Can Progressivism Survive in Wisconsin?

For the first time since Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale in Wisconsin in the 1984 Presidential election, the state went red.

How could that happen?  It’s simple arithmetic: lack of voter turnout.

Hillary Clinton could have easily won the Badger State if those voters who could be expected to favor her had turned out.  She lost by only 27,000 votes out of the 2.94 million cast, less than a percentage point.

Now here is the shocking story:  Voter participation in Wisconsin was down by almost 124,000 in the state, compared with 2012.  Turnout was 66.2%, the lowest since 1996.

election-photoHillary Clinton suffered severely from the low turnout.  She received 239,000 fewer votes than President Obama did in 2012, while Trump garnered only 1,500 more than Mitt Romney did.  (There were 150,000 votes for third party candidates; likely most of those voters went for President Obama four years ago.)  Read more.

*****

Why did potential Hillary voters not show up at the polls?  Here are some theories:

Restrictive voter laws.  The Republican-passed voter ID laws were specifically designed to discourage low-income voters, mainly minorities.  The voter suppression strategy may have worked; there were 62,000 fewer voters in minority-rich Milwaukee County, with Hillary’s totals about 40,000 short of Obama’s in 2012.

Over-confidence toward a Hillary win.  Polls leading up to the election showed her winning Wisconsin by four to six percentage points; thus voters who faced inconvenient work schedules, child care issues or other conflicts may not have taken time to vote.  The cutback of early voting hours – by GOP-supported state laws – may have added to the problem.

Lack of enthusiasm for Secretary Clinton.  No doubt the thirty years of constant attacks on Clinton’s trustfulness, whether warranted or not, helped to build voter doubts.  Trump repeatedly called her “liar” and encouraged his crowds to yell “lock her up;” that helped to reinforce in many voters’ minds a most repulsive (though grossly  wrong) image of her.

The Bernie effect.  Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary Clinton in the April Wisconsin primary.  Most of his supporters, we’re sure, heeded Sanders’ call to support Hillary in the general election, but enough found their bright illusions so dimmed that when Bernie failed to get the nomination they either stayed away from voting, cast a third party ballot or failed to get involved.

Secretary Clinton failed to campaign in Wisconsin.  Though several Clinton surrogates showed up, especially Chelsea and VP Candidate Tim Kaine, they could never garner the attention that the candidate herself could have.  A reprise of the Clinton campaign strategy tells us that Bill Clinton strongly urged greater concentration on the white working class voter, but was overruled by Hillary’s campaign bosses.

A weakened Democratic Party effort.  There’s no question that Wisconsin Democrats have become impoverished since 2010.  With the redistricting forced upon the state by the Republican-controlled legislature, most legislative districts have become gerrymandered so severely that Democratic candidates stand no chance; thus the party withers in those sixty or so largely rural counties and never seek to get Democrats on the ballot.  Lack of down-ballot candidates, even in GOP-trending areas, will cut into Democratic votes at the top of the ticket.

A smaller labor movement.  The impact of the 2011 passage of Act 10 ending collective bargaining rights for public employee unions and the 2015 enactment of so-called right-to-work laws was truly felt in this election.  The labor movement (traditional Democratic party allies) has lost so much membership that the state’s level of unionization has fallen below that of Alabama’s.  The result: there were fewer members to encourage to vote for progressive candidates and fewer numbers available to make phone calls, talk it up at the workplace and do door-to-door canvassing.

The impact of these seven factors, plus others not listed here, combined to make a perfect storm to bring about Secretary Clinton’s defeat.  Some of them also affected Russ Feingold’s effort to unseat Republican Senator Ron Johnson.