seems to be a personal animus between the candidates and their camps, which is more likely to scuttle anything than other issues. Which is why I fully expect this primary to devolve, though I sincerely wish it wouldn’t. Rhode Islanders deserve a good campaign focused on things more than bloody socks and telling the President to shove it.

Perhaps whoever triumphs in the Democratic primary will find candidates more receptive in the general election to a People’s Pledge, if this one sinks (Common Cause RI has already called for a general election People’s Pledge). Or maybe we’ll have to rely on down-ticket races to act as pathfinders for the big races and establish a tradition of People’s Pledges. As Rhode Islanders well know, an established tradition can be a powerful tool in enforcing compliance in a practice.

P.S. There’s also a media issue here, which is that discussion of the People’s Pledge gives the media a chance to remind us about the ol’ campaign finance scoreboard and tell us what it told us earlier this month. Guess what folks, we’re not voting on whether we prefer the $2 million candidate or the $690K candidate! Cash on hand does not equal a good governor.

October 23, 2013October 24, 2013

Interview: Gayle Goldin on voter ID, economic sustainability

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Read Part 1 here of the interview here.

RI Future: When you ran for office, your letter says you have a “commitment to the economic sustainability of families.” What does “economic sustainability” look like for you?

Gayle Goldin: For me it’s that everybody earns a living wage, that we recognize that working families are critical to keeping our economy going, and so those are things that are important to me, like paid family leave, like raising the minimum wage, insuring that we have full access to healthcare. All those thing that we have that I think help families be able to meet their own family needs and live in a society where our economy can flourish because of it.

RIF: Given your background with immigration, what do you think of the state’s current immigration policy, and are you happy with this?

GG: Immigration policy is primarily federal law, so I don’t know that there’s anything really going on on the state level at this moment. Is there something in particular that you were thinking about?

RIF: Well, allowing undocumented immigrants to get in-state rates in schools, and some people believe that if you’ve arrived here without documents you shouldn’t be allowed to access any kind of services.

GG: As I tell people, my parents moved to the United States when I was 7-and-a-half; they did so legally and I was in the country legally; but certainly as a 7-and-a-half-year old, I had absolutely no control over where I was moving or whether or not that was legal. I think it is really short-sighted if we do not ensure that people who moved here as children don’t have access to things like higher education merely because of a decision their parents made that they have no control over.

RIF: So you’re coming up on your second year of office, what do you think your biggest priority is going to be?

GG: I introduced legislation to repeal Voter ID, which while I had a very successful year my first term I was not successful in moving Voter ID. So I’ll be focusing on that again, and certainly I feel the 2014 deadline both because the law will roll into full effect in the election, and the election cycle itself will hopefully put the emphasis in getting that piece of legislation addressed, in some way. So that’s a real priority for me. There’s a variety of other things I’ve been researching and exploring about different functions within the state government that I would like to improve. I serve on the Health committee, and one of the things we oversee is DCYF [the Department of Children, Youth & Families]. I have been involved in child welfare policy and adoption rights for many years, so just trying to see if there are any gaps in DCYF that can be addressed through legislation or statutory change are some of the things that I’m looking at. And there are other pieces that are still in the research point, but I absolutely do want to go back to repealing Voter ID. Also, I think the health exchange will probably be something that the General Assembly will continue to have conversations about as it gets rolled out.

RIF: If you could make one piece of legislation happen on Day 1 of 2014, what would it be?

GG: That’s a good question… I really do think it would be addressing our Voter ID law. I feel that is critically important to the way we view people’s rights on voting and our access to voting, so I’d really like to make sure that gets done… Nothing really gets done in a day in the General Assembly. [Laughs]

Read Part 1 of this interview here. Part 3 will be published tomorrow.

October 22, 2013

Exeter recall election: a coup by process

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

If you’re not up to speed on the recall election in Exeter, Progressive Charlestown‘s Will Collette has a synopsis for you. Essentially, four town councilors (all Democrats) approved resolution that would’ve allowed the General Assembly to allow the RI State Police to issue concealed carry permits for guns in Exeter; necessary because Exeter lacks a police force that can run background checks. The legislation died in committee.

Naturally, this miffed gun owners, so a bunch of out-of-towners organized a recall campaign, and voila! They met the 10% threshold required for signatures and the Democratic town councilors will all face a recall campaign.

I can’t speak to whether the recall will succeed. There’s plenty of money in guns, and little money for defending people from gun nuts, so take that as you will. From its 2012 results, Exeter is a reasonably centrist town with down-ticket races dominated by Democrats. The sort of place where money can go a long way in driving out votes in an off-year, irregular election day. While it might appear to be a parochial debate, it does raise questions about whether the RI Democratic Party will spend resources to protect the low folks on the totem poll, especially on an issue as divisive as gun control.

All that aside, what’s interesting to me is the way the recall election is designed. Should any of the town councilors be recalled, they’ll be replaced by the next highest vote-getter; in this case, that’ll be a Republican. Should all four councilors be recalled, then the new councilors plus the sole councilor not recalled (an independent) will select a fourth person (since there were only three losers in the race for town council). For those unfamiliar with the Exeter Town Council election system, all seats are at-large, meaning there’s a election where all candidates run and voters select five candidates; the top five candidates who collect the most votes enter the town council.

