Connor Coyne

New York Times: Congress Remains Divided on Bailout.

New York Times: Clout Has Plunged for Automakers and Union, Too.

New York Times: How Many Jobs Depend on the Big Three?

* * * * *

New York TimeS: Saving Detroit from Itself.

Paul Krugman: Cars.

* * * * *

Daily Kos: Ideas for an Auto Plan – GM Edition w/ Poll.

The articles above pretty effectively stake out the boundaries of my position. With possibly over three million jobs at stake, it isn’t with a lot of pleasure that I watch the Big Three work the nation over now as they’ve worked Michigan for decades. What do I mean by work over? I mean that they draw assistance from the government (whether in terms of tax breaks, incentives, and now a bailot) to rectify a mess they’ve made, and in exchange for which the best they can seemingly offer is a non-worst case scenario. If that. In Flint, throughout the eighties and nineties, GM continued to drink that city’s tax pool dry in infrastructural and fiscal accomodations as if they were dying of thirst at a desert oasis. And yet they persisted in the manufacturing strategy that has put them in dire straights. The cities and states which invest in these companies, essentially at gunpoint, rarely see such speculations realized. There is a risk of this being mirrored on a national level. The Big Three’s market share will presumably continute to dwindle in the near-future, albeit hopefully at a slower rate, they’ll close plants and hemmorage jobs, and if everyting goes perfectly, it will still be a long, long time before they can offer a fleet as well-adapted to the next global environment as their competitors.

It’s just like the Wall Street Bailout all over again. These were my original reservations with that bailout package, and here is the upshot after just two months.

Let’s learn a lesson from this very recent history and not be handing out blank checks.

Let’s encourage our representatives to cautiously support a bailout for the auto industry, but let us absolutely insist that it only come with serious and meaningful restructuring that will lead to an industry that can legitimately compete. Symbolic shuttling of executives will not be sufficient (and the Wall Street bailout didn’t even achieve that obvious step); any Company that requires taxpayer money to fight for profit is fair game for prudent meddling. It’s more than auto plants that will need restructuring; it’s the Big Three’s entire corporate structure.

I wrote more on this at Daily Kos: Don’t Be Flint, Michiganized by the Big Three.

I couldn’t post yesterday; I was just too exhausted. I won’t post tomorrow either; I need at least a brief break. On election night we hosted a breakfast-at-dinnertime party while the results came in, drank orange juice and ate sausage and potatoes. A loud sound went up at Pennsylvania, then Ohio, and then, when Obama passed 270, everyone freaked out. It was like crowds at the Super Bowl or Lollapalooza, only bigger and better. The champagne flowed and we all went out into the streets, and the news was all about people running into the streets.

* * * * *

Yesterday I was nursing a hangover all day long, but by evening I felt better. I met up with some friends at Metropolis, and we all took a walk. Just to take a walk. To enjoy the unexpected late fine weather and to muse on just how big and momentous this week has been.

So this, then, is my election post-mortem.

It is good that Obama won the election so decisively. Already, this one move has served to bolster our status in the world. The breadth of Obama’s support has opened up states that have not been in play to Democrats in decades. The Great Lakes region was united behind a presidential candidate for the first time since 1972. The press has been quick to point out the significance of this election as a civil rights victory; they are right to do so. We should not forget that it is also a victory for Democrats, who have been resurgent since 2006, for the Left, which will (presumably) be better represented by Obama than by it would have been by Hillary Clinton, and most importantly, as an emphatic refutation of Bush-era policies of division and marginalization.
And yet… concessions are already being made and it would seem that there is little time to rest on our laurels.

It is also good that the Democrats picked up seats in congress; it would have been better if they had picked up a supermajority. I’ve commented to a few people in the last several days that whenever one party achieves dominance, things start to go south for them pretty quickly, and I suspect it’s because interal rigor and discipline become a liability in a rush to fast action. I believe this argument, and yet it is meant to be a qualification of, not a dissent from, victory as a unilateral Democratic majority.
In the first place, the U.S. is too sheltered from the effects we have on our neighbors and the world at large. There is a pendulum in U.S. politics, but it’s motion is strictly determined by a relative understanding of what is “liberal” and what is “conservative.” It is fine to consider these differences meaningful, but we needn’t consider them objective. While I don’t believe the U.S. is definitionally a center-right nation, it functionally is at this time. Our policy needs to move to the left in general to accomodate crises that can only be addressed through action that is both democratically and collectively determined.
In the second place, the horrific damage rendered under the Bush administration, propogated by Republicans and sometime abetted by Democrats in congress over the last 14 years, and often upheld by an inconsistent judiciary, are huge in magnitude and can must be addressed by broad and sweeping executive and legislative action. Given the abysmal performance of our congressional Democratic leaders (we’re all thinking of Reid and Pelosi), we need a sufficient “vote cusion” to make action possible. In our current crises, action is necessary, and therefore, Democrats and Independents should hope to see more Democrats in office.
In the third place: The Republican Party of the 2000s is much like the Democratic Party of the 1850s: it is broken. While it still stands upright, it only wreaks damage on itself and those it represents. Today’s Republican Party represents not a free market but a fanged market; it represents not American patriotism but American nationalism. The riven Democratic party of the 1800s recovered, and I believe that the Republicans will as well. But first they have to be broken. They have to reconstitute themselves along their original premise of individual liberties upheld at the expense of collective prerogative, of a correspondent expectation of individual sacrifice, and of a government that tries to excise unnecessary intervention. That Republican party, a party recognizeable to Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater, can contribute to our political landscape. But this Republican party, hateful, angry, alienating, divisive, invasive, unscrupulous, and increasingly regional: it is walking around broken. It is wounded and wounding, and as such, this broken party needs to be further broken. It needs to be crushed. Only then can it recover.
Now the Democrats didn’t get a supermajority, but they picked up enough support to pursue an agressive progressive agenda with executive support. I do hope they use that strength with rigor and discipline. But make no mistakes: I hope that they sustain and increase it, and above all else, use it.

