It is all about voting for the future

imgresFor the first time ever I watched the majority of speeches at the Democratic Convention.   There have been times over the course of my life that being a Democrat felt like I was rooting for a sports team that always stumbles.  It is insanely frustrating.  They know the plays but someone they can’t get it together.

What struck me about the convention was how well executed it was.  You knew where they all stood after the last speech was heard.  They are about embracing all walks of life and more important they are the party for the future. We heard about children and families over and over again.  Our children are our future and we should vote with them in mind.

Tom Friedman wrote an editorial that summed it up for me, Web People vs Wall People.  The wall people are people who fear change.  They have made money on businesses that will not be part of our future, such as coal.  They are pissed off that their jobs are being threatened by immigrants and technology.  They want to stop change.  They want their children’s lives to be just like theirs but we all know they will not be.  The winds of change have already pulled out of the gate.

When I think about the Web People, Elon Musk comes to mind.  I see him touting the Hyperloop with a huge smile on his face.  He is thinking about moving us into the future every single day.  Web People are thinking ahead.  They understand that technology is transforming transportation, the workplace, climate change, entrepreneurship and every day we are becoming a flatter world.

I am not so sure that this race is about the rival policies of Democrats and Republicans as much as it is about someone who can lead us where we are going, who embraces the webs of change, who sees where the future is going to be and can put structure into place that will help us move in that direction not set us back with fear of moving forward.

Charles Blow of the NY Times wrote this on Monday.  I couldn’t agree more.  Even though Trump is a blustering buffoon, he speaks to a fear in America, particularly white America, among those with low levels of education, who work with their hands and sweat through their shirts. It is a fear of a future in which threats are global; in which the culture and complexion of the country are changing; and in which power and privilege are shrinking. They want protection from it. They want to erect a wall between them and that future.

Comments (Archived):

  1. Erin

    Which is why I’m so fascinated by Downton Abbey. I feel like it’s a great study on one aristocratic English family hustling to keep up with the changing times after World War I. They got a beat on the crumbling of the class system that kept them in power over their tenants and started moving in step with the times, whereas their colleagues in the king’s court didn’t act fast enough and lost their great houses and their fortunes. I hope the show’s wild popularity on both sides of the ocean mean at least a few people will understand it as a cautionary tale.

    1. Gotham Gal

      Interesting. Never saw it but makes total sense.

  2. pointsnfigures

    Not a supporter of Trump-but he is speaking to another fear that no one on the left seems to understand. Fear of Big Government.

    1. Gotham Gal

      Interesting and uneducated.

      1. pointsnfigures

        I am hardly uneducated. I am not a fan of Trump, but I fear Big Govt. When the EPA won’t allow you to build a simple footbridge on your land to cross a creek, when you can’t get a 50k loan from a bank because the paperwork is too expensive due to regulation by Dodd-Frank, when single minded bureaucrats are making decisions for us all-it’s time to be scared. When governments (like Chicago’s) use the taxpayers as an ATM, it is scary. Bernie tapped into the fear on the Democratic side but had zero chance from the beginning because of the Super Delegate system. Trump tapped into the fear and articulated it in a way no other Republican candidate could and upended the party. GOPe also didn’t like all the blue collar voters coming in. But, GOPe likes Big Govt-as long as they control it.

        1. P Donohue

          RE: BIG governmentFirst, let us not forget that this is the USA, a democratic republic of the people. That means we can shape it and more importantly are it. We are the government.The United State of America is the first experiment in crowd sourcing. Unfortunately, that requires an educated electorate. So we failed to get the full advantage of crowd sourcing, by ensuring that the working class did/does not get a great education.Furthermore, the intrusion of business entities, legally recognized as people, with full rights as such, has tilted the playing field in favor of one portion of society over another, resulting in a very narrow group having unfettered access to elected representatives. Money, as a result, has polluted the process. Thus, a vast number of laws are crafted by special interests that elected officials vote on not even having read them. I have experience with this first hand and it is disturbing knowing that this happens all the time.So, the first step is to get money out of the election process, limiting contributions to fixed amounts from a fixed pool of money evenly distributed. Elections need to be about ideas and not emotions and qualified intelligent people running. Maybe we should draft of elected representatives as we do the military to ensure the best.There is no simple answer, but the first step is get the money out.

          1. Gotham Gal

            the money is absolutely absurd.

          2. pointsnfigures

            On the education part-it’s a regulated bureaucracy. Institutionalized. Why not blow it up with school choice and vouchers in order to make it better?On the businesses-corporations have always been seen as individuals under the eyes of the law. I am okay with them donating to political campaigns as long as it’s totally transparent-and in front of their shareholders. This is also an argument for smaller government-per George Stigler’s research that the larger the government, the more corporations will lobby it to get competitive advantage.Instead of limiting amounts-we ought to have UNlimited amounts that are searchable in a database. End PACs. If George Soros and the Koch Bros want to donate-they donate under their name. No bundling. Transparency. Only individual contributions (this also means unions and corporations can only donate out of their cash-not their members or employees) Sometimes solutions to problems are counterintuitive.