The group defending the town councilors, Save Exeter, is arguing that this amounts to stealing the vote of Exeter’s citizenry in the 2012 election. In one sense they’re right, it’s definitely a subversion of democracy to award seats to people who clearly lost an election. In another sense (as argued by the We the People of Exeter group pushing the recall), this is a perfectly legal exercise, which works through the democratic process. The problem doesn’t lie so much with the people behind the recall election, but rather with the law that established such a process.

When the recall law was written it could be that someone had the perfectly reasonable idea of having the runners-up take the place of the recalled councilor (Exeterites will have to correct me on this point). Perhaps they thought it would save the town money. But we should draw a line between what’s reasonable and cost-effective and what is fair and intelligent. And that’s the sad reality here; that following a recall vote, there should be an election to fill the seats. It wouldn’t be free or cheap, but it might actually be more democratic.

October 22, 2013October 22, 2013

Interview: Gayle Goldin on the General Assembly

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

RI Future: So Rhode Island’s seen a lot of female leaders stepped up and come to the fore in public life, but recently RI Public Radio’s Ian Donnis pointed out that less than a third of GA membership in the Democratic Party is women and less than a fifth in the Republican Party are women. Given that the most recent census estimate for Rhode Island is that over half our population are women, how do we rectify that imbalance and what policies can the General Assembly take?

Sen. Gayle Goldin: We rank 18th in the country in terms of the number of women in our General Assembly. Colorado is number one, and 42% of its General Assembly is female, so we have a ways to go to reach that first slot that Colorado has. I think that it’s not necessarily a role of the General Assembly itself, although I think having a woman as Senate President, and she is one of only a handful of women in the country serving that role, makes a difference. There many organizations that work on trying to increase the number of women in office. In my day job, I work at Women’s Fund of Rhode Island, and one of my tasks is overseeing the Women’s Policy Institute, which is designed to get more women engaged in public policy, generally and to really increase the voice of women in the policy arena. But there are many other organizations that work directly to recruit women into running for office and to support them in doing so. There’s been a whole host of research that identifies what various barriers are, and why women choose to run or don’t choose to run. I think certainly policy changes that are systemic changes to the way we work and live in general will increase the number of women who will also run for office.

RIF: So what would those policy changes be?

GG: Paid family leave was a big initiative of mine and a driving force behind that is because I believe having policies like that will create a more equitable society where both men and women can be engaged in the roles that they want to be engaged in. When we have universal childcare, when we invest in pre-kindergarten, when we make sure that we have eliminated the gender wage gap, women will more easily access all the roles they want to take, and that’s where we’ll hit a point where more women are holding office.

RIF: What was the most difficult part in transitioning to being a state senator from when you were a regular citizen?

GG: Well, I think that, and the literature certainly bears this out in terms of other women running for office, that fundraising is a very difficult task. I have been in the nonprofit sector almost my whole entire career and I have no problem fundraising for a nonprofit organization, but it’s a much different thing to shift and say “if you invest in me, then I’m working towards goals to change our society” and while I know people are really invested in those goals and really want to make them happen, it’s a dynamic shift go from fundraising for an organization to fundraising for your own campaign and I think that was one of the biggest challenges for me.

RIF: So was it harder to sell yourself than a cause… but you’re still selling a cause, right?

GG: [Laughs] Right. You’re still selling- yes! But there is a moment where you have to recognize that it’s okay to ask for money for yourself to help that cause and move that cause forward.

RIF: To me, it seems that the General Assembly has a set of traditions and unofficial rules that aren’t really written down that it’s just picked up over the years of operating. How do you go about learning all those? What’s the process for that?

GG: I’ve done public policy research and advocacy for many years through work and volunteering, so I’ve been up in the General Assembly in different capacities before and certainly that helps. I think that helps anybody who runs for office if you’ve already testified in hearings and seen what the system is, then you can understand it better. The staff in the Senate are absolutely incredible, and have been a wonderful resource in just understanding the plenty of written rules that you know you need to follow as well! I’ve really relied on the staff helping me figure out how to maneuver through my first year, and certainly many of the other senators have been very welcoming to the freshman class and have helped us understand how to do our jobs better.

RIF: What ways does the staff help?

GG: It can be from as simple things as in the first week of session… so sometimes the General Assembly will recognize the death of somebody or some significant event by reading a bill on the floor, and so in the first week of session, there was a condolence for somebody who had passed away and just not even realizing that it’s our job to stand up as basically seconding that as a way of showing our condolences. So just having staff behind me saying “okay, you need to stand up now” [laughs]. It’s as simple as learning those kinds of rules to really understanding what are the roles we can take within hearings, what kind of questions we- well not what kind of questions we can ask, but if my angle is to change public policy in a certain way, how can I best use my role as a state senator to do so.

Read the second part of Sam Howard’s interview with Sen. Gayle Goldin tomorrow.

October 15, 2013October 15, 2013

Why Raimondo won’t run as an independent

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

WPRI’s Ted Nesi poses this question in the most recent Saturday Morning Post:

“Running as an independent could let [Gina Raimondo] avoid a bruising nomination battle and save her growing war chest for the fall campaign, where she’ll face a less liberal electorate. The treasurer is canny, and she believes in numbers: if an independent run makes the most strategic sense, why wouldn’t she pull the trigger?”

Nesi is asking the question based off assertions from unnamed pro-Raimondo sources, who want Raimondo to skip the Democratic primary (because it’ll be expensive and could be close) and concentrate solely on winning in November. But before we get all in a titter about another four-way race in Rhode Island, it’s important to look at how Nesi hedged the question: “makes the most strategic sense.” Simply put, running independently does not make the most strategic sense. I’ll walk through the campaign issues first, and then deal with the governing problems after.

