Published on

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

by

BillMoyers.com

The Brexit Raises a New Issue For Hillary Clinton: The Democracy Deficit

Focusing on immigration and trade fails to grasp the larger challenge posed by populist insurgencies worldwide.

by

Adam Eichen

What the UK's stunning decision to exit the European Union says about US politics should be read in terms of the larger question of democracy, not just immigration and trade. (Photo: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images)

How the (not so) United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union affects US politics is now a hot topic.

Some suggest that the “Brexit” is a sign that an anti-immigration voter backlash is coming to the US. Others, like CNN pundit Van Jones, go so far as to suggest that the UK proved Donald Trump could win.

Attempting to calm potential panic, Hillary Clinton’s campaign advisers told The New York Times there is little to fear from the Brexit campaign’s success, assuring supporters that the political circumstances of the two countries are “very different.” The advisers claim no need to alter communications strategy on topics such as immigration and trade — two of the central topics in the UK referendum campaign.

Clinton’s advisers are correct on the details but seem to be missing the bigger picture.

It’s true that in the US, immigration, for all the passion it arouses, is viewed far more favorably than in the UK. Recent polls show a majority of Americans have a favorable view of immigrants and 43 percent of US voters want less immigration. This is drastically different than the 78 percent of UK voters who wanted limits on the number of people moving to the UK from the EU.

There is another, larger and less-discussed lesson from the Brexit to which Clinton’s staff would be wise to pay attention: the democratic deficit.

Clinton must take rising xenophobia seriously, but immigration-related fear cannot alone make Trump president.

While it’s an open question whether Clinton’s economic platform will appeal to displaced workers (many of whom feel they were displaced by trade policies championed by her husband), there is another, larger and less-discussed lesson from the Brexit to which Clinton’s staff would be wise to pay attention: the “democratic deficit.”

The democratic deficit — or unrepresentative aspects of political institutions — has long plagued the European Union. It leads many to call the institution “technocratic,” “elitist” and “unaccountable.”

In the case of the EU, the democratic deficit stems from elections limited to only one branch of the institution, perceived lack of transparency and overly complex governing structures.

Millions across Europe claim EU institutions do not sufficiently represent their will. This sentiment is particularly strong in the UK, where a recent report showed that 74 percent of UK citizens do not feel their voices are heard by the EU.

Perceived powerlessness in the face of a multinational institution inevitably leads to resentment and estrangement. Such institutional alienation likely served as a base off which other feelings, like anti-immigration and economic resentment, mobilized in the Brexit vote.

The democratic deficit is hardly an isolated phenomenon. The US suffers from it, too.

US voters increasingly feel their voices are not heard in the political process. 

A 2015 New York Times/CBS poll showed the supermajority of voters believe the wealthy have disproportional influence in American politics. This feeling is not misplaced; the vast majority of voters are indeed politically powerless.

Resentment resulting from this deficit is also apparent in the US. The 2016 insurgent campaigns of Trump and Bernie Sanders have proven democratic alienation is enough to disrupt and potentially fracture existing US political-party arrangements.

Both Sanders and Trump attracted disaffected voters by attacking the US political system as one bought by special interests. Trump attacked his GOP primary opponents for courting Koch money and touted his self-financed campaign as evidence that he could not be bought. Sanders accepted only small campaign contributions and decried corporate influence in elections.

Voters are angry and rightfully so. And despite claims by her advisers that everything is fine, Clinton has not yet done enough to address these concerns.

While her policy platform on democracy reform is strong — virtually identical to that of Sanders — she has failed to make the democratic deficit and her plan to fix it central to her campaign.

To avoid a Brexit-like backlash, Clinton must work significantly harder to convince the American people she stands with them, not above them. And she must reinvigorate the belief in collective and personal agency to shape the country’s future.

This means taking seriously the American public’s feelings of alienation and powerlessness — particularly concerning the wealthy buying political influence. Toward this end, she should continue to embrace reforms like publicly financed elections to present a concrete and realizable route to political empowerment.

Fortunately for Clinton, she is well-positioned to be a champion on this issue.

First, the Democratic Party finally seems to be warming to the idea of campaign-finance reform. All three of the party’s major candidates for president had strong, comprehensive plans to address the democracy deficit.

Second, Sanders proved focusing on money in politics mobilizes and expands the Democratic base. This alone should serve as enough of an incentive for the Clinton campaign.

Third, Clinton can afford to irk Wall Street: Her unprecedented fundraising advantage over Trump would be a sufficient buffer to counter any financial retribution. Moreover, as former Bush administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson underscored over the weekend, there are strong signals that Wall Street would prefer stability under Clinton than the unpredictability of Trump.

