In the US, the two major political parties of Democrats and Republicans are not really distinguished by their class structure. Both parties contain the full spectrum of classes from the very wealthy to the working class, the urban and the rural. The main difference is the relative weight that is given to the various constituencies that make up the parties. The primary races, where each party selects its candidates for general elections, reveal the strength of the various factions. Because of gerrymandering, demographics, and geography, most elected offices are safely Republican or Democratic so the primary elections are where the action is and where the fissures are most clearly revealed, because the need to defeat the Republican opponent is not a major factor in the calculus.
One particularly revealing race is taking place in Ohio where on August 3 there is a primary to fill the congressional seat vacated by Marcia Fudge when she became the secretary of housing and urban development. Fudge’s seat is in the area where I used to live when I was in Cleveland and is solidly Democratic. There are two front runners for the primary, both African American women. One is Nina Turner who was a prominent surrogate for Bernie Sanders and is a solid progressive. The other is Shontel Brown who is favored by the party neoliberal establishment. One key defining issue is Medicare for All. Turner is outspoken in support of it while Brown is clearly not in favor of it and is trying to hide that fact by talking vaguely about supporting ‘affordable healthcare’.
The party establishment is throwing all but the kitchen sink against Turner, hoping to prevent her from adding to the progressive caucus in Congress. It is very telling that Hillary Clinton has endorsed Brown. That is no surprise since Clinton has always opposed the more progressive elements of the Democratic agenda. Then congressperson James Clyburn also endorsed Brown. Luke Savage analyzes the dynamics at play and follows the money.
The special election in Ohio’s 11th congressional district, where Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment are struggling to defeat former Bernie Sanders surrogate Nina Turner, is the latest illustration of how Democratic elites prioritize defeating the Left over strengthening their own party.
When Hillary Clinton endorsed Shontel Brown’s candidacy in the Ohio 11th congressional district’s special election last month, there was an obvious personal dimension and a noticeable amount of pettiness involved. Nina Turner, Brown’s primary opponent (and, by all appearances, the race’s front-runner), played a significant role as cochair of Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign and was a vocal supporter during his 2016 challenge to Clinton. The narrative of a relitigation of the 2016 primaries spawned by Clinton’s intervention has predictably come to color national perceptions of the race. But this development risks obscuring the wider dynamic at play.
Last week, Brown secured another high-profile endorsement from none other than Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, a development that is striking for a number of reasons. As the New York Times noted in its reporting on the race, the congressman rarely intervenes in primary contests. In publicly justifying the move, Clyburn invoked his by-now-familiar opposition to what he called the “sloganeering” of the Democratic Party’s left wing — citing as an example, among other things, the issue of Medicare for All.
As Julia Rock and David Sirota of the Daily Poster have observed, Clyburn actually cosponsored Medicare for All legislation when it was first introduced in 2017, before ultimately coming to vilify it a few years later. His stated reason was that the issue would hurt Democrats electorally, though it’s hard not to think that the more than $1 million he’s received in donations from Big Pharma — an amount that, as of last year, put him firmly ahead of other members of Congress — may have had something to do with it.
As Rock and Sirota have also pointed out, Medicare for All is incredibly popular in the district, which for almost thirty years has elected lawmakers supportive of single-payer legislation. It’s also become a hot-button issue in the election courtesy of Turner herself, who has campaigned vigorously on the idea and run television spots in support of M4A. For her part, Brown has been attending fundraisers put on by corporate interests, one of which was quite literally headlined by a registered lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which is part of a powerful alliance of special interests pouring money into a national effort to defeat Medicare for All.
But what is really revealing (and sad) is that the Congressional Black Caucus, that once used to support progressive policies, has been co-opted by the neoliberals, particularly the health insurance lobby, and has come out against Turner.
Progressive political observers on Thursday registered the Congressional Black Caucus’s political arm’s endorsement of Shontel Brown in the Democratic primary in Ohio’s 11th district as the latest effort by the caucus—long a defender of corporate power—to stop leftist candidates from making inroads in Congress.