1. It doesn’t avoid a negative campaign.

That’s one assumption there; that the cost of a Democratic primary will be in vicious attacks that will leave the eventual nominee so damaged that the Republican will swoop in and pick off disgusted Democrats and unaffiliated voters. But circumventing the primary doesn’t dodge those attacks; especially if the treasurer’s race become a debate largely about Raimondo’s current pension policies. In the gubernatorial race, it just sets the starting date for those attacks at a different date, as now the GOP nominee and the Democratic nominee get to open fire without worrying about hamstringing themselves in their own primaries.

2. It potentially saves Angel Taveras money as well.

Yes, an independent doesn’t have to go through that messy primary process, they just automatically get to go to the general election (once enough signatures are valid). But Raimondo and Taveras are the only two candidates who could’ve challenged one another in a Democratic primary. If one bows out (or never declares), the remaining candidate can virtually get by on sheer name recognition and popularity without spending much money. In fact, if Raimondo goes independent and Taveras remains in the primary race, it should boost his fundraising as he becomes the presumptive frontrunner thanks to the strength of the Democratic Party.

3. Rebuilding the value of the Democratic Party is going to be costly.

While there’s more then enough bellyaching from all sides that Rhode Islanders will vote for anyone labelled on Democrat on the ballot, that ignores that beyond the base effects, this ignores that the Party is the most powerful campaigning apparatus ever in history. And that might not even be exaggeration. Ever since Howard Dean became chair and following two Obama campaigns, the technological and informational advantage the Party conveys onto its candidates shouldn’t be underestimated. An independent candidate can mitigate this somewhat by appealing to unions who have decades of experience in organizing, but that way is mostly blocked for Raimondo. This is why in response to fundraising it’s best to keep in mind Voltaire’s dictum, “God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best.” Money can buy you a lot of the best shots. But it’s cheaper if they don’t need to be bought.

4. It isolates you from a base.

Observers might be tempted to compare Raimondo running as an independent to Lincoln Chafee running as an independent. It’s a bit apples and oranges. If Raimondo runs as an independent, it’ll be seen solely as a political move with the goal of advancing Gina Raimondo (and that holds true for any candidate who jumps parties too close to the campaign). Chafee made himself an independent long before he ran for governor, on a matter of principle, and campaigned for President Obama in the interim. When Chafee lost in 2006, it seems easy to proclaim in retrospect that his political career was effectively dead. And he would not be governor today were it not for Frank Caprio shooting himself in the foot. If Raimondo leaves the Democratic Party, she proves the pronouncements from various left-wingers that she’s a “Democrat-in-name-only” and also removes the partisan support she could’ve relied on. I know a recent post of mine attracted comments from self-proclaimed “lifelong Democrats” that they’d vote for Allan Fung should Raimondo win the Democratic primary, but that’s just foolish. At least Raimondo couches her language in traditional Democratic priorities. Fung isn’t going to give any quarter. If Raimondo tosses aside her party, she has to rely on unaffiliated voters who aren’t hard partisans and disaffected partisan voters who don’t believe that their nominees better represent their interests. And frankly, there simply aren’t enough of those without extraordinary circumstances like in 2010.

I’ll stop there on the horse-race bit, because I want to talk about what’s more important: how does an independent governor govern? The answer: not well. We can see this in Chafee’s major push for a constitutional convention when he announced he would not seek re-election. Chafee knows all too well the limits of gubernatorial power, especially as an independent. It’s mostly limited to a few things: proposing a budget, vetoing, and use of the bully pulpit. There are other powers; but it would take a creative executive to utilize them. Chafee recently made the argument on Newsmakers that without the line-item veto it’s difficult to fight the General Assembly on spending. Given the way the budget just nearly passed (and saw a leadership amendment defeated), a more combative governor might’ve been able to open fissures within the General Assembly by vetoing the whole budget.

But that kind of dynamic is more typical of the Republican governor versus the Democratic General Assembly, where the two branches act as foils for one another. It’s also been more than two decades since we had an elected Democratic governor, who supposedly functioned as a leader of the Party (I’m too young to remember, so I’ll rely on confirmation from my betters on that point). Would Raimondo forgo that kind of responsibility? Or the advantage it confers; when the priorities of the Governor and the priorities of the General Assembly are supposed to be aligned thanks to single-party control? Because that’s what’s being given up in an independent run, the ability to lobby from within the leading political party.

Raimondo as head of government might be a more striking a figure than Chafee’s been, but there’s something about independent officials that make them less standard-bearers and more referees. No one likes referees, and there’s a lot of kicking while their backs are turned. Chafee’s primary opposition hasn’t come from the Democrats or Republicans, it’s come from talk-radio. And I think that’s largely because an independent governor lacks a requirement to be dealt with. If an independent governor needs something passed, they need to build an ad hoc coalition for the issue. And there’s no electoral benefit for a legislator to join, since if they cross leadership, the independent governor can’t back them up in a primary fight. A Democratic governor can promise to go to bat for their supporters, much as Raimondo promised when pension reform was passed. Raimondo understands the power in that.

So to me, it seems obvious; running as an independent needlessly handicaps both Raimondo in the campaign and in her future political career as well. For whatever reason, there seems to be a desire for some big name to run as an independent, Caprio was previously bandied about. But I just don’t see it happening.