The burden of cleaning up the democratic mess — one created by generations of men — falls upon the nation’s first female presidential nominee.

Lastly, Trump is quickly losing his claim as a reformer. To date, he has not endorsed meaningful policy to fix the democratic deficit — making his claim as a reformer fallible. Trump also has started to court large donations for the general election — completely destroying the moral high ground he claimed for not taking corporate donations during the nomination fight. That opens the door for Clinton to use the democracy deficit effectively in the upcoming debates.

In some respects, it may not be fair that the burden of cleaning up the democratic mess — one created by generations of men — falls upon the nation’s first female presidential nominee. Nevertheless, it’s gradually becoming clear the timing and circumstances may make it Clinton’s job.

The Brexit serves as a reminder, though: Should Clinton fully embrace fixing democracy, she must be ready to make good on any promises she makes. If not, the crisis of institutional legitimacy and potential for backlash will only grow larger — just as it did in the UK.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License.

Adam Eichen is a member of the Democracy Matters Board of Directors and a Maguire Fellow at the French research institute Sciences Po, doing research on comparative campaign finance policy. He served as the deputy communications director for Democracy Spring.

Beware of False Progressive Scams Taking Your Money and Shaping Your Opinions

Two articles --


"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

Beware The Emails From Political Scam Artists-- On Both Sides Of The Aisle

Are you ready for the frenzy? The end-of-the-year DCCC e-mail craziness has already begun-- and not just from the rancid organization itself, but from it's rancid candidates, its rancid allies and it's rancid front groups like the toxic twins, "Progressive Turnout Project" and "End Citizens United," self-enrichment schemes for corrupt ex-DCCC staff, particularly the crooked DCCC hacks at Mothership Strategies Greg Berlin, Jake Lipsett, and Charles Starnes. On their website they boast of having made the notorious online scam operation for right-wing Democrats, End Citizens United "one of the most powerful voices in Democratic politics in 2016. What started as just an online presence is now poised to make a major impact in the 2016 Election."

EndCitizensUnited alone has sucked over $5 million dollars out of grassroots progressives who are unaware that their money is going straight into the pockets of self-serving profiteers and-- if there's anything left over-- to anti-progressive candidates posing as real Democrats. One of the most successful and sought after Democratic political operatives, who knows Mothership well, told us this morning that the firm "is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the Beltway. A few hacks who think their cozy relationships with equally lackluster staffers at the party institutions makes them political geniues, is how one would describe most any firm in DC. The good online firms-- like Revolution, which is doing Bernie's campaign-- actually use their intelligence and creativity to inspire people to donate and become engaged. The rest just use their relationships to cut corners so they don't have to do any hard work. All the while, they diminish the returns from grassroots campaign activities for actual progressive candidates."

Last April, just before Motherships' EndCitizenUnited scam was causing concern among progressives nationally, Michael Whitney, a reputable progressive strategist penned a related article about the DCCC and DSCC for The Nation, Why Are Political Groups Pretending To Be Debt Collectors?. He wrote that he "was in charge of e-mail advocacy for the blog Firedoglake, and it was part of my job to get people to open e-mails, sign petitions, and make donations to support our work. I thought using 'Final notice' would get more people to notice the pitch, which began 'This is your final notice to sign our emergency petition to progressive Members of Congress…' 

Unfortunately, it appears I was among the first in the political advocacy world to employ that deception, and today the tactic is increasingly common. Recently, I woke up to an e-mail from an address that began FINAL-NOTICE, and the subject line was “AUTO-CONFIRM: [M. Whitney (3/31/2015)].” It wasn’t from my bank, but rather the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The DCCC and the House Majority PAC (a group also working to elect Democrats to Congress) are probably the two biggest offenders when it comes to faux-debt collection fundraising pitches, but they are not alone. The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee also sends similar e-mails, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Republican party, and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund have all tried it in the recent past.

...I get that political e-mail fundraising has taken on an even more frenzied, gimmicky, and desperate approach than ever before, as the need for cash becomes increasingly important in politics, and as more and more campaigns are competing for inbox attention.

But these pitches are different, and dangerous. They bank on fear: that the recipient missed a payment; that they’re behind on bills; that their power will be cut.

Most e-mails in this genre follow a similar formula. They feature phrases like “NOTICE: [CANCELLATION]” and “FINAL NOTICE.” Some might use an official-sounding beginning of an e-mail address (like SECOND.NOTICE@, or accounting-dept@). In the body of the e-mail there is sometimes more deceptive language, like “you are officially on notice” or “imminent cancellation.”