          3. P Donohue

            Unlimited amounts? What do you think we have now? Wealth has near absolute power as it is. Currently, we live in a benevolent oligarchy. Obviously, that idea appeals to you.Years ago, I worked at the legislative end and watched the money with the bespoke suits and $1,000.00 shoes walk right past those waiting with an appointment to see their elected representative and into his office like they owned the place. At first I had to physically stop them. Then they left only to enter through an unmarked private doorway down the hall. They owned the place and were very open about it. It happens all the time.I donate money to my elected representatives, more than most. Enough to have them call me back. It was about a bill that was scheduled for a floor vote right after the oath of office on the very first day of a new congress, without any debate it came up, and narrowly did not pass.Ami Berra told me why he voted for it. Basically, it was because his man in charge of fund raising told him that he should. Soon I discovered he had no idea what he was voting on, none, zero. I tried to educate him on the bill and even offered to have a Senator knowledgeable on the subject make a staffer available to consult with him prior to the next vote in 48 hours. He basically placated me saying “Watch how I vote, I promise I won’t vote for it.” and 48 hours later he did vote for it. The bill was pushed without any floor talk, not a word. Again it lost by a hair, but kind of thing is wrong and is what unlimited money does to the system.The money needs to get out, period.All money needs to go into one pot and be divided equally among the players. That way there is no gaming the system. People will need to debate ideas and be held to a standard of behavior and decorum in the process. If candidates can’t present their thoughts in a cogent manner that’s too bad. Because, they are applying for the job of “law maker” not “feeling maker”.Right now in the Senate and Congress, campaign money can follow the lawmaker out of office and into a nonprofit “Foundation” that the former lawmaker works for as basically CEO or whatever. They can hire family or whoever or it can be just them. They all do it.We need to get rid of that too.

          4. pointsnfigures

            No way to make everything “equal”. Your equal might be different than my equal

          5. P Donohue

            Each human citizen of the United States of America should have equal access and voice in the political arena. That is the way it was set up originally, except for slaves and women. But we changed that and now slavery is illegal and women can vote.

          6. pointsnfigures

            And they do. If you are 18 and register, you can vote. I’d prefer that people have to identify themselves to vote. I really like the Electoral College process too.

          7. Gotham Gal


          8. P Donohue

            “On the businesses-corporations have always been seen as individuals under the eyes of the law.”In the USA this is not true. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that they got their foot in the door. The founding fathers had no intention that it should be that way due to their experience with the East India Company (EIC). For it was the collision of EIC and the British government that lead to the “Tea Act”. The Tea Act was designed by Parliament specifically to help the EIC unload the millions of pounds of unsold tea in its English warehouses. The Americas were the designated recipients (like it or not) of the surplus tea. Thus the original Tea Party and the spark that lit the Revolution. Consequently, the founding fathers had no stomach for a cosy relationship between corporations and government.Then came the next blow to democracy: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 It is a very controversial.Then came Buckley v. Valeo, followed by the fateful Citizens United decision by SCOTUS.So, though corporations have been seen as individuals or entities unto themselves, they were not considered to have the same rights as human beings that were citizens of the USA with all the same rights and privileges until Citizen’s United.Now we need a Constitutional Amendment to fix that or we will become like Brazil in 15 years.

          9. JLM

            .Whoa, for a second I thought I was in “corporations” class. Well done.The Citizens United case was decided correctly on the law and the Constitution.What is needed is wholesale campaign and campaign funding reform.1. Mutual disarmament — unions, corporations, PACs, super PACs, billionaires. Everybody is out of the game. [I notice whenever libs are talking campaign fundraising reform, they never mention the unions. A serious flaw.]2. Lower campaign costs by providing a more robust and intellectually inquisitive series of presentations and debates. No more of this silly 90 second “gotcha” sound bite nonsense. Give each candidate an hour per week to present his views on a series of ten topics/issues. Let the candidates select their own issues but announce them.3. After the presentations, a series of debates in which candidates get 15 minutes to discuss and rebut the other candidates’ presentations. No MSM questioners (who thinks any of these folks are impartial?).4. Couple of town hall meetings with random citizen attendees by population segment — veterans, gray hairs, workers, professionals, medical, millenials (have the town hall in a safe place), racial, college kids. Written questions before the town hall meeting. No ringers.5. A limited time to campaign — say 90 days — and no TV ads (yeah, I know all about the First Amendment, that’s going to be difficult).6. Make the MSM go back to “reporting” the news and not “making” the news.I recognize this may take some doing but, hell, we’ve been at it for more than 200 years, right? We can invest some time. How long did it take to agree on the Constitution? [Trick question.]JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  3. panterosa,

    In business school companies are either Exploitative or Explorative, and in Ed it’s called the Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset. Both synchronous with the political Wall v Web analogy. They all need to adjust together.

  4. AMT Editorial Staff

    Nice perspective GG. Like the Elon example. It is illustrative. But wonder about increasing entitlements & size of government.