October 9, 2013October 10, 2013

Let the Taveras, Raimondo horse race begin!

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Taubman Center’s recent poll is probably the ultimate kick-off of horse race coverage of the 2014 campaign for governor. In a somewhat regular occurrence for Director Marion Orr, the poll’s methodology was called out almost immediately. WPRI’s Ted Nesi has an interview with Orr explaining the methodology; here on RI Future our editor Bob Plain has a quick list comparing the actual results of elections versus Taubman’s predictions.

Polling is great for horse race coverage, and shoddy polling is politically dangerous. A year out, with the primary candidates for governor as yet undeclared, we don’t care much for talking about the issues the next governor will face; even though recent history suggests the decisions made in this next year will likely have great impacts on the next administration. Thus the polling provides a simple narrative for who has the “advantage” going into the actual race.

That narrative is something to be cautious about, especially in Rhode Island. What the media is saying is not necessarily what is happening. Sometimes, unfortunately, media outlets can fall too much in love with the narrative they’ve created. 2012 should remain a sobering moment; the narrative (based largely on polling) was that Rep. David Cicilline was in for one of the closest races of his political career. On the eve of the election, WPRI showed Cicilline with a 1-point lead over challenger Brendan Doherty. A month before, both the Taubman Center and WPRI had Cicilline with a 5- or 6-point lead. Cicilline went on to win by an unexpected 12.2% margin.

The Taubman Center’s polling also shows where the narrative is going. Included is a question comparing a 4-way race between Gina Raimondo, Angel Taveras, Allan Fung, and Ken Block. The operating theory is that Raimondo will choose to skip the Democratic primary, run as an independent and Chafee her way to victory. But here’s the thing; she’s already told NBC 10’s Jim Taricani that she won’t run for governor as an independent. Why does this narrative persist? Because people want it to.

In the meantime, there are strong questions to be asked. For instance, how does the next governor fix the state’s economy? Can they, considering the office’s major policy-making ability is as a leader in budget creation and through the bully pulpit? For the Democrats, we have to ask ourselves what the General Assembly does if the governor is no longer a useful foil to play off of? How do the candidates view the office they’re running for? There are social issues that are going to come up during the next term; will gubernatorial candidates protect the recent advances, or will they roll back progress? What are their educational policies?

David Preston has a great review of the usefulness of polling, and how to watching a political campaign without using numbers that are either unreliable or meant to manipulate.

September 24, 2013September 24, 2013

Bloody primary or People’s Pledge?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Maybe we’ll be served well by a bruising Democratic primary. Maybe all the money of the potential principals and their allies will be lined up and thrown against each opponent with the intent to grievously wound. You know, we may well be served by the millions spent in pursuit of a bully pulpit with a veto pen.

Perhaps, as our brawlers approach the fight, Rhode Islands will find assistance in the camps who hurl barbs and provocations; each one doing their be impression of Muhammad Ali. And when they finally go up against one another in the ring; and the victor emerges; bloody, battered, and bereaved; perhaps no Republican will rub their hands in glee.

Maybe voters will forget, between mid-September and early November, the worst of the primary campaign. Perhaps, in that brief October and a half, those of us with nothing more than a vote and an opinion will ignore the accusations, insinuations, and outright lies. Because regardless of who wins, at their hearts and on the ballot they’re still the same shade of blue; and whether it’s one or the other, their money is just as green.

And perhaps it will not come to pass, that talking heads, radio braggarts, and vain bloggers such as I will not cry out “Civil War!” as we are prone to do. Perhaps in will not happen that in 2018, the pundits will not say, “Rhode Island has not elected a Democratic governor in 24 years,” and they will not nod their heads so sagely.

Or… Or maybe reason and sense will come to our would-be leaders. And instead of behaving like two Cold War commanders; locked in Mutually Assured Destruction, each attempting to win with a devastating first strike; they’ll have a moment of sanity, as they so often have appealed to us to find within ourselves.

Then they might set aside whatever distaste for one another they might have, and meet, and take a People’s Pledge. And they could tell us that unaccountable money has no place in the Rhode Island of today, and should that vile spending find its way into our small state the benefactor will donate a sum to charity. And so those who would assist one candidate by tearing the opponent down will find that their sword cuts both ways.

Perhaps our two popular leaders, will set aside the instruments of pain and division which we know have been gathered. And instead of a campaign waged with slings, barbs, and arrows, maybe we’ll be served with one of ideas and vision. And instead of arguing about a Rhode Island which we refuse to let rest in its grave; our once and future leaders will of one yet to be born, built by the heroes we can be, and fit those Rhode Islanders yet to come.

For the past is already done, and the present’s about to be. But the future’s yet unwritten, and that’s all the truth I see.

September 18, 2013September 18, 2013

The myth-making generation

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Moaning about the succeeding generation is a pretty common pastime in America, with a long and storied history. But just because something already’s been done doesn’t mean it won’t be done again. Enter “Why Generation Y Yuppies Are Unhappy“, a new entry into the “Next Generation Sucks” genre; but with stick figures! It’s obvious, says the author, that Millennials have false expectations and “think they’re special.” Pictures of unicorns and flowers abound, just to really rub in the mockery.

But while there’s plenty to pick apart and criticize (Mother Jones reporter Adam Weinstein has a critique well worth reading), I want to focus solely on the claims about the G.I. or “Greatest” Generation:

Lucy’s parents were born in the ’50s — they’re Baby Boomers. They were raised by Lucy’s grandparents, members of the G.I. Generation, or “the Greatest Generation,” who grew up during the Great Depression and fought in World War II, and were most definitely not GYPSYs.

