#deval patrick

Oh man. My day was SUCH a whirlwind. It started with the opening rounds of Court Madness in APUSGOV: Roe v. Wade against New York Times Company v. United States (Roe, by one vote), Gideon v. Wainwright against Schenck v. United States (Schenck, by three votes). These debates over the cases’ significance were EPIC; I was so impressed with the work all the groups put in. They’re so fierce when they speak. 

I got to see that on display again, about two hours later, when they sat down with Deval Patrick for a Q&A. So, here’s the thing: I know candidates have tight schedules, so when their staffers ask me if such and such a time is all right for a visit, I just say yes and make it happen. In this case, it wasn’t difficult because Governor Patrick arrived at 10:00. Block 2 ends at 10:10, and then it’s flex time, so my APUSGOV students just had to leave their classes a smidge early and come to my classroom for flex. Of course, I have my own Block 2 students, but Mrs. T and Mr. F each took half of them once Governor Patrick’s advance staffer arrived (funny thing: I had the ninth graders tell this staffer, who’s probably thirty or so, what year they were born in because it’s so painful to folks who aren’t around the teenagers everyday, heh) so that I could straighten up the room and make sure everything was ready. 

The governor was really nice, and made a point to say hello to The Principal and all the office staff on the way into the school. Once he got to my classroom, he gave a quick speech about himself and then took questions about climate change, cap and trade, education, gun safety, prescription drug costs, partisan gridlock, and more... I’d told his staffers that I teach impressive kids, but they were still kind of blown away by the questions. So that was fun and awesome.

My Block 4 World class was so low-key by comparison. I defined vocab words- student choice words, this time- and the boys in class decided these were excellent words. They told me so after I’d defined them. The words:

Ardent

Fastidious

Capricious

Amenable

Misnomer

Ubiquitous

Frivolous

Zeal

Divergent

Malleable

Indigenous

Precarious

Obfuscate

Scintilla

Divulge

Capitulate

Insouciant

Equanimity

Diaspora

Cognizant

In other words, there are quite substantive reasons why a leftist might not trust any of those candidates. The probably accurate perception that all three candidates are being groomed by the same big-money donors that clustered around Hillary Clinton will only deepen the divide, because it suggests that — like pro-union rules, or the public option in ObamaCare — any adoption of Sanders-style proposals are mostly bait to be cast aside when it comes time to actually pass something.

If they want to win over the left — and Harris, who has expressed at least mild support for tuition-free public college (for families with income less than $140,000), a $15 minimum wage, expanded Social Security, and Medicare for all, would probably be the most credible person to attempt this — they need to first explain their recent history.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, they need to make a symbolic rhetorical break with the despised donor class. The left generally likes Elizabeth Warren because she ferociously criticizes Wall Street and corporate abuse. Adopting a harsh anti-economic elite line will reassure young Sanders Democrats that anti-establishment policies aren't just window dressing. Meanwhile, steps like refusing to take PAC money and running mostly on small donors will signal independence from the donor class (and as Sanders discovered, might actually lead to a gusher of campaign cash).

But if they just want to have a retread of the 2015-16 primary, the center could just try to win dirty. The left, they might say (working hand-in-glove with sympathetic columnists), just doesn't like minority or female candidates because they are racist and sexist.

I would bet quite a lot of money the centrist Democratic establishment will opt for the latter strategy. Indeed, some are already doing so — like Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, elite Democrats' in-house think tank.

I think the author (who happens to be a white guy) is arguing in terrible faith and is discounting serious racism out of a sense of Berniebro tribalism. I also don’t think he’s allowed to “own” leftism like he goes on to argue. I don’t think of myself as a centrist, I’m a leftist, I hate Wall Street and want to dismantle capitalism too, but I also want to GET THINGS DONE IN THE PRESENT and to do that, we have to move the Overton window gradually. I’m perfectly fine voting for someone who sleeps on Wall Street’s couch as opposed to sleeping in their bed.

The author’s also practically yelling “IDPOL” at people like Neera Tanden (who happens to not be white, hmm). And that also pisses me off, because aside from any moral argument for selecting a Black candidate like Harris, Booker, or Patrick, there’s a major pragmatic reason: Black candidates with at least a decent connection to the African-American community will increase African-American turnout, and African-Americans are the bedrock of the Democratic party. You can call that identity politics if you want, but it’s the same identity politics that gets white candidates elected by white people.

(Democratic Black candidates also send Republicans into conniption fits, and when they’re enraged they tend to make more mistakes, which is good for us).