We rebroadcast a show from October 17, 2019, which is just as timely today as it was when recorded. It focuses on the Democratic presidential campaign and what path it should take at this inflection point in history. The show considers Cory Booker’s speaking up for a return to original American values: building a democracy, more equality among all people, patriotic allegiance to what’s best for the country and not merely to how much money I can make for myself.
The show also examines the Party’s internal divides. Should it become more centrist — not offending anyone but also not changing the 30-year status quo very much — or should Democrats instead advocate policies that would reduce the inequalities in our society and their causes: the overwhelming power exercised by the wealthy 1% and the mega-corporations. Speaking out for significant changes in policy carries political risks but could well resonate with the vast swath of Americans who realize that they have not benefitted from Wall Street’s “recovery.”
Part One:
CORY BOOKER’S CAMPAIGN BASED ON LOVE FOR ALL HUMANS.
We speak with Christa Case Bryant, national political reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, about Cory Booker – his humanity and his campaign for President of the United States. Instead of focusing on the horrors of the Trump presidency – instead of complaining about certain parts of his fellow Democrats’ policy proposals — Booker conveys a message of hope, of respecting the humanity of every human being. He puts hate aside and gives us something to believe in, encouraging us to rise up and speak out in support of our common American values, values based in love and kindness, democracy and equality.
Every time Booker speaks, his audience perks up. They stop whatever they were doing and listen with rapt attention to his message. Perhaps that’s because he takes the “high road.” Perhaps it’s his charismatic delivery, reminding people of Martin Luther King, Jr. More likely, it’s because Booker’s message of love seems so authentic, rooted in the heart-rending experiences he witnessed while living in the most down-and-out section of Newark. Our guest recounts several times when Booker watched constituents die and tried to comfort their grieving families. He took it personally that he was unable to save everyone who needed his help.
The remaining question is why more voters don’t seem to flock to his candidacy. If they give him a standing ovation after hearing his inspiring eloquence, why don’t they tell pollsters that they support him (or donate money to his campaign)? To be sure, polls are flawed, especially so many months before any votes have been cast. And the media (corporate or otherwise) have great influence through their choices about whose message to amplify. Perhaps Ms. Bryant’s next article will examine this question.
Part Two:
DEMOCRATS DEBATE WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
We again welcome Bill Curry as our guest. He was twice the Democratic nominee for Governor of Connecticut and a White House advisor in Bill Clinton’s administration. We elaborate on some lessons from the Democratic presidential debate on October 15. It was the progressive candidates — Warren and Sanders — whose ideas were the dominant focus of the debate.
The candidates expressed either support for or opposition to the Warren-Sanders program, which seeks to achieve *systemic* changes in the government and in the Democratic Party. The progressives don’t want to simply push Trump out of office and return our country to the status quo as it existed before the 2016 election. Instead, they seek to restore a fair *balance of power* between the poor and the rich, between workers and employers, between ordinary people and the “elites” (sometimes referred to as the 1%).
Whatever one thinks about Pete Buttigieg’s skillful performance(s) on the debate stage, he has aligned himself with the centrist leaders of the Democratic Party. In addition to seeking big donor contributions, he, like Biden, Klobuchar and the other candidates, criticizes Warren and Sanders’s more progressive policies of system-change. They favor cautious incremental steps which, they assert, will make a big difference over time. They don’t explain how their incremental approach will actually succeed this time around, any more than it was succeeding over the last 50+ years. How could it possibly succeed, unless we eliminate dark money, corporate “capturing” of the agencies that are supposed to regulate them, and the dominance by one (or a few) mega-companies over the American (and world) economy?
We end with an in-depth discussion of the health care debate. How can we achieve our two goals: universal coverage of health care; and lowering the costs (both overall costs and the costs paid by people who can’t afford them)?
