Watch the video here. Blending dramatic historical narrative with critical interpretation in order to make surprising connections to contemporary political and cultural struggles, William Hogeland's three books on founding American history include The Whiskey Rebellion, Founding Finance, and Declaration. He has also contributed articles and essays about history, music, and politics to a slew of publications, including The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, and Salon, and has appeared on PBS's History Detectives, Book TV, and Good Morning America. In Autumn of the Black Snake, Hogeland tells the story of the creation of the U.S. Army and how its first victory against the indigenous people of the Ohio Valley opened the way to western settlement. (recorded 5/23/2017)

Democracy Now! 2017-07-03 Monday

• Bernie Sanders on Resisting Trump, Why the Democratic Party is an "Absolute Failure" & More

<a href="http://traffic.libsyn.com/democracynow/dn2017-0703-1.mp3">Download this show</a>

In the past few years, the Democratic Party’s rank and file have shifted left on major issues. From healthcare to legalization of drugs to taxes, the heart of the party has grown more progressive—and, in many instances, overtly socialist in nature. Forty-seven percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now identify as both socially liberal and economically moderate or liberal, up from 39 percent in 2008 and 30 percent in 2001.

In contrast, nominally liberal media—or major media whose editorial line is reliably pro-Democratic—have drifted rightward. On Wednesday, MSNBC announced it had hired torture-supporting, climate-denying, anti-Arab racist Bret Stephens, a recent hire at the New York Times opinion page. Stephens—whose very first article at the Times had to be corrected due to his misunderstanding of basic climate science—will be an “on-air contributor” for both MSNBC and NBC.

This pickup continues a conservative hiring spree at MSNBC, including former George Bush adviser Nicolle Wallace, right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, old-school conservative Washington Post columnist George Will, and former Fox News stars Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly (though Van Susteren’s show has already been canceled due to comically low ratings).

Despite their ratings going up as their marquee liberal firebrands rail against Donald Trump on a day-to-day basis, MSNBC has decided not to double down on this approach, but rather is populating its 24-hour broadcast with an increasing number of Bush-era also-rans and ex–Fox News personalities. At the same time, the New York Times has added the far-right Stephens to its coveted and influential list of full-time columnists—joining fellow #nevertrump conservatives David Brooks and Ross Douthat.

As notable as their outreach to the right is these outlets’ resolute resistance to introducing any new voices to the left of the party’s corporate center. Forty-three percent of Democratic voters backed Bernie Sanders in the primary, yet the New York Times and MSNBC editorial teams don’t have one vocal Sanders supporter. Some, certainly, are sympathetic to him, such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, and the Times’ Charles Blow. But none openly back him in the way Paul Krugman, Gail Collins and Joy-Ann Reid (FAIR.org, 4/20/17) openly spin for his more centrist primary opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Indeed, MSNBC’s Reid spends an unhealthy amount of time on Twitter dragging the Vermont senator for being inadequately obsequious to the corporate wing of the party.)

Obviously, sitting around waiting for corporate-owned media to embrace subversive left political commentary—or even Sanders’ brand of soft European-style social democracy—is a fool’s errand, and one should be under no illusions this will ever happen. But the lack of any effort to represent a major sector of their audience is still worth pointing out. If the media were “all about the clicks” or “the views,” a major network would jump at the chance to at least have one token leftist to appeal to this underserved demographic. Yet they keep going in the other direction, hiring more right wingers without any apparent marketing reason to do so.

Shaping ideology and public opinion is less about the voices we hear, and more about those we don’t. The range of debate is set by liberal gatekeepers like the Times and MSNBC, and it’s clear, with each additional hire, the Overton window at these institutions won’t budge one inch to the left, regardless of how much their consumers do. One is left to conclude that MSNBC and the New York Times are not veering right despite Democratic voters’ increasing embrace of left policies; they’re doing so precisely because of it.

---

You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes). You can add comments to MSNBC’s site here (or via Twitter: @MSNBC). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.

 

Author (Photo:English: "John Brown ascending the scaffold preparatory to being hanged / from a sketch by our special artist." Illus. in: Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, v. 9, no. 211 (1859 Dec. 17), p. [33]. Date 17 December 1859 ) http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog Twitter: @BatchelorShow Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid That Sparked the Civil WarAug 7, 2012 by Tony Horwitz. PART 2 of 2. A New York Times Notable Book for 2011 A Library Journal Top Ten Best Books of 2011 A Boston Globe Best Nonfiction Book of 2011 Late on the night of October 16, 1859, John Brown launched a surprise raid on the slaveholding South. Leading a biracial band of militant idealists, he seized the massive armory at Harpers Ferry, freed and armed slaves, and vowed to liberate every bondsman in America. Brown's daring strike sparked a savage street fight and a counterattack by U.S. Marines under Robert E. Lee. The bloodshed and court drama that followed also shocked a divided nation and propelled it toward civil war. Tony Horwitz's Midnight Rising brings Brown and his uprising vividly to life and charts America's descent into explosive conflict. The result is a taut and indispensable history of a man and a time that still resonate in our own. https://www.amazon.com/Midnight-Rising-Brown-Sparked-Civil/dp/0312429266/ref=la_B000APAGJA_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498964494&sr=1-4

