It’s an appealing version of logic. Some on the right are hoping, wishing, and possibly even praying that more Democrats dismiss their facade of moderation and fully embrace the socialist agenda. Their thinking is this: it’s easier to beat a socialist than an establishment Democrat.
Today, this is true. A full-blown “Democratic Socialist,” as they’ve been calling themselves lately, is less likely to beat a mainstream or even conservative Republican in a general election. A strong majority of Americans do not like the notion of socialism, so candidates in the left-of-Bernie-Sanders mold are simply too dangerous for moderate Democrats or independents to embrace.
This was demonstrated yesterday:
Tuesday night’s largely Midwest primaries produced a near-shutout for the anti-establishment left. Ocasio-Cortez partnered with Bernie Sanders to make a series of splashy endorsements that, in the end, failed to clinch victories. And two leftist upstarts hoping to emulate Ocasio-Cortez, and defeat longtime Democratic incumbents, fell far short.
The most glaring defeat came in Michigan’s gubernatorial primary. This is the state where Sanders defied the polls and edged out Hillary Clinton, raising hopes that he had a magic touch in the Rust Belt. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez tried to catapult the young and brash newcomer Abdul El-Sayed, who trailed in polls, endorsements and money to former state Senate Democratic leader Gretchen Whitmer. They could only nudge him up to second place, with 30 percent of the vote.
That’s today. Tomorrow may be a different story. In fact, it almost certainly will be.
The trends are clear. New voters and those on the verge of voting age hold socialism in high regard and the numbers are growing. This is the generation that has always had the internet, has never known the Cold War, and can barely remember 9/11. They are the brilliant yet delicate generation that has been bombarded with indoctrinating leftist messages, sheltered from the real world by being immersed in the virtual world for most of their lives.
They have no reason to believe socialism is bad because they have embraced the idea that Americans must be protected from themselves. They’re the generation that grew up through gender uncertainties, financial roller coaster rides, and a notion that the United States is the world’s bad guy. Their celebrity role models no longer pretend to be apolitical or unbiased. Most importantly, they’ve had peer-to-peer connections that have allowed idiotic leftist propaganda to spread like the plague through their ranks.
They are intellectually superior in their own minds yet oblivious to the vast manipulations they suffer through daily.
With this knowledge in hand, it’s imperative that conservatives and federalists do not outsmart themselves into allowing the popularity of socialism to grow. Short-term gains today will be meaningless when the Democrats start winning again. And they will whether they’re openly socialist, closet socialist, or moderates. That’s the ebb and flow of a two-party system. Nobody holds power for long regardless of how insane one side or the other may be at any given time.
Be careful what you wish for, conservatives. As crazy as it might seem today, there’s a good chance that this young generation or the next will embrace the flawed ideas of socialism enough that we may all get stuck living them. Stay true and fight socialism to the end.
The real reason Ocasio-Cortez is afraid of the press
For at least the second time, reporters were barred from covering an event featuring Socialist Democratic darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The campaign’s reason: we want attendees to feel comfortable since there’s so much national press covering her.
This is an absolutely ridiculous excuse, of course. Nobody goes to a campaign event without knowing the press will (should) be there. It doesn’t make them less comfortable and may actually give some a sense of security knowing the answers to their questions will be judged by more than the audience at hand. That’s one of the reasons for the press in the first place, to give information about an event to people who cannot attend.
Instead, the press is getting another roadblock:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic socialist star running for New York’s 14th congressional district, is facing criticism after her campaign banned journalists from covering a town hall meeting with voters this week.
The Queens Chronicle, a local news outlet, reported that the campaign for the 28-year-old progressive prevented reporters from attending a campaign event in Corona on Sunday, even though it was open to the rest of the public. The campaign reportedly barred reporters from a prior event as well.
It’s conspicuous that a local publication was barred because it runs contrary to the narrative the campaign is trying to sell. So why is she being hidden from reporters at these types of events?
It’s clear that her exposure is her best friend and worst enemy. Being talked about is a politician’s best friend on the campaign trail, but it also offers a risk of failure. This is most common in events like the town hall meetings she is holding because she’ll be forced to think on her feet.
What if she can’t think on her feet? What if her answers when placed in an unscripted situation the type of answers many would expect from an inexperienced socialist?
Until she’s ready to handle the pressure of having press cover these events, she won’t be ready to hold public office at this level. The House of Representatives isn’t for people who need to be protected from their own answers.
Bettie Cook Scott is a racist politician. And she’s a Democrat.
Racism is owned by the Republican Party. That’s the narrative the press and their handlers, the Democratic Party, wants America to believe. Someone forgot to get that memo to Michigan state representative Bettie Cook Scott.
More than a dozen community groups have called on Rep. Bettie Cook Scott (D-Detroit) to apologize for a series of racial slurs sources say she used to describe her primary election opponent, Rep. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit).
Scott is alleged to have referred to Chang as “ching-chang” and “the ching-chong” to multiple voters outside polling precincts during last Tuesday’s election. She’s also said to have called one of Chang’s campaign volunteers an “immigrant,” saying “you don’t belong here” and “I want you out of my country.”