…Turner is a vehement supporter of Medicare for All; a Green New Deal to create millions of green energy and transportation jobs; a taxation structure that ensures the wealthy pay their fair share; and other bold universal proposals she argues would lift up all the people of the 11th district, including its large population of Black residents.
While the CBC PAC claims to work “to increase the number of Black members of the U.S. Congress” and elect candidates who will “champion the needs and interests of the Black community,” its endorsements in recent years have pointed to other priorities, including its strong opposition to proposals like Medicare for All—despite the fact that racial justice advocacy groups including the NAACP, United We Dream, the Movement for Black Lives, and the Black Women’s Health Imperative have called on Congress to pass such a proposal.
Turner has won the support of a number of members of the CBC, including Reps. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)—all progressive lawmakers who refuse corporate donations and back policies aimed at supporting working people and the poor.
Norman Solomon, co-founder and national director of Roots Action, which backs the Turner campaign, said the CBC PAC’s announcement came as “no surprise.”
“Unfortunately, the days of the Congressional Black Caucus as an overall progressive force are long gone,” Solomon told Common Dreams. “The CBC and its PAC now serve corporate interests to an extent that is truly sad, especially in light of how wonderful the caucus was decades ago under the visionary leadership of such progressive champions as Ron Dellums.”
As is almost always the case, what policies and candidates politicians support has a strong correlation with who gives them money.
I really hope Turner crushes Brown, to show the establishment that their days are numbered.
For some reason this post annoyed me, even though I agree with the policy advocated by Nina Turner. There is a lot of suggestive language used in this post to describe something very mundane. People and organizations who are on the conservative side of the democratic party are supporting a candidate who is on the conservative side of the democratic party. Also, the more progressive people and organizations in the democratic party are supporting the candidate who is more progressive. This is not nefarious or shocking.
Well, yes. That is how elections work. Just as Nina Turner is struggling to defeat Brown.
“Clinton’s Intervention.” My God, a conservative democrat endorsed a conservative democratic candidate. Look at all these other nefarious interveners: https://ninaturner.com/endorsements/
Another thing that seems as it should be. I am sure the people and organizations Dr. Singham gives money to also hold positions that he agrees with.
@Jackson; yes, this is just another temper tantrum from the St. Bernie people who were so outrageous that not once but twice, the general voting public preferred not-St.-Bernie to St.-Bernie. Their favorite person to blame is Hillary Clinton, so therefore anything they don’t like in the world is due to the machinations of…someone who’s been a private citizen for years and years now.
Ring around the collar? Hillary did it. Got a parking ticket for staying too long at a meter? Hillary did it. Your dog ran away? Hillary again! St. Bernie would have created a paradise on Earth, but…wait, what has he really accomplished, again?
Whether or not you agree that politics should act like politics, the convervative section of the Democratic Party sucks and are suicidally complicit in the destruction of this planet.
So yeah, there is a value to be assigned to their behavior and #1 and #2 are bots, operatives themselves, or are painfully naive and/or are hoping we are equally naive suckers as they are.
Reality is not the delightfully conservative branch of the liberals, Global Warming, it is the truth it is Global BURNING. Reality is not the Fake News oh-so-socially-acceptable to those who would compromise the health of this planet and everyone and everything on it Climate Change, the truth is a Climate CRISIS.
Oh gosh golly are the liberal versions of the Democratic Party also aiming for other truths, like the medical system in the extremely wealthy can totally afford it USofA is majorly fucked up? How dare we-all get mad about this! Let’s all pick on mbnO and The Vicar some more.
I sometimes think that we have just the one oligarch party, and that most members of the Democratic wing are marginally better at what are sometimes called “social issues”.
From any vaguely civilised perspective, US elections are a choice between voting far right or literally Nazis.
sonofrojblake: Versus, say, French elections, where 25% of the population supports REAL Nazis (The FN)? Or the chaos of Italy, with its equally right wing parties? Or maybe you are thinking of enlightened Germany, where upwards of a third of the population in some regions supports “Alternative for Germany”? Or maybe civilized Hungary, where Orban is presiding over a one party state. Or maybe China, with its thousands of years of civilization and its one party panopticon totalitarianism?