Author (Photo: English: Built in 1848, this reproduction of the building that became known as John Brown's Fort was originally constructed for use as a guard and fire engine house for the federal Harpers Ferry Armory in Harper's Ferry, then a part of Virginia. (notice the lack of a bell) Photograph by Joy Schoenberger, 2007 Date 12 November 2007 (original upload date) Source Own work Transferred from en.wikipedia ) http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog Twitter: @BatchelorShow Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid That Sparked the Civil WarAug 7, 2012 by Tony Horwitz. PART 1 of 2. A New York Times Notable Book for 2011 A Library Journal Top Ten Best Books of 2011 A Boston Globe Best Nonfiction Book of 2011 Late on the night of October 16, 1859, John Brown launched a surprise raid on the slaveholding South. Leading a biracial band of militant idealists, he seized the massive armory at Harpers Ferry, freed and armed slaves, and vowed to liberate every bondsman in America. Brown's daring strike sparked a savage street fight and a counterattack by U.S. Marines under Robert E. Lee. The bloodshed and court drama that followed also shocked a divided nation and propelled it toward civil war. Tony Horwitz's Midnight Rising brings Brown and his uprising vividly to life and charts America's descent into explosive conflict. The result is a taut and indispensable history of a man and a time that still resonate in our own. https://www.amazon.com/Midnight-Rising-Brown-Sparked-Civil/dp/0312429266/ref=la_B000APAGJA_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498964494&sr=1-4

Just added to my radio archive (click on date for link):

June 29, 2017 Robert Pollin works out the economics of single-payer in California (paper here) • Michael McCarthy, author of Dismantling Solidarity, on the history of pension funds in the U.S.

There has probably never been a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper that produced as much glee in the media as last week's report showing that Seattle's minimum wage law may have led to a net loss in wages for low wage workers. According to the analysis, there was a reduction in average hours worked among those in the low wage labor market that more than offset the gain in wages. The result was a net loss in wages for exactly the group of people the law was intended to benefit.

This finding was quickly picked up in every major news outlet. While some, notably the New York Times, reported the finding with appropriate cautions, others (e.g. here, here, here, here, and here) were nearly gleeful at the idea that workers in Seattle were losing their jobs. Most of the reporting ignored the fact that the same week a team of researchers from Berkeley produced an analysis using a very similar methodology that found no statistically significant impact on employment.

There are important differences in the studies. The Berkeley study follows much prior research and only looks at the restaurant industry, a major employer of low wage workers. The University of Washington NBER paper looked at all workers getting paid less than $19 an hour. It also had two additional quarters of data. However, the Washington study also excluded the roughly 40 percent of the workforce that worked at multi-site employers (think Starbucks and McDonald's).

In other words, it it not obvious that the Washington study is the "better" analysis. The Berkeley team has produced much of the cutting edge research on the minimum wage over the last fifteen years. I doubt that many of the reporters touting the Washington study would be able to explain why it is a better analysis of the impact of Seattle's minimum wage hikes.

Read More ...

Behind the News, 6/22/17 - guests: Kate Gordon, Nancy MacLean - Doug Henwood

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss what, in C19th America's Gilded Age, was one of the most significant protest movements since the Civil War with repercussions well into C20th. Farmers in the South and Midwest felt ignored by the urban and industrial elites who were thriving as the farmers suffered droughts and low prices. The farmers were politically and physically isolated. As one man wrote on his abandoned farm, 'two hundred and fifty miles to the nearest post office, one hundred miles to wood, twenty miles to water, six inches to Hell'. They formed the Populist or People's Party to fight their cause, put up candidates for President, won several states and influenced policies. In the South, though, their appeal to black farmers stimulated their political rivals to suppress the black vote for decades and set black and poor white farmers against each other, tightening segregation. Aspects of the Populists ideas re-emerged effectively in Roosevelt's New Deal, even if they are mainly remembered now, if at all, thanks to allegorical references in The Wizard of Oz. The caricature above is of William Jennings Bryan, Populist-backed Presidential candidate. With Lawrence Goldman Professor of History at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London Mara Keire Lecturer in US History at the University of Oxford And Christopher Phelps Associate Professor of American Studies at the University of Nottingham Producer: Simon Tillotson.