Lucy is the author’s fictional Millennial, and GYPSYs is the delightfully offensive term the author has cooked up for Lucy and her cohorts (I have my own acronym for the writer and their peers: Whiny Authors in Need of a Kick).

The so-called “Greatest Generation” is the recipient of a lot of rose-tinted glassed stares of longing these days. Apparently people dream of the time when men were men, women were meek, black people were free to be openly oppressed, and Indians were undergoing cultural genocide. But while the obvious flaws with the 1940s are well known, the idea that the Greatest Generation struggled through the Great Depression and stepped up at our hour of need to topple fascism and then build this country into a world superpower is a cultural touchstone.

Let’s get rid of that touchstone, because it’s a complete crock. All of those required massive government intervention, directed and conceived by the two generations before them, the Missionary and the Lost Generations. Without the leaders in Congress and the White House who ushered in the New Deal, the G.I. Generation wouldn’t have had work during the Great Depression. Without the re-implementation of the draft, not only would the G.I.’s not had work, but there wouldn’t have been a labor shortage that required women to enter the labor force. And without a war fought abroad that devastated all of America’s competitors while leaving U.S. industry unscathed, the G.I. Generation wouldn’t have found it as easy to sell American products to the world (and let’s not forget that servicemen were offered cheap homes and education/training after the war).

It’s important to look at the draft aspect of this, since much of the myth of the “Greatest” Generation is tied to its service in World War II. The Selective Service System reports that during the course of the war, over 10 million men were inducted into the military. Gen. William Westmoreland placed this number at about two-thirds of the military of World War II. Of those 10 million+ inductees, . In a tour of duty, the average World War II soldier saw 40 days of combat in the whole war.

Compare this with their children (the Baby Boomers) who fought in the Vietnam War. 1.8 million were inducted. Westmoreland put the figure of drafted soldiers at one-third of the military of Vietnam. Of all of the potential draftees (not those actually inducted), 100,000 fled the country. Finally, thanks to the helicopter, the average tour of duty exposed a soldier to 240 days of combat; many soldiers did multiple tours.

Currently, the entire military is volunteer, and the average tour of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan saw 310 days of combat, often tours of duty were extended. In case you’re unclear about what a “day of combat” is, it’s a day on during which the continuation of life is uncertain.

But Millennials suffer from false expectations and think they’re special. This isn’t about soldiers, this is about our poor deluded, entitled children.

I bring up the military comparison to show just how different the way each generation is perceived. The G.I. Generation saw the least amount of combat, was strong-armed by the government to serve, and today are hailed as heroes. The Baby Boomers stepped up, were exposed quite often to completely new type of war, and today are remembered as an army of unwilling draftees. The Millennials and Generation Xers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan are praised for their service or touted by wannabe patriots, but are largely ignored otherwise.

The reality is that the Millennials have suffered through the most debt-leveraged time in American history, and one of its greatest economic crises. It is the most unequal time on record. Where American leaders of the past dealt with such crises with large encompassing platforms, with radical changes to the shape and fabric of American society, the simple fact of the matter is that the generations currently in power refuse to do what the grandparents and great-grandparents did before them.

When I see these articles that lambast my generation, I recognize them for what they are: expressions of guilt. It’s no secret that the Millennials and our successors are inheriting a country that is adrift. The economy is unrecognizable from the one Boomers and the predecessors grew up with. They’re hesitant and unwilling to act, thanks to a venomous orthodoxy that tells them government is bad, business is good. The very future of the world is uncertain.

It’s clear to me that Millennials cannot rely on their predecessors for assistance. We’re going to have to solve this world’s problem on our own; unlike the preceding generations, we can expect only diminishing assistance. And hopefully, when the next crisis hits, there will be enough of us in power that we won’t make the mistakes our predecessors did.

September 7, 2013September 8, 2013

No need to overreact to SNAP fraud indictments

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

RI Future’s editor Bob Plain called out WPRI, specifically for the lede in the story by Tim White and Dan McGowan covering yesterday’s announcement of indictments of nine people for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) fraud. At the conference announcing the indictments, U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha said “I think [SNAP fraud] is a significant problem in Rhode Island.”

The argument here hinges on what we consider “significant.” If you look at the issuance of SNAP funds to Rhode Island in the last two years (which is when this fraud occurred) Rhode Island was given about $275 million in 2011, and $290 million in 2012 (we don’t 2013’s data yet). Assuming the 5 stores that defrauded $3 million were stealing at a consistent rate, that’s only about half a percentage of SNAP issuance lost to fraud. The vast majority of the program is operated honestly; virtually all of it. And that’s a significant thing to think about, considering that it works based on the honesty of recipients and retailers alike.

Now it’s an unfortunate reality that virtually all budgets operate with some level of waste and fraud. Whether it’s printing off copies of your March Madness bracket at work or it’s defrauding the Department of Defense, fraud happens.

It’s worth comparing the Department of Defense fraud to the SNAP fraud, merely because our responses are vastly different. For instance, a 2011 report prepared by the Department of Defense for Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), discovered that the DoD had issued over $1.1 trillion during the preceding 10 years to companies that had defrauded the government; including continuing to issue millions to companies that had been convicted or found liable of fraud. Some of these are the biggest names in defense contracting; Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. Those companies will continue to be the recipients of government largesse, regardless of their track records, because they form a vital part of our defense network. The DoD spent $1.811 trillion on procurement and research, development, testing, and evaluation over the same period; but that’s merely the best number I can find. Suffice it to say, a history of fraud does not disqualify one from receiving DoD money.