...I have to wonder if even a moment of panic that something is wrong with your personal finances is irresponsible-- and even predatory-- especially in times of financial malaise.

People struggling with debt are at least twice as likely to have mental health problems, including 29 percent of people with “high stress debt” who have severe anxiety, according to a study from the University of Nottingham. Seeing an e-mail screaming “on notice” or “imminent cancellation” could be an anxiety-provoking event for some people. Anyone who has struggled to pay the bills, even temporarily, knows the dread of opening the mail to find increasingly urgent notices from banks, utility companies, or student lenders.

...This is something fundraising professionals ought to consider going forward. The increased volume of e-mail that people receive has dramatically grown a culture of “optimization,” in the industry, which means making tweaks and changes to e-mails that can see a lift in fundraising numbers even if by a few percentage points. These changes can include different color buttons, mobile-friendly e-mail wrappers, or bigger fonts. Debt-scare e-mails probably achieve a decent bump too, but at what cost?

Aside from potentially turning off recipients, there could be political consequences as well. The College Republicans caught heat in 2004 for a deceptive direct mail program that asked senior citizens to donate to “Republican Headquarters,” while failing to mention aside from a small font at the bottom of a letter that the college group wasn’t affiliated with the actual Republican party.

There hasn’t yet been similar blowback to phony debt collection pitches-- not yet anyway. Maybe it’s coming. But for me, it’s a line that I crossed once, and that I will never cross again.

He wrote that 8 months ago. And there has been tremendous blowback, not just for organizations like the DCCC but also for the scam front groups they set up like "EndCitizensUnited" and "Progressive Turnout Project," which works-- as far as it works at all-- to elect Schumercrats like Patrick Murphy, Tammy Duckworth, Ann Kirkpatrick to the Senate-- and craven right-wing New Dems and Blue Dogs like Kyrsten Sinema, Ann Kuster, Brad Schneider, Cheri Bustos, Ami Bera, and Pete Aguilar. They sprinkle in a few names of recognizable progressives like Russ Feingold and Carol Shea-Porter to hoodwink into casual readers into thinking it's a progressive list. Almost all the incumbents on it are dreadful with excruciating records of supporting the Republican agenda.

So what should a good fundraising e-mail look like? Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren send them out all the time. They're rational, entertaining and informative and I'm always happy when I see first-time candidates-- like Alex Law in New Jersey-- using them as models, instead of the Steve Israel models that turn people off so badly and "burn the lists," very much Israel's intention. Today though, I received a fundraising e-mail from Milwaukee Congresswoman Gwen Moore, not for herself, but for her Maryland colleague, Donna Edwards. It was very effective, getting right to some salient points about why Edwards merits serious consideration: "It's been 23 years since the first and only African American woman was elected to the United States Senate... You're saying that it's time to have another woman in the Senate who understands what it's like to to fight for pay for equal work. Not because she read about it, but because she's lived it as a woman of color in the workplace. Donna's ready to take on the old boys' club, establishment, and special interests... I've worked closely with Donna to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, tackle income inequality, and stand up to the special interests that try to dismantle the middle class and hurt our most vulnerable. And now she's ready to take that fight to the Senate and continue the legacy of women's leadership and progressive spirit that Sen. Mikulski's built in Maryland." If you feel at all inspired and want your contribution to be meaningful, send it directly to Donna's campaign, not the the scam artists and Schumercrats from the DSCC!





UPDATE

There probably are few campaigns as inherently dishonest and manipulative as "ex"-Republican Patrick Murphy's attempt to defeat Alan Grayson in the Florida Democratic primary. And, predictably, his barrage of e-mails has every bad trait that's ever been invented to deceive and cheat. This morning a friend of mine, "Peter," forwarded me an e-mail he got from Schumercrat Patrick Murphy with his own note: "The old matching program bullshit. Tells you what kind of Senator he'd be if he deceives like this for money in the campaign." 

We have a chance, Peter.

The National Journal ranked Marco Rubio’s Senate seat fourth as one of the most likely to flip parties in 2016.

That means we have a chance to grab it,  but this race is competitive. We cannot afford to miss one fundraising goal and we have our last end-of-quarter goal in 24 hours.

This is our most important goal of the year-- and, right now-- we’re behind. We’ve started a matching program for our most active supporters.

Peter-- you’ve qualified for our matching program. But this offer won’t last for long. If you give before midnight on the 31st, your gift will be doubled and so will your impact.