Author Photo: (Longwood House, Saint Helena: site of Napoleon's captivity) http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog Twitter: @batchelorshow Napoleon: A Life by Andrew Roberts. PART 8 of 8. An Amazon Best Book of the Month, November 2014: There have been many books about Napoleon, but Andrew Roberts’ single-volume biography is the first to make full use of the ongoing French publication of Napoleon’s 33,000 letters. Seemingly leaving no stone unturned, Roberts begins in Corsica in 1769, pointing to Napoleon’s roots on that island—and a resulting fascination with the Roman Empire—as an early indicator of what history might hold for the boy. Napoleon’s upbringing—from his roots, to his penchant for holing up and reading about classic wars, to his education in France, all seemed to point in one direction—and by the time he was 24, he was a French general. Though he would be dead by fifty one, it was only the beginning of what he would accomplish. Although Napoleon: A Life is 800 pages long, it is both enjoyable and illuminating. Napoleon comes across as whip smart, well-studied, ambitious to a fault, a little awkward, and perhaps most importantly, a man who could turn on the charm when he needed to. Through his portrait, Roberts seems to be arguing two things: that Napoleon was far more than just a complex, and that his contributions to the world greatly surpassed those of the evil dictators that some compare him to. “The historian, like the orator,” Roberts quotes Napoleon as saying, “must persuade. He must convince.” I, for one, am convinced. A fascinating read. –Chris Schluep --This text refers to the Hardcover edition. Review Praise for Napoleon “An epically scaled new biography . . . Roberts brilliantly conveys the sheer energy and presence of Napoleon the organizational and military whirlwind who, through crisp and incessant questioning, sized up people and problems and got things done. . . . His dynamism shines in Roberts’s set-piece chapters on major battles like Austerlitz, Jena, and Marengo, turning visionary military maneuvers into politically potent moments.” —The New York Times Book Review “Roberts is a masterly storyteller. . . . I would recommend his book to anyone seeking an accessible chronicle, rich in anecdote, of Napoleon’s fantastic story.” —Max Hastings, The Wall Street Journal “With his customary flair and keen historical eye, Andrew Roberts has delivered the goods again. This is the best one volume biography of Napoleon in English for the last four decades. A tour de force that belongs on every history lover’s bookshelf!” —Jay Winik, bestselling author of The Great Upheaval and April 1865 “Is another long life of Napoleon really necessary? On three counts, the answer given by Andrew Roberts’s impressive book is an emphatic yes. The most important is that this is the first single-volume general biography to make full use of the treasure trove of Napoleon’s 33,000-odd letters, which began being published in Paris only in 2004. Second, Roberts, who has previously written on Napoleon and Wellington, is a masterly analyst of the French emperor’s many battles. Third, his book is beautifully written and a pleasure to read.” —The Economist “Napoleon remade France and much of Europe in his fifteen years in power and proved himself one of history’s greatest military commanders. Roberts’s access to Napoleon’s thirty-three thousand letters, only recently available, allowed him to create a fully human portrait of this larger-than-life figure.” —The Wall Street Journal, Holiday Gift Guide “A huge, rich, deep, witty, humane and unapologetically admiring biography that is a pleasure to read. The Napoleon painted here is a whirlwind of a man—not only a vigorous and supremely confident commander, but an astonishingly busy governor, correspondent and lover, too. . . . To dive into Roberts’s new book is to understand—indeed, to feel—wh...

Timothy Morton wants humanity to give up some of its core beliefs, from the fantasy that we can control the planet to the notion that we are ‘above’ other beings. His ideas might sound weird, but they’re catching on • Read the text version here

Author (Photo: Sinosauropteryx fossil, the first fossil of a definitively non-avialan dinosaur with feathers ) http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog Twitter: @BatchelorShow Feathers: The Evolution of a Natural Miracle by Thor Hanson. BioScience “From basic research about bird biology and the evolutionary origins of feather to falconry, couture, and bioinspiration in industrial design, the book treats us to a series of engaging essays about feathers, both on and off the bird.... Hanson weaves his prior encounters with birds and his experiences as a scientist into the text, offering lively anecdotes about his student days and subsequent life as a professional grant-seeking field biologist. He is particularly adept at portraying how science really works…. Hanson's prose is polished, lively, and evocative. The outcome is a book that is easy and entertaining to read, yet one that is able to satisfy our intellectual curiosity.... In Feathers, Hanson is remarkably successful at offering something for everyone. Readers from young adults to professional ornithologists and from those interested in nature to those more interested in human culture will enjoy this book.... Ultimately, Feathers is a book to read for pleasure, but along the way, we gain knowledge and insight into nature and our relationship with it.” Frank B. Gill, author of Ornithology “Thor Hanson has captured the wonders of feathers in gripping prose that will likely change forever how you look at birds and their colorful adornments. This is rich and engaging ornithology at its best.” Garth Stein, author of The Art of Racing in the Rain “If you feel a sudden need to read about dinosaurs, flyfishing, muttonbirds, and showgirls, this is your book! Absolutely fascinating history, and a terrific read, Feathers is another Thor Hanson classic!” Peter Matthiessen, National Book Award winning author of The Snow Leopard and Shadow Country “A fascinating book about the most remarkable—and beautiful—of all avian evolutionary adaptations, with wonderful accounts of ornithological investigations and the solving of biological quandaries and questions, all of it unusually well-written. Highly recommended.” Wall Street Journal “[Hanson] has produced a winning book about the extraordinary place of feathers in animal and human history…. like all true birdwatchers, Mr. Hanson knows it isn't just the bird at the far end of the binoculars but the human being at the near end that matters, and he is writing as much about the human urge to understand, appreciate and appropriate the wild world as he is writing about feathers, which he calls, in his subtitle, a ‘natural miracle.'.... Feathers is an earthbound book, but this does not keep the author—or the reader—from looking up in wonder.” New York Times “[A] fine book.... Mr. Hanson's pleasure in feathers is infectious.... [Feathers] is gracious, funny, persuasive and wide ranging. Feathers, Mr. Hanson reminds us, teach a remarkable amount about evolution, insulation, engineering, archaeology and fashion. Better still, as this book shows, they allow not only birds but the human imagination to take flight.” New Scientist “[A] sparkling history.... Well-written science adds gravity to the more featherweight content of witty anecdotes — from interviews with feather-clad Las Vegas showgirls to plucking roadkill in the name of biology. The skilful way Hanson combines the two makes this book popular natural history at its best.” Seattle Times “[D]elightful.... [A] fascinating inquiry into one of those common things that are easy to overlook until someone shows what a miracle it is.... Birds, the only animals with feathers today, wear these magic coats of stunning variety whose forms so perfectly fit their functions. Hanson's book reveals much about that marvelous magic.” Library Journal (starred review) “[E]njoyable, wide-ranging, and well-researched.... Highly ...