There are two important takeaways here. First is the hypocrisy surrounding Scott, a (formerly) rising star in the Michigan Democratic Party. If the comments she made were spoken by anyone other than a Democrat, the calls wouldn’t be for an apology. The press and social groups would be calling for her to step down and jump into a hole somewhere.
The second point is that in the real world, the one not seen through the lens of liberals and the media, racism exists everywhere. It is not owned by Republicans, conservatives, old people, white people, or any other classification. One can even make a valid argument that it’s no more prominent in the Republican Party than it is in the Democratic Party that supports groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter.
Racism must be eliminated from society. That will never happen as long as so many people naively believe it only exists in the minds of certain people on the political right. It exists everywhere. Accept that and we can work to make it stop.
Elizabeth Warren introduces dangerous anti-capitalist bill
Elizabeth Warren made a big announcement this week in introducing her new bill called the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” Her bill aims to “eliminate skewed market objectives” and return America to an era in which “American corporations and American workers did well together.” It’s unclear when the utopia like conditions were according to Warren; however her website lists the 1980’s as the time period in which corporations shifted focus to maximizing shareholder returns. In any business college, it is taught that the job of a CEO is to maximize shareholder wealth. Senator Warren wants to shift this mentality with her new bill. In the statement on her website, she asserts that the “shift” has led to booming profits and less reinvestment into the companies themselves. She claims that wages have not increased despite booming corporate profits. Elizabeth Warren then moves to make the argument that the top 10% owns 84% of American stock and only 50% of households own stock. Thus, she claims, that this reinforces a cycle of the rich getting richer. This is a growing socialist sentiment that poor people, and even middle class, are incapable of affording stock. The main bullet points are outlined below. Read the text of the bill here.
Office of United State Corporations (more government!)
The bill creates a new administration within the Department of Commerce. Corporations earning more than $1 billion in revenue are required to obtain a charter from the federal government, per this new created office. The charter obligates these large corporations to consider the interests of all stakeholders. Failure to obtain this permit to exist results in loss of corporation, which in business terms mean, it would no longer be treated as a separate entity. Therefore there would be no liability protection. The Director of this office would be a Presidential appointee and requires Senate confirmation. The term last four years. Warren seeks to create a new and powerful tentacle of the Federal government.
Employee Chosen Board of Director
Employees, not shareholders, will have the ability to choose no less than 40% of a company’s board of director. This bullet point is perhaps the most ridiculous and anti-capitalist. Company boards serve to set goals for the company. The board is usually chosen by investors. In the world of private investment, the board of directors is a bargaining chip for control of the company, as opposed to just percentage of stock. Warren’s bill doesn’t outright say it, but she wants unions to control company boards. Meaning instead of the company’s interest, the board will be powerful weapon of the union. Boards start out as founding members, investors and their appointees, and neutral parties because entrepreneurs and investors craft such interesting deals. Insisting that 40% must be elected by employees renders a board relatively useless for small investment worthy companies or inflates company boards well beyond what they should be for their size (ie small company with GM size board.) This will possibly lead to more empowered officers and weakened boards so that CEOs can perform their fiduciary responsibilities without a labor union threatening their disposal. This could also make companies more risk adverse because undoing mistakes, laying off workers, and other rainy day measures are now more difficult to undo. Ultimately this would empower worse CEOs, ones who aren’t as interested in shareholder wealth. The Securities and Exchange Commission along with the National Labor Relations Board are responsible for enforcing this part of the act, as further indication that this applies to all corporations. Stiff daily fines are to be imposed for failing to comply.
Government control of stock options
Elizabeth Warren claims top executives are compensated mostly with stock options. Her bill restricts these executives ability to sell their shares for five years so that they can focus on long term company success. Basically these executive will be given stock, but will have no real ownership of that stock. This would be the government restricting private property. These types of issues are best left to corporations and shareholders who already impose vesting periods to ensure the same exact goal.
Supermajority for political expenditures (not for unions)
This is a jab at Citizens United because Elizabeth Warren and others are butthurt about the outcome of a critical first amendment case Supreme Court case. It forces company shareholders to vote in order for a corporation to make any political expenditures. It imposes a 75% supermajority threshold. Conspicuously absent from this requirement are labor unions.
Revoking of charter
The corporate charter resembles a “rule of club” for large companies. If they don’t meet the requirements of their charter or have a history of illegal activity, they will have their corporation status removed in time. The question is how political will the enforcement of these charters be? Will there be a separate set of rules for democrats and republicans? If the rest of government is any indication, the answer is clearly foreshadowed.
The socialist movement wants to fundamentally change the purpose of starting a business and running a company. This would most certainly lead to lower caliber CEOs. The bill makes no mention of labor unions yet it’s intentions are clearly to empower them in companies that still allow them and to create politics in organizations that do not. This ideas pressed fourth in this bill are sure to gain traction, just as “Medicare For All” became a socialist rallying point. It brings about questions of how business literate politicians like Senator Warren are? Do they fundamentally misunderstand what a corporation is, or do they not care? The bill aims to reduce a shareholder’s power and return on investment which will only hurt our economic growth. While Elizabeth Warren’s bill isn’t socialist, it is heavily anti-capitalist.