In contrast, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) comes down much harder on those vendors who commit fraud. These nine people aren’t going to get to continue defrauding the government. Their businesses aren’t either. Thanks to the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card, it’s much easier to track, as well. The bottom line is that while $3 million is a grabbing headline, yesterday’s indictment is proof of a system doing what it’s designed to do. For more evidence, in 2011, the FNS conducted 519 investigations in Rhode Island. Of those 519, only 134 were “positive” (demonstrating problems with fraud). Out of the 134 positive investigations, 125 were conducted before anyone received SNAP benefits.

Now, for fraud freaks and welfare witch hunters, this isn’t enough. Even if this had been $3000 or $300, they’d insinuate the majority of SNAP recipients deserve to be treated poorly, and then demand reducing benefits and placing stringent regulations on what is already a strongly protected program (and in my opinion, the government’s best program).

While I think Neronha is wrong when he suggests it’s a “significant problem” he is right about how we should approach this, saying, “You have to be careful here not to paint with too broad a brush because there are many people who use this program responsibly.” Again, virtually all are. The fact that in such an important program you pick a few people of low character is neither surprising, nor cause for alarm. They’re getting what they deserve now. This fraud can’t exist without retailers being complicit in it. As Neronha says, “The reason we focus on the retailers is they’re in a position to stop this conduct in its tracks. If a recipient comes and says ‘I want cash’ they don’t have to do it. They say no and recipient doesn’t get the cash and the stamps are used properly.”

This is a federal program, and the federal government is dealing with it. The wrong response would be to repeat what happened after the release of the Block Report. Attempting to put wrong-headed (and illegal) regulations on SNAP benefits and EBT cards; as well as wasting state dollars to chase after federal fraud. Those continue to be wrong ways to deal with this, but ways that are favored by politicians.

It’s easy to see why politicians gravitate towards “ending” waste and fraud as a political promise. Because it’s fraud, you can always assert there’s more of it. And waste is just money that wasn’t needed. It involves no extra raising of revenue nor cutting of programs. You’re only preventing money from going to bad people or being misspent. Who’s against that? Absolutely no one. It’s a completely popular policy, because it doesn’t require hard choices. It’s a great policy for the politically lazy. And if you want to look serious, you can always just cut the amount of money you expect to be saving from fraud and waste, and let the various effected government departments make the tough choices; consequences be damned.

The sober reality is that our problems continue to require serious action and serious thought. What’s really significant about SNAP in Rhode Island is its growth since 2008; up from about $108 million in 2008 (the worst of the recession) to nearly $290 million in 2012. SNAP is a great indicator of economic issues, and what it’s shown us over the last five years is that the need has continually gotten worse. If we were transitioning out of recession, we’d expect to see that number drop, as income replaced SNAP as a source of food money. Policies designed to limit SNAP spending in Rhode Island are damaging economically; all that SNAP money gets spent. And considering that Rhode Island’s gross state product was around $50 billion in 2010, the SNAP money issued to us is a not insignificant part of our economy under the current conditions.

The reaction to this indictment should not be a trading of recriminations nor a vilifying of SNAP recipients. WPRI focuses on things like this because that’s what they’ve hired Tim White to do, to cover government waste and abuse. That’s his beat, as he’ll be the first to point out. But just because this is a case of fraud, doesn’t mean we have to focus on solutions to it in such a narrow frame. We’re free to consider the underlying issues, and how to address those issues. And because the state continues to have a hard time addressing those issues, we’re going to continue to need SNAP. And that will mean allowing the Feds to deal with the issues as they crop up, and complying with what they need from us. Until the state demonstrates that it’s capable of addressing the problems that SNAP works to fix.

September 5, 2013September 5, 2013

What is the progressive security policy?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Michael Hastings once declared “I didn’t know there was a progressive security policy.” He then proceeded to suggest that if you wished to be part of the debate about security in America, you needed to be either a neocon or a liberal hawk. Today, as the United States looks increasingly likely to intervene in Syria, it’s worth pausing to reflect about where the progressive community stands.

The last ten years have done a number on progressive policies towards war. Afghanistan and Iraq were sold to the American public as wars about denying terrorism bases of support; in the latter case, it included outright lies about the presence of “weapons of mass destruction.” But as the disasters in South Asia and the Middle East lengthened, the impetus for remaining drifted. What had started as limited punitive expeditions became nation-building humanitarian projects. We were unable to leave for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, who would suffer viciously if Islamist radicals came to power.

Under President Barack Obama (who opposed the invasion of Iraq as an Illinois state representative), the rationale of denying bases for terrorism has remained a key object of U.S. security policy (see, Yemen). But, perhaps thanks to the inheritance of its predecessor’s wars, the administration has also begun thinking in terms of the “humane intervention” that rationalized the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I should note that the strategy of invasion seems to have fallen away. Indeed, it’s hard to think of a large-scale commitment of ground forces the American military hasn’t fought to a stalemate or loss since World War II. Our success has been limited to simpler smash and grab operations. The “success” of Libya was along those lines; establish air supremacy, use U.S. special forces to bolster local forces. Get out quickly.