Author (Photo: Fearing Confederate confiscation of his South Carolina holdings, Perdicaris traveled to Greece and abandoned his American citizenship believing that the ...) http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog Twitter: @BatchelorShow All the Great Prizes: The Life of John Hay, from Lincoln to Roosevelt by John Taliaferro. PART 2 of 2. From Booklist If not ringing a bell for general-interest history fans, the name John Hay should resonate with Civil War buffs because he was Lincoln’s secretary. From this life-­altering relationship that the 22-year-old Hay formed with Lincoln, author Taliaferro departs for the subsequent course taken by his subject, which ended with Hay’s 1905 death in harness as secretary of state. At heart more a literary than political personality, Hay left a capacious and varied body of writing for Taliaferro to shape into a narrative arc: it consists of Hay’s Civil War diary; poems, short stories, and novels; editorials and political tracts; a monumental Lincoln biography; private letters; and diplomatic documents. Setting Hay into the frame of late-nineteenth-century America, Taliaferro sympathetically shows Hay making his way. Marrying money helped, and as Hay advanced in politics and publishing, he could detach himself from affairs and cultivate friendships he formed with the leading intellectuals of his time, such as Henry Adams and Henry James. Spiced by Hay’s extramarital pursuit of a socialite, Taliaferro’s textured portrait exemplifies the better productions of the biographical craft. --Gilbert Taylor --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. Review “Utterly fantastic…the definitive portrait of a man whose life spanned a crucial era in American history – and whose work helped to define that era. A genius of animation works on every page. It’s the author’s best book.” (Open Letters Monthly) “Given that John Hay’s public career was bookended by his service to Lincoln and Roosevelt, it seems surprising that this is the first biography written about him in 80 years. Thanks to Taliaferro’s skillful work, it seems unlikely that another will be needed for a while.” (The Dallas Morning News) "A valuable reassessment of an underestimated politician and diplomat" (The Economist) “This is a great biography of a great American.” (The Washington Independent Review of Books) “Taliaferro’s textured portrait exemplifies the better productions of the biographical craft.” (Booklist) “Taliaferro’s skillful, admiring biography (the first since 1934) brings Hay vividly to life by setting him among family, friends (many of them well-known figures in their own right), and the well-heeled political circles in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, in which Hay moved with ease.” (Publishers Weekly) "The best life of Hay that we have and a persuasive argument for taking another look at the life of a career public servant” (Kirkus Reviews) “Taliaferro takes the reader on an intimate historical journey through the public and personal lives of Hay…Worthy as the most comprehensive biography of Hay to date.” (Library Journal) "John Hay has long been one of those remarkable American figures who hide in plain historical sight—until now. With insight and eloquence, John Taliaferro has brought Hay into the foreground, telling a remarkable story remarkably well." (Jon Meacham, author of Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power) “John Hay began his career as private secretary to Abraham Lincoln, writing many of Lincoln's letters, and ended it as secretary of state in the administrations of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, responsible for many of their foreign-policy achievements. He was at the bedside of Lincoln and of McKinley as each president lay dying of an assassin's bullet. John Taliaferro's absorbing biography of this notable author, diplomat, and bon vivant who knew most of the im...