Finally, it is good that some good ballot amendments passed: I’m thinking most fondly on Michigan’s Proposal 2, which allows research on embryonic stem cells, and California approved a bullet train, which is pretty cool, and which may in the long run offset the two other environmental proposals the state rejected. Sadly, the success of Proposition 8 in Califoria would seem to trump many progresses made around the country, as it revoked marriage rights in one of only two states where gays and lesbians can truly enjoy marriage equality. Beneath the hubbub over California, similar amendments passed in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. And yet… amid all this… the challenges have begun, and they are built upon firm constitutional ground.

* * * * *

It is deceptive of the graveness of our times to pretend that this election was an unmitigated vitory; in fact there is more to worry about now than ever. It is equally deceptive to underestimate the genuine power, the profound importance of what was declared last Tuesday; as Tom Brokaw said on election night, “just over 150 years ago, Mr. Obama could have been owned, as a black man.” The emphasis is mine, but the emphasis is what gives this often unspoken statement its force. I think that Clay Bennett said it even better.

To fall back on a common declaration these days, yes, we can. Yes, we did. Yes, we will.

Be delirious.

Be deliriously happy.

Take a day, a week, a month to feel this happiness, and as you do, use that energy to infect and infest your labor and your conversation.

We just lived through a big thing and it was good …

and …

… it has foreshadowed some of the hardest work our nation will ever have to do.

END OF POST.

Information on National and Local Races.

ILLINOIS – COOK COUNTY
MICHIGAN – GENESEE COUNTY
NEW YORK – KINGS COUNTY

Congress.org: My races.

This website is a great, nonpartisan tool; it contains each candidates’ statements of their own positions. Input your address and zip code and it will tell you which races are contested in the executive and legislative branches. Illinois residents can learn about their judicial candidates here.

Michigan voters should also consult the well-edited and comprehensive League of Women Voters guide.

Newspaper endorsements can be great as well. They have the benefit of knowing both the candidates and their immediate public thoroughly. Still, take a few minutes to scrutinize how they back up their assessments. Many editorial boards have at least a subtle partisan bent; it is telling this cycle that so many Republican-leaning rags have voiced support for Obama.

I personally, believe that it is very telling when a candidate won’t provide a direct statement to surveys such as these; this is as close as we can get to direct, concise policy statements. It speaks volumes for a candidate to remain silent.

Additionally, each candidate deserves scrutiny on the basis of not only the particular office and policy positions they will hold, but on the political baggage they will bring to the position. Don’t get me wrong; personality is important in any elected office. But in positions of national prominence, such as countrywide, congressional, or statewide posts, we should consider very carefully what a candidate’s affiliations are, where their campaign money comes from, and who they are likely to appoint. These are at least as important as how likeable or reliable or even responsible the candidate is.

More locally, a small number of votes are more likely to make a big difference, and the cost of campaigning is low enough that it doesn’t require candidates to take as many favors with strings attached. Often at this level personality is more important and party affiliation is less. Judicial races, city/township/town/village and county positions, school board governorships and so forth are all ideal for independent votes. They can give third parties and independent candidates a chance to assert and argue for their platforms without undermining a progressive coalition nationally, and liberation of such votes from compromise reduces the level of unnecessary baggage politicians tend to pick up early in their careers.

If you want to cast a protest vote in a national level race (I will be doing so, voting Green for Illinois’ 9th congressional district), that can be effective, but please do so in an uncompetitive race. We need to acquire a large Democratic majority in this cycle.

If you consider yourself Independent, but want to vote Republican in a national level race, I urge you to consider very carefully why you are doing so. Parties change with time, and the last twenty years has made the Republican Party into a much uglier and more unfriendly entity than it has been in decades. These are not the Republicans who will cut your taxes or help small businesses, and they are certainly not the Republicans who will keep government out of your dining room and bedroom. Policy-wise, Eisenhower has more in common with Clinton and Obama than with Bush or McCain, and Gerald Ford spent the last several years of his life appalled at the behavior of his own party’s leadership. An Independent who believes that extremes in government are destructive, and that policy-decision dictated by ideology and not a sober assessment of human nature and the world is an independent that should vote for Democrats this cycle.