The problem with that “humane” intervention is that it merely continues long-standing U.S. security policy; do something that immediately benefits us and ignore the long-term consequences. Once a war “officially” ends, what comes next is usually the important part. Do the victors massacre the losers? Will a constitution be written or elections held? Will generals seize power? Those consequences can be more inhumane than the impetus for intervention in the first place.

Syria, and its place in the Asian and African upheavals of 2011, represent the ambivalent nature of America’s interventionism. On one hand, American interventionism is rightly viewed as suspicious (Hastings noted that “humane intervention” seemed to only occur when it aligned with U.S. strategic interests, which he pointed out was probably a major reason for our hesitance to intervene there). On the other hand, America is very good at removing its enemies from power; a powerful friend to have for any resistance movement.

Unlike Libya, Syria holds no immediate strategic value for America. Indeed, since a successful revolution could bring an Islamist government to power, it could harm America’s strategic interests only by threatening Israeli security; alternatively the civil war could threaten Turkish security as well, which would impact our strategic interests. The presence of Islamists (not to be confused with “Islamic” or “Muslim”) represents a problem for America. Under Bush, Islamist governments were labelled the enemy, and America suffers from anti-Muslim prejudice (which exists across the political spectrum, from Glenn Beck to Bill Maher). Since 2011, democratization in the Middle East has seen the success of Islamist political parties, who aren’t as aligned with Washington as their former secular dictators.

If America was simply in favor of promoting democracy, we would accept this as the nature of politics and move on. But since America prefers democratic results that favor its interests, our responses to democracy aren’t always laudable. Whether it’s socialism and heterodox economics in Latin America or Islamism in the Middle East, neoconservative doctrines have led to the denouncing of democratic nations across the world. It’s easy for neocons, with their Trotskyist black and white view of the world, to equate America’s interests with the right thing to do. But for anyone favoring a bit more nuance, who wants to support the right thing, it’s a bit harder.

Syria doesn’t provide an easy answer, for anyone. And it will be impossible to think of a progressive security policy that can really encompass the situation here. Do we place boots on the ground, occupy the nation, and establish a democracy (the World War 2 model)? We don’t have the stomach for the manpower commitments required nor the financial commitments required. Nor is it even the right thing to do. Use our weaponry to attack the regime as a punishment for using chemical weapons? At best, it eliminates critical military infrastructure in terms of people and actual infrastructure, but it doesn’t guarantee a cessation of chemical warfare. Cripple Syria’s military, as in Libya? A successful revolution leaves us with all of the post-victory questions from before. One peaceable solution I’ve seen advanced was to assist the migration of all Syrians who wish to flee the country. But even that offers troubling questions about logistics, refugee status, and what is to remain in Syria when the diaspora has finished.

There continues to be no such thing as progressive security policy. Because progressive security policy can’t provide a right answer here. If Syria’s conflict engulfs its neighbors, do we intervene? Or do we let its neighbors deal with it? Is this a job for America, the United Nations, or the Arab League? Until progressives can formulate a philosophy that can be applied across all such situations, there will be no progressive security policy.

September 4, 2013September 4, 2013

Video game a metaphor on public sector political discourse

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It was hard for me to work up the willingness to purchase Papers, Please, 3909 LLC’s game about a border checkpoint worker. $10 to check fictional paperwork? No thanks. But a string of good reviews kept my interest, so during the Labor Day weekend I coughed up the cash and set about learning how to stamp passports at the Grestin checkpoint between the fictional countries of Arstotska and Kolechia.

Papers, Please has appropriately been described as “bleak.” From the dull colors, to the pixelated artwork, to the plot and circumstances of the game (the war between Kolechia and your communist home country of Arstotska); Papers, Please is game that explores the darkness of the mundane. And yet, despite the interface which looks to repulse, it’s extraordinarily engrossing.

Dropped in without a tutorial or much instruction, it was up to me to figure out how to survive. The more people you process in the day, the greater your pay. But the faster you go, the more likely you are to make mistakes. And after a while, mistakes cost a lot. By about Day 3, I no longer had enough money to pay more than my rent; my poor performance at the checkpoint meant I had to forgo things like food and heat. Which meant my family fell sick. By the time I was able to earn enough money to pay for medication, my son had died from the combination of exposure, hunger, and illness. For the rest of the game, I was left with just my wife, mother-in-law, and uncle; until my sister died and I took in her niece.

Now, here’s what gets to me: for the rest of the game, I played as though my son’s death had had a serious impact on me, and changed the way I looked on my job; even though he was never more than a dot with the word “son” printed on it. I was more willing to bend rules. And I’d started to hit my stride as a passport inspector; able to adapt to the increasingly byzantine regulations my superiors were placing on immigration. I was also kind of a hard-ass, turning away journalists, detaining people (which thanks to a corrupt guard, earned me extra cash each time I did it, though I never detained anyone without a legitimate reason), refusing to let wives join their husbands due to expiration dates or printing errors.

The game ended for me when I assassinated a government agent sent to hunt down members of the resistance. This is one of 20 endings. At that point the government finally figured me out; though not before I’d assassinated another of their agents (with an incidental death of an innocent guard), and funneled multiple resistance agents into the country without proper documentation.