Author (Photo:John Hay by John Singer Sargent ) http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog Twitter: @BatchelorShow All the Great Prizes: The Life of John Hay, from Lincoln to Roosevelt by John Taliaferro. PART 1 of 2. From Booklist If not ringing a bell for general-interest history fans, the name John Hay should resonate with Civil War buffs because he was Lincoln’s secretary. From this life-­altering relationship that the 22-year-old Hay formed with Lincoln, author Taliaferro departs for the subsequent course taken by his subject, which ended with Hay’s 1905 death in harness as secretary of state. At heart more a literary than political personality, Hay left a capacious and varied body of writing for Taliaferro to shape into a narrative arc: it consists of Hay’s Civil War diary; poems, short stories, and novels; editorials and political tracts; a monumental Lincoln biography; private letters; and diplomatic documents. Setting Hay into the frame of late-nineteenth-century America, Taliaferro sympathetically shows Hay making his way. Marrying money helped, and as Hay advanced in politics and publishing, he could detach himself from affairs and cultivate friendships he formed with the leading intellectuals of his time, such as Henry Adams and Henry James. Spiced by Hay’s extramarital pursuit of a socialite, Taliaferro’s textured portrait exemplifies the better productions of the biographical craft. --Gilbert Taylor --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. Review “Utterly fantastic…the definitive portrait of a man whose life spanned a crucial era in American history – and whose work helped to define that era. A genius of animation works on every page. It’s the author’s best book.” (Open Letters Monthly) “Given that John Hay’s public career was bookended by his service to Lincoln and Roosevelt, it seems surprising that this is the first biography written about him in 80 years. Thanks to Taliaferro’s skillful work, it seems unlikely that another will be needed for a while.” (The Dallas Morning News) "A valuable reassessment of an underestimated politician and diplomat" (The Economist) “This is a great biography of a great American.” (The Washington Independent Review of Books) “Taliaferro’s textured portrait exemplifies the better productions of the biographical craft.” (Booklist) “Taliaferro’s skillful, admiring biography (the first since 1934) brings Hay vividly to life by setting him among family, friends (many of them well-known figures in their own right), and the well-heeled political circles in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, in which Hay moved with ease.” (Publishers Weekly) "The best life of Hay that we have and a persuasive argument for taking another look at the life of a career public servant” (Kirkus Reviews) “Taliaferro takes the reader on an intimate historical journey through the public and personal lives of Hay…Worthy as the most comprehensive biography of Hay to date.” (Library Journal) "John Hay has long been one of those remarkable American figures who hide in plain historical sight—until now. With insight and eloquence, John Taliaferro has brought Hay into the foreground, telling a remarkable story remarkably well." (Jon Meacham, author of Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power) “John Hay began his career as private secretary to Abraham Lincoln, writing many of Lincoln's letters, and ended it as secretary of state in the administrations of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, responsible for many of their foreign-policy achievements. He was at the bedside of Lincoln and of McKinley as each president lay dying of an assassin's bullet. John Taliaferro's absorbing biography of this notable author, diplomat, and bon vivant who knew most of the important people of his time fully measures up to the significance of its subject.” (James M. McPherson, author of Battle Cry o...

Joining Suzi are Maria Svart, National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America, and Becky Bond, co-founder of the Knock on Every Door campaign and former advisor on the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign. They will review the recent People's Summit conference as well as take a deep look at the Democratic Party. Specifically, they'll explore how the party can and should be engaged as well as the party leadership and its hostility to the pro-Sander's contingent.

Mass incarceration controls poor people and populations that have been excluded from the labor market. Politically, tough-on-crime rhetoric has for decades been a tool for politicians to appeal to white voters’ racism. But what’s less discussed is the complicated history of criminal justice politics within black communities and amongst black politicians. Yale Law professor James Forman talks about his new book Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America.

Everyone thought the election was a foregone conclusion. They had no idea what was really going on • Read the text version here

While all eyes in Washington remain focused on the Russia investigation, a Republican firm forgot to secure its invasive personal data on 198 million American voters. This week on Intercepted: We speak to radical librarian Alison Macrina of the Library Freedom Project about the fight against digital surveillance. Sam Biddle gives an update on attacks on U.S. voting systems. And, we speak with one of the rising stars of the “dirtbag left,” Felix Biederman of Chapo Trap House.

In “The End of the Left and the Right as We Knew Them,” New York Times columnist Thomas Edsall (6/22/17) is back on his hobby horse—which is fine; what would a columnist do without a hobby horse or two? What’s troubling about it is how dishonest he is about it.

The axe Edsall is grinding is that politics no longer has to do with rich or poor, but is now a question of “globalism versus nationalism.” It’s a variation on his class-no-longer-matters argument, or class-matters-backwards-from-the-way-you’d-think-it-does, as in “How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?” (New York Times, 10/7/15)—a piece I examined at the time (10/15/15).

This is a preoccupation of neoliberal pundits—who want nothing more than to believe that the economic positions of the Democratic Party are “irrelevant to its electoral predicament” (Jonathan Chait, New York, 6/18/17; FAIR.org, 6/20/17)—or even that the Democrats’ path to success involves “pro-business, finance-friendly economics” (Michael Lind,  New York Times (4/16/16); FAIR.org, 4/25/16).