Finally, it is a truism that when one party dominates government, it leads to a mess. However, the Republican party has pushed the U.S. so far to the right, and has drawn so much of the left towards center, that we need a Democratic supermajority in the senate and a large majority in the House to pass the needed changes. We will have to hold these Democrats accountable and make sure that they behave responsibly and answer to their constituencies, but there is a lack of both credibility and policy soundness in the Republican Party that cannot enjoy rational and reasoned discourse.

This doesn’t mean that we should call off discourse; conversation with friends and enemies is essential, to paraphrase one of our presidential candidates in a different context.

But we shold be honest in confronting politicians and their organizations for what they are and how they have behaved.

The Republican Party does not deserved to be called sound or responsible this decade.

It deserves to be treated for the radical, reactionary, xenophobic position it has staked out in the world.

In this election, in national races, we need to look to the Democratic Party for leadership.

U.S. House of Representative: Illinois 9th District
Incumbent Jan Schakowsky (Democrat) vs. Moe Shanfield (Green) vs. Michael Younan (Republican)

Blue Skies Falling endorses: MOE SHANFIELD (GREEN)

This is, actually, probably the hardest decision for me to make this cycle.

There is little question of the race’s outcome, but I need to outline my reasoning, because I vocally supported Schakowsky in 2004. She has really let me down. Her Republican opponent is justly withering in his condemnation of her support for the recent Wall Street Bailout, which was passed without punitive measures for seeking instituions or sufficient regulation or oversight. I am still waiting for a response to the letter I wrote her last month, although I don’t expect an answer until after the cycle is over. From the other side, Green candidate Moe Shanfield explains his choice to run thus:

In July, 2007, the 76 members of the House Democratic Progressive Caucus signed a letter to the President: They would vote against any war appropriation bill which failed to include a time table for troop withdrawal.

Then, on August 5, 2007, something changed. A total of 62 of those “progressives”, including the 9th District incumbent, cast “Aye!” votes for the Department of Defense annual appropriation bill–providing more than $100 billion to keep the war going. There was no troop-withdrawal time table.

This is absolutely a legitimate point; maybe one could make a case for selective accomodation of conservatives on key issues in swing districts, but Schakowsky has won the last three elections by over 40 points. If any Democrats have the opportunity to forcefully challenge the status quo, it is these, and if Democrats such as Schakowsky challenged the status quo more often, we might be in less of a mess now.

For a few seconds I thought about voting for Younan; he’s as progressive as any Republican candidates come these days. His discussion of diplomatic options in the Middle-East and his condemnation of the bailout were thought-provoking and refreshing. But he’s still status-quo Republican on way too many issues for comfort: he’s against Universal Health-Care and doesn’t offer much as far as education funding. And, like most Republicans, he fetishizes taxes far beyond their actual role in the sum of things. An interesting guy, but not somebody who would vote for me on many of the issues I care about.

That just leaves Moe Shanfield.

Well, there he is.

He doesn’t really go into his policy position on any other issue, although as a Green his views are probably pretty similar my own. Of course, I feel like all too often the Greens are out of touch with the voters they believe they represent, and their election strategies have been spoilers than Democrats more than I would like.

But there is a time and a place for a protest vote.

In 2006 when Debbie Stabenow enjoyed a comfortable, but not overwhelming, lead over challenger Michael Bouchard, I wrote her that I would not vote for her because of her support for the Military Commisions Act, which was not sufficiently strong against torture. I wrote in my vote for former Flint City Administrator Darnell Earley. Stabenow has since repudiated her own vote and has gone on to have a commendably progressive record. Now Stabenow is a exceptional senator, and I don’t think my one vote or letter made that difference. One hopes, however, that the right number of votes and letters, sent at the right time and to the right people, do make a difference.

That is why I will be voting for Moe Shanfield on November 4th.

The Democrats are going to take the Presidency in this election, hopefully a supermajority in the Senate, and will cut even deeper into the House Republican minority.

Once they hold these seats, however, we need them to fight for us.

In 2006 I wrote Debbie Stabenow a scathing letter denouncing her support of the Military Commissions Act and pledging to write in a candidate symbolically instead of her or her Republican opponent. Since then, she has recanted her vote on that issue (one of only a few senators), and her record has been one of the most impressive in the senate. She has all the idealism that represents this party at its best, and an obstinacy that flies in the face of the wimpy Democratic leadership; she is practical in a pure Michigan tradition of reconciling drastically different constituent needs.

I wrote six democratic senators a letter last night asking them to vote down a bill that pandered to the banking industry: they are Clinton, Durbin, Levin, Obama, Schumer, and Stabenow.

Of these, only Stabenow voted the proposal down.

Thank you, Debbie Stabenow, for voting with clarity, sense, resolve, and restraint, and for recognizing Michigan residents before the panic machine that has been driving our domestic policy this week.