Can you give $5 or more before 12/31? Your gift will be matched.

I know the holidays aren’t over, and this is probably still a busy time for you. But we’ve already had a glimpse of what conservative special interest groups are plotting for next year, and it isn’t pretty.

Before the National Journal list even came out, a SuperPAC decided to attack me with a video distorting my record and cheaply attempting to play upon Americans’ fear of terrorism.

They’ll try anything to get ahead and make sure Democrats don’t regain majority control of the Senate.

The only way to silence them is with grassroots support like yours. I need you to maximize your impact by giving what you can today. We’ll double your donation to make sure we keep momentum on our side.

Thank you,

Patrick

Labels: DCCC, Donna Edwards, DSCC, fundraising, Mothership,Schumercrats

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

TUESDAY, JULY 07, 2015

Is EndCitizensUnited.org A Scam?

Getting unlimited, barely regulated Big Money out of electoral politics-- overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United corporate-personhood decision-- has become a holy grail of progressive politics. And rightfully, fundamentally so. Bernie Sanders, the only actual progressive running for president, said in May that "if elected I will have a litmus test of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice. And that nominee will say, we are going to overturn this disastrous decision on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American democracy." In January he filed a constitutional amendment that would overturn the decision. Even the corporate Democrat running for president, Hillary Clinton, says she opposes Citizens United.

On March 1 an organization dedicated to overturning the decision was launched with claims of being a grassroots effort, EndCitizensUnited.org. They define their tactical mission as making

a big splash in 2016 election. We plan to support Democrats in key races who are in favor of meaningful reform to our campaign finance system and who will stand up against Citizens United. We also will stand up for candidates who are under attack by the Koch Brothers and related dark money groups. Why Democrats? Democrats are leading the fight against Citizens United, and we believe meaningful change can happen with their leadership. Even though many Republican and Independent voters agree that undisclosed political spending is out of control, Republican leadership in Congress is standing squarely in the way of overturning this disastrous Supreme Court decision. It has to stop. So we will do what we can to support candidates who are champions for meaningful campaign finance reform.

They list both the DCCC and the DSCC as institutional supporters, and the organization is run by a former Obama operative from Texas, Jessica Adair. Over the 4th of July weekend, Adair sent out a fundraising e-mail to progressives, including people who had never signed up to get e-mails from the organization. The e-mail read suspiciously like the kind of garbage e-mails the DCCC and DSCC flood everyone's inboxes with. "Did you miss this, Howard?," it began. "On Thursday, we announced End Citizen United PAC's FIRST round of endorsements. Can you chip in $12 or more right now directly to their campaigns?" And then she thanked me for my supposed past support-- an assumption at best, but more likely a manipulative tactic. 

THANK YOU HOWARD!

It’s hard to believe how big this organization has grown-- more than 8OO,OOO people dedicated to ending Citizens United.

Thanks to your incredible support, we’re now in a position to start making waves by supporting candidates who are champions of campaign finance reform. I’m proud to announce our first endorsements:

...Please consider a donation of $36 directly to these champions of campaign finance reform... Thank you for everything you’ve done to help this organization grow and thrive.

The e-mail smelled to high heaven, and the more I looked into the group, the less grassroots or progressive credibility I found. Its website looks like a phishing operation to collect e-mail addresses for partisan Democratic Party operations like the aforementioned DCCC and DSCC. The website's domain registration is hidden from the public-- very suspicious for a "grassroots organization." It smells like a scam, a New Dem/Blue Dog/DCCC scam using Russ Feingold as bait to lure naive, uninformed progressives into sending unaccountable cash.

I hit reply and sent them an e-mail about their list of endorsees, 9 out of 11 of whom are grotesque DINOs who have spent their time in Congress crossing the aisle and voting with the Republicans-- Blue Dog shitheads like Kyrsten Sinema and Cheri Bustos and utterly worthless New Dems like Pete Aguilar, Scott Peters, Ann Kuster and Ami Bera. And the only senator on the list is DSCC chair Michael Bennet, one of the worst Democrats in that body. Stinky!

The reply was an automated plea for money, typical of what one would expect from grifters. Beware.


[Note: the only candidates this outfit has endorsed who deserve progressive support are Russ Feingold, running to regain his old Wisconsin Senate seat, and Minnesota 8th District Congressman Rick Nolan, two of the only progressives supported by the DCCC and DSCC.] And now, predictably, these scammers have also endorsed "ex"-Republican-- and no friend of reform-- Patrick Murphy, a right-of-center and über-corrupt Florida New Dem.

Labels: Citizens United