This is where it’s worth reflecting for me. Why did I, on my first play-through, make the choice to attempt to overthrow the government I was employed by? They once seized all my assets, true, but those were illegally gained by working for the resistance, and the government only got wise when I conspicuously spent them purchasing a new apartment (that money also allowed me to save my sick family). Perhaps it was the money the resistance compensated me with. Yet bribery never worked on me from anyone whose passport I checked. Or perhaps it was because Arstotska is presented as a totalitarian communist regime, and perhaps that’s why I wanted it overthrown, the natural default of Americans. Yet I never saw much of the oppression; I had almost zero information about what the regime was doing. Perhaps because I’m a romantic and a Rhode Islander, and rebels tend to have my sympathy. But the sad parade of people, who gave me more information about themselves than the resistance did, could hardly earn my hesitance before I stamped their passport.

Regardless of my reasoning, Papers, Please forced me to consider the following question in regard to bureaucrats: when do they get to decide to make the choice between what is legal and what is right? I did what I thought appropriate; help the resistance, but attempt to maintain a near-impeccable record elsewhere.

Small government advocates might think this game is a perfect way of demonstrating the overreach of government; but it’s not. It’s a great way of discussing bureaucracy; which isn’t intrinsic to government; but rather any large system. This game would work just as well were the setting a bank.

A moment that stands out to me was when a woman set a bomb on my desk and stood ready to die. It failed to go off, the guards detained her, and I eventually disarmed it, whereupon the corrupt guard sold it for scrap and gave a portion of the profit to me. I, personally, wasn’t the target. Arstotska was. But as a member of the bureaucracy, an employee of the government, I was a fine stand-in for Arstotska, even though I was sole breadwinner for four other people, and was just doing my job (to my estimation, none of the regulations ever seemed unreasonable, except for automatically strip-searching Kolechians, but that was stopped thanks to international pressure).

I was talking with a couple of former public employees recently, one of whom had recently left public service, and their outlook was that it was a relief to be out of government work. “It feels great to not be treated like I’m the scum on the bottom of someone’s boot,” said one, referring to the way we view our government workers in Rhode Island. It’s hard for us to separate the employee from the employer. Papers, Please forces us to consider that the bureaucrat in front of us is a human (in all its meanings), attempting to following complex rules, take care of their needs, and get through the day.

I’ve yet to play a game more relevant to our day-to-day lives.

September 2, 2013

The trouble with political parody

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

For such a small state, Rhode Island has a plethora of parody political accounts on Twitter. There’s Fake Anthony Gemma, Fake Brendan Doherty, Fake Gina Raimondo, Fake Ted Nesi, Fake RI GOP, Fake Angel Taveras, Fake Lincoln Chafee, and Rep. Scott Guthrie’s mustache. And those are the ones I could find in two minutes. Thankfully, a great many are defunct, or inactive, especially since their respective actuals have been ushered from spotlight or the account owner grew tired of maintaining the damn thing.

Satire is one of the Internet’s most popular forms of comedy, partly thanks to the Onion, which has hit its stride in recent years. And its popular for political purposes, because its an easy way to make your opponents seem ridiculous to your supporters. It’s a simple way to appeal to an audience you know.

However, most of the parody Twitter accounts I’m seeing aren’t very good. Take the three for the three possible contenders for Democratic nominee for governor. They’re all pretty much there to insult each respective candidates. I’m pretty sure they were set up by the same person; someone who’s confused “being an asshat” for “wit.”

See, satire isn’t effective if it’s simply putting the words of an idiot and jerk in someone’s mouth and then slapping the word “fake” in front of it to shield you from a response. Great political satire works by building a persona that’s based around exaggerated aspects of a person; to the point of absurdism. Saturday Night Live has been doing this well for ages, whether it’s Chevy Chase’s bumbling Gerald Ford, Will Ferrell’s dimwitted George W. Bush, or Fred Armisen/Dwayne Johnson’s Barack Obama. Another example is the Onion’s take on Joe Biden as a Trans-Am driving ladies’ man.

Good satire doesn’t even have to use a real person. Dr. Strangelove utilizes characters like Gen. Jack Ripper and the titular doctor to lambast recognizable figures within the U.S. defense establishment. If those characters had been named Curtis LeMay and Werner von Braun, would the film have been as good? Not likely.

If you’re looking for an example of Twitter parody done right, the one that ran alongside Rahm Emanuel’s campaign for mayor was well done; it featured an over-the-top foul-mouthed Emanuel in a world populated by odd characters and an absurdist story arc that ended with him being sucked into a time vortex.

For something a bit closer to home, I personally recommend @GuthriesStache, the one based around Rep. Guthrie’s mustache. While not incredibly active, it’s a good-natured account that mainly keeps updates on where Guthrie’s (glorious) mustache is and what it’s doing, the state of other political facial hair, and revels in its own existence without attempting to insult the representative. What’s more absurd than a mustache with a Twitter account?

Political comedy can be good a release for people, allowing them to vent the anger they might otherwise feel when the government does something they don’t agree with. But that venting can be an issue as well; people nod sagely that a policy is stupid, but do nothing to resist it. For all the satire of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, they’ve helped make precious little change in America.

They remind me of a politician in pre-revolutionary Mexico, who perennially challenged Mexico’s dictator Porfirio Díaz. Nicolás Zúñiga y Miranda was an eccentric who belongs to a sort of Mexican clown tradition, after every election (which he lost handily), he proclaimed voter fraud and declared himself president. After locking him up the first time, the Díaz regime eventually realized he was harmless and ignored him. Voting for Zúñiga became a great way for Mexicans to defy the regime without risking their lives. Zúñiga’s value instead was in getting Díaz’s and his successors to fail to recognize serious political challenges until they arrived in the form of Francisco Madero and the eventual Mexican Revolution.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387