I am not one to defend the ol’ USA, but let’s have some perspective here. (And I don’t disagree with Medicare for All at all, and am not really a right wing democrat).
“As is almost always the case, what policies and candidates politicians support has a strong correlation with who gives them money.”
In my dictionary this is called corruption, which can be expected in countries like Hungary and the USA, which are only democracies in name.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/election-us-2020-54696386
Somebody has to pay these insane amoounts of money and that somebody wants something in return. Nothing suggestive here, whether Jackson is annoyed or not.
Presidential elections in France (this country has a comparable political system) are way cheaper and take much less time.
I read this title late last night as “What the Ninja Turtle candidacy…” and thought it was time to turn in. It makes more sense now.
@1 Jackson
I think you should be reading this more as a criticism of how the system works, not as a revelation of a surprise turn of events. It is a known fact that the US political system is a corporate/tribal affair about assembling the backing of donors (who are the ones that have ideas about how things should be run for their benefit), as opposed to a clash over ideas of best governance. Those donors expect a return on investment after all. If it weren’t for this dynamic the discussion could be on the merit of the policies, but instead it’s about which tribe bankrolls each candidate.
Not really new revelations, but certainly a condemnation of a system which prioritizes corporate interests over public wellbeing.
bmiller, #6
The difference with France, Germany and Italy is that there are actual centrist and left-wing parties to vote for and the proportional representation system means that votes for them will count. Yes, a proportion of the population chooses to vote for far-right or facscist parties (why, I have no idea), but those parties are not the only viable options in the system. In the US, thanks largely to their first-past-the-post voting system, there are only two major parties and if you don’t vote for one you are effectively voting for the other.
The Democratic Party in the US is significantly to the right of pretty much all mainstream parties in Europe. Indeed, its party managers are trying to squash attempts to campaign for the kind of universal healthcare that even far-right parties in Europe accept as sensible without exception. Boris Johnson is far to the left of Joe Biden when it comes to healthcare for goodness’ sake! If the Democratic Party were to campaign in pretty much any European country they would be considered a far right party compared to the alternatives. The US Republican Party, by contrast, is so far off the usual political scale that its policies align only with those of the fascists in other countries.
From a European perspective, sonofrobjake’s comment is bang on the money.
As an European with a Scandinavian perspective, I can only agree with Cartomancer.
Joe Biden might fit into the German conservative party, if it was not for his dismissal of universal health insurance.
The far-left Green-aligned Demoracts are even worse because of their overpowering opposition to nuclear power, without which any solution is impossible.
Yay! GerrardOfTitanServer up on his hobbyhorse again, despite the decades of failure of the nuclear industry to live up to its promises even with massive government support.
I remind you that the large majority of climate scientists and the IPCC reports say that any solution without large amounts of nuclear is impossible. What we have here is a massive disconnect between what the scientists are saying, and what special interest groups (e.g. Greenpeace et al) are saying, and most people don’t realize it.
I also want to introduce you to Sweden and France. They are the nuclear success cases that you demanded. By contrast, no one is remotely close to going 100% renewables -- except those rare countries that have a small population and an overabundance of hydro.
Nuclear does not receive massive government support. Solar and wind receive far more direct and indirect subsidies today compared to nuclear. The reasons are very subtle, but hugely important. Unfortunately, it’s quite esoteric. Let me try to explain.
The entire game is rigged against nuclear at every level, including:
-- often excessive and costly safety requirements for nuclear power.
-- excessive and costly disposal requirements for nuclear waste,
-- nuclear is outright banned in some places like Australia,
-- nuclear is partially banned in many places (see renewable energy portfolio standards),
-- massive monetary subsidies for solar and wind (see renewable energy credits),
-- allowing solar and wind to leech off the system by not paying for their extra transmission requirements,
-- allowing solar and wind to leech off the system by not paying for the extra capacity payment requirements induced by their presence,
-- allowing solar and wind to leech off the system by relying on the grid inertia and other frequency control services provided by fossil fuels and nuclear,
-- allowing solar and wind to leech off the system by relying on the blackstart capability of fossil fuel and nuclear generators,
-- long term purchase agreements are often limited or banned in today’s so-called deregulated electricity spot markets,
-- market manipulation.