But while Chait and Lind’s pro-corporate prescriptions for liberal politicians involve leaps of logic, neither of them seem so willing to fudge the data the way Edsall does.

In arguing that voting has become dissociated from class, Edsall reviews a number of recent elections, including the United States’ Clinton/Trump matchup. Here’s his summary:

In the 2016 election, as issues of race and immigration became more salient, the percentage of Trump and Clinton support among voters making more than $50,000 was virtually the same. If anything, those at the top making $200,000 or more tilted slightly to Clinton.

OK, here’s the 2016 exit polling on income, as laid out by CNN:

Say you’re writing a column about the relationship between class and politics. You look up the exit polling, and you can’t help but notice that Clinton did much better among people who make less than $50,000 than among people who make more than $50,000—winning the former by 12 percentage points, and losing the latter by 1 point. You choose to ignore that, however, and instead cherry-pick the data so it sounds like Clinton did better the further you go up the income scale—because that’s what fits with the story you’re peddling, that politics has entered a post-class era.

I’d call that rather deceptive, wouldn’t you?

Edsall went on to refer to Bernie Sanders‘ “call…to revive the New Deal origins of the Democratic Party”—seemingly the antithesis of Edsall’s class-is-over analysis—and acknowledge that it was “powerful.” He dismissed the idea, though, with an ad hominem slight of Sanders:

A candidate making that appeal, however, and seeking to build a broad majority biracial coalition, must in fact have broad biracial appeal. As of now, Sanders is far from personifying broad majority biracial appeal.

I assume that Edsall means that Sanders appeal is limited to white people, since that’s the conventional lesson of the 2016 primaries. That lesson happens not to be true—here are the results of a Harvard-Harris survey, as summarized in a Hill graphic (4/18/17):

Sanders is viewed favorably by every ethnic group polled—from 52 percent among whites to 73 percent among African-Americans. If that’s not what “broad majority biracial appeal” looks like, I don’t know what would.

Edsall went on to scoff at the idea of the Democratic Party winning on an explicitly class-based platform:

The Sanders-Warren wing of the party…has the moral high ground within Democratic ranks the votes they want the party to seek are those of some of the least reachable constituencies—white men and women whose views on immigration, race and political correctness are in direct conflict with liberal idealism. It would be an extraordinary challenge to get these particular voters to join with minorities and progressive activists.

As I pointed out earlier this week, there are many voters in the United States who have progressive economic views and conservative social views. Is it possible to get them to vote for a Democrat based on economic appeals? Yes—that’s why Barack Obama won two terms.

If you pretend that that’s not possible, of course, you’re stuck with having to appeal to these voters’ conservative social views—which is what Edsall ends up doing, citing Peter Beinart’s exortation in The Atlantic  (7–8/17) that “liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion”—by “backing tough immigration enforcement,” for instance. And ixnay on the talk about iverisityday, says Beinart:

Exposure to difference, talking about difference and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors.

Put away those rainbow flags, guys—you’re just riling up the neo-Nazis.

Edsall concludes with an endorsement of this sort of victim-blaming. Given our “more racialized and xenophobic politics,” he writes:

If the building of a viable left coalition is possible, it is likely to require some thoughtful and humane co-optation in the form of deference to our limits and boundaries.

If you reject from the outset the idea of uniting a majority based on shared economic interests, then pretty much all you’ve got left is the “thoughtful and humane co-optation” of racism and xenophobia.

---

You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.

In the wake of the 2016 election, the Democratic Party is having a debate, and it’s no exaggeration to say that the outcome of this argument will determine the future course of US history. On the one side are those who argue that Democrats’ political success depends on breaking with the wealthy donors they currently depend on, and advancing a progressive, explicitly redistributive economic agenda. On the other side are those who advocate—in the approving words of Michael Lind in the New York Times (4/16/16)—a continuation of the “Clintonian synthesis of pro-business, finance-friendly economics with social and racial liberalism.”

As I pointed out when I took on Lind’s piece (FAIR.org, 4/25/16), there’s a great deal of wishful thinking in the idea that there’s no need for Democrats to give up the pro-corporate policies—which, after all, not only attract hefty campaign contributions, but also keep Big Business sponsoring your media outlets and funding your think tanks. So it’s dispiriting but not surprising to find a prominent advocate for the neo-liberal wing of the Democratic Party like Jonathan Chait (New York, 6/18/17) taking a close look at the data on the 2016 election, thinking about it hard, and getting it spectacularly, absurdly wrong.

Here’s Chait’s takeaway on research by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, looking at voter attitudes and voting patterns:

To the extent that 2016 has an ideological lesson for Democrats, it is that the subject the party is currently debating within itself — whether or how far left to move on economics — is irrelevant to its electoral predicament. The issue space where Clinton lost voters who had supported Obama was in the array of social-identity questions, revolving around patriotism and identity.

They may not need to solve this problem—Trump’s failures may well solve it for them. And to some extent, moral commitments to social justice may preclude the party from moving to the center on some or all of their social policies. But to the extent Democrats want to optimize their party profile to make Trump a one-term president, the social issues are where they need to focus.

Chait’s argument is that the voters who switched from Obama to Trump had conservative social views—so if Democrats need to do anything to win in 2020, they should move to the right on race and immigration policy. But maybe they don’t need to do anything—maybe Trump will self-destruct! But in any case, what Democrats definitely don’t need to do is move to the left on economics.

One could write a whole post on the way Chait presents “moral commitments to social justice” as an impediment to electoral success—at the same time that he doesn’t seem to feel there’s any moral commitment to economic justice at all. But let’s focus on his instrumental argument regarding what, if anything, Democrats need to do differently in order to win elections.

Chait puts great stress on the report’s finding that vote-switchers had conservative social views. Well, of course they did, as you can deduce from a map of the American electorate that the Study Group produced and Chait reproduces:

The blue dots are Clinton voters and the red dots are Trump voters—with a scattering of yellow “other,” who are mainly Libertarians, along with a few Greens and independent conservatives. The chart is divided into squares depending on how progressive or conservative you are on two issue dimensions: left/right is where you stand on economic issues—left being more progressive; top/bottom is your take on “social/identity”  questions, with more progressive on the bottom.

So you can see that most Clinton voters are in the lower-left quadrant: progressive on both economic and social issues, what the study calls “Liberals.” Trump voters, on the other hand, were split between two quadrants: He got almost as many votes from the quadrant labeled “Populist”—progressive on economics, conservative on social/identity issues—as he did from the “Conservative” quadrant, which is right-wing on both. It’s a bit easier to see in bar chart form, actually:

If you’re a Democrat, you want your party to get more votes than it got in 2016, because even though your party’s candidate won the popular vote, the other party still won the White House. So where do these other votes come from?

From the “Liberal” quadrant? You’ve already got almost all those votes—though it’s worth noting that more than twice as many voters in that quadrant went for “other” compared to their opposite numbers in the “Conservative” quadrant. That’s a sign that at least some progressive voters picked up on Hillary Clinton’s signals that her economic policies were not the kind that billionaires need to worry about. But most, recognizing that the other party likely to win the election embraced the opposite of what they believe on both economic and social issues, didn’t see themselves as having a much of a choice.

Democrats aren’t going to find a lot of votes in the “Conservative” quadrant, obviously—they’re not going to take away from Republicans many voters who are conservative on both ideological dimensions. And not the “Libertarian” quadrant, either—because (as Chait points out) there are hardly any voters at all there. (The fact that this ideological mix is so common on op-ed pages and editorial boards and so rare in real life is a peculiar feature of our political system.)

So that leaves the “Populist” quadrant. These are the voters with progressive economic views and conservative social/identity views. How does the Democratic Party attract voters with that mix of views? Not by shifting its positions on racial and immigration issues to the right, as Chait suggests (if Democrats can get over their “moral commitments to social justice”)—such opportunism would risk alienating the voters in the one sector that strongly supports the Democrats, who could, after all, increase their third-party vote further. No, the obvious strategy is to convince “Populist” voters to cast their ballot based on economic rather than identity issues—in other words, to move left on economics, an option that Chait tells the party is “irrelevant to its electoral predicament.”

His evidence for this claim is actually evidence against it: that “the issue space where Clinton lost voters who had supported Obama was in the array of social-identity questions, revolving around patriotism and identity.” Of course it was! The voters who find both progressive economics and conservative identity politics appealing voted Democratic when they found the Democratic economic pitch convincing—and voted Republican when they didn’t find those economic appeals persuasive.  The conservative social views of “Populist” Obama voters aren’t evidence that Democratic economic policies don’t matter; they’re proof that they do matter, and can make the difference between a winning electoral coalition and a losing one.

It seems obvious enough. But as Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

Author (Photo: Vespasian leading his forces against the Jewish revolt, a miniature in a 1470 illuminated manuscript version of the history of Josephus Jean Bourdichon (XVe-XVIe siècle) - http://mandragore.bnf.fr/ BnF NAF 21013 Antiquités judaïques, Flavius Josèphe, traduction anonyme, vers 1470, Nouvelle acquisition française 21013, f191 Vespasien marchant contre les Juifs) http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog Twitter: @BatchelorShow 69 AD: The Year of Four Emperors by Gwyn Morgan. From Publishers Weekly Nero's suicide in June of A.D. 68 touched off a tumultuous year in the Roman Empire, full of political intrigue, social upheaval and military disorder. With judicious historical insight, Morgan, who teaches classics and history at the University of Texas–Austin, provides a first-rate history of this chaotic year while challenging many of the reigning theories. Unlike earlier books, Morgan's incorporates the versions of Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius and Dio in his quest for a balanced account. Galba was the first of four emperors to rule in this one-year span. But he never achieved popularity, and Otho, one of Nero's closest companions, murdered him in January 69 and took the reins. A civil war erupted between Otho's supporters and those of Vitellius, leading to Otho's suicide in April. The Senate then confirmed Vitellius as emperor, though his nine-month reign was marked by great extravagance. In December, the Senate acclaimed Vespasian, who had murdered Vitellius, as emperor, and he brought an end, temporarily, to the civil strife in the empire. Despite its turbulence, Morgan prudently points out that the year 69 was not the period of total anarchy that others have claimed. Although at times pedantic and even turgid, Morgan's book provides a superb portrait of this enigmatic and intriguing year. 4 maps. (Dec.) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Review "Morgan's book is a fresh and accessible look at a period that has been discussed, with sometimes horrified fascination, since antiquity itself."--Times Literary Supplement "Morgan's acute analyses and wry judgments on each episode as well as the whole year are indispensable, however one might differ on details, for he is never satisfied with the obvious or even the ingenious; his analysis of Othonian strategy before Bedriacum is particularly striking."--The International History Review "A superb portrait of this enigmatic and intriguing year."--Publishers Weekly "Few people rival Gwyn Morgan in knowledge of Tacitus' Histories. The result is a fine narrative, cogent and convincing, of this momentous year."--Herbert W. Benario, author of Tacitus Germany "This important book on the Histories of Tacitus surpasses earlier works on the civil wars that shook Rome and its empire in the year of 69. Like Tacitus, Morgan illuminates the universal themes that make the history of this one year significant for all time--the political and social upheavals consequent on a contested transfer of power; the nature of military and political leadership, the psychology of the military and civilian masses who are involved in, or spectators of, civil war. General readers will be enlightened and moved by Morgan's narrative, while specialists will appreciate the solid scholarship on which it is founded."--Mark Morford, Professor of Classics Emeritus, University of Virginia "Gwyn Morgan has produced a long-awaited and engagingly written account of the Year of Four Emperors that is unfailingly instructive and a pleasure to read. Not surprisingly, since it is based on a careful reconsideration of all the sources, while it will provide enjoyment for many, it will also prove controversial in some quarters."--Leslie Murison, author of Galba, Otho and Vitellius: Careers and Controversies https://www.amazon.com/69-AD-Year-Four-Emperors/dp/0195124685/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&...

Our annual tribute to the late great Canadian comedian Irwin Barker. With guest Pete Zedlacher in conversation with host Ali Hassan.

Democracy Now! 2017-06-13 Tuesday

• Headlines for June 13, 2017
• "No Is Not Enough": Best-Selling Author Naomi Klein on Challenging Trump's Shock Doctrine Politics
• Naomi Klein: Trump is the First Fully Commercialized Global Brand to Serve as U.S. President
• Naomi Klein on Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders & Youth-Led Grassroots Progressive Insurgencies
• Naomi Klein: Climate Movement Is Growing Even More Ambitious as U.S. Goes Rogue & Exits Paris Accord
• "A Transformative Vision": Naomi Klein on Platforms for Racial, Health & Climate Justice Under Trump

Download this show

Democracy Now! 2017-06-14 Wednesday

• Headlines for June 14, 2017
• Jeff Sessions Said "I Don't Remember" or "I Don't Recall" 26 Times During Senate Intel Testimony
• Oliver Stone Interviews Putin on U.S.-Russia Relations, 2016 Election, Snowden, NATO & Nuclear Arms

Download this show

This event was recorded live at The RSA on Thursday 25th May 2017 If the preliminary polling is accurate, Jeremy Corbyn will be leading Labour to its biggest defeat since 1935, and Theresa May’s gamble for a firmer handle in Brexit negotiations will have paid off. Whilst the left is riven by ideological crisis, the Conservatives have seen off the populist far-right challengers and absorbed the excess. But does anyone outside the Westminster bubble really care about the minutiae? Life continues as usual for the majority of the British public, and even as austerity bites and Brexit regret lingers, many voters feel powerless to alter the status quo. Class is no longer the telltale political divider it once was, with the Conservatives attracting significant support from Labour’s heartlands. Disillusioned by the major parties and too pragmatic to invest in smaller ones, a huge proportion of the voting public is planning to let inertia lead the way. But what does this mean for the country? Will the Labour party recover from such a crushing defeat, and what will a Conservative victory mean in the years to come? And perhaps more importantly – how can we re-engage the public in democracy after it has lost so much faith in its processes? Discover more about this event here: https://www.thersa.org/events/2017/05/general-election-panel

Don Laub was a pioneering surgeon — one of the first in the U.S. to perform gender reassignment surgeries, but tragedy came when he traveled to Mexico to provide free surgeries to children.

(Image credit: Renee Klahr/NPR)

What began as an investigation into money laundering in Brazil quickly turned into something much greater, uncovering a vast and intricate web of political and corporate racketeering • Read the text version here

Behind the News, 6/8/17 - guests: Yasha Levine, Angela Nagle - Doug Henwood