I need to explain some of those points.
In most places, nuclear power plants were not designed to load-follow well because it was slightly cheaper to do so. (In France, they load-follow just fine.) For example, the nuclear power plants in America cannot adjust their output down too far for too long or else they build up too much xenon in the core which forces a shutdown of the reactor for hours or days until the xenon decays away.
Nuclear power plant operating costs are basically fixed. For a nuclear power plant, it doesn’t save fuel costs by shutting down. It costs as much to operate a nuclear power plant at 100% output and 50% output. By contrast, a natural gas plant can save a lot of money by shutting down by saving fuel costs.
Because of the intermittency and un-dispatchability of solar and wind, you need more backing energy. Right now, in most places that means natural gas. This means that grid operators have to pay more money to natural gas plants to be ready, e.g. capacity payments. Many natural gas operators earn more money from capacity payments than they do from selling electricity.
Solar and wind operators get their government subsidies, renewable energy credits, based on the amount of electricity they sell. They get these money even when “selling” at negative electricity prices. Many solar and wind operators earn more money from this subsidy than they do from selling electricity. (On its own, this is a perverse incentive to build more solar and wind than is ideal, but it compounds with other facts.)
Consider an idealized and toy case of a single nuclear power plant powering a city. Then, imagine adding a solar plant. Ignoring all of the ancillary services (transmission, capacity, frequency, blackstart, etc.), and focusing only on the cost per KWh, adding that solar plant actually raises costs for consumers. Why? The solar plant will have a smaller sell price during some hours of the day and can sell lower than the nuclear power plant. So, the grid operator buys some electricity from the solar plant during some hours of the day. Remember that the nuclear power plant has fixed costs. It sells less electricity that day, meaning its daily revenue is less, but its daily costs are fixed, and so it has to raise costs for the rest of the day when the sun is not shining to recoup its fixed costs. The net result is a higher bill for the consumer. This is the consequence of mandating spot markets instead of long-term purchase agreements. This is not a mistake. This is just one part of a carefully orchestrated strategy by the Green lobbyists and their fossil fuel allies / backers.
Then, add on renewable energy credit payments which are paid to solar even when they “sell” electricity at negative spot prices. This further cuts into the profit margin of a nuclear plant and at the same time raises the bill for the consumer. Ideally, those credits should be available to all sources without greenhouse gas emissions, but they’re not.
Then, add on renewable energy portfolio standards, which require the grid operators to buy X% of electricity from a non-nuclear source. This further cuts into the profit margin of a nuclear plant and at the same time raises the bill for the consumer. Ideally, those portfolio standards should include all sources without greenhouse gas emissions, but they’re not.
So, the nuclear power plant is bleeding money when it’s really the cheapest source of reliable electricity.
Eventually, the cuts will be so extreme that it starts causing xenon transients, leading to periods where the nuclear power plant has to shut down to wait for the xenon to go away, periods where the nuclear power plant could be selling electricity at a profit, but it can’t because of the xenon.
Further, solar, wind, and natural gas operators can independently “conspire” to outright manipulate the market. All it takes is a temporary flood of supply to reduce prices to where the nuclear power plant must shut down to avoid negative prices, and thereby induce a xenon transient, leading to an extended period of monopoly-like pricing for solar, wind, and natural gas.
The last element of this story is that some safety regulations in the US require a nuclear power plant to submit a report to the NRC and ask for approval before restarting after a shutdown, no matter the kind of shutdown, including purposeful shutdowns to avoid negative pricing, leading to further days where the nuclear power plant is not operating, aka a longer window of monopoly-like pricing for solar, wind, and natural gas.
This is how many nuclear power plants, which are the cheapest source of electricity by far, cannot compete in the markets as currently structured because the markets were carefully designed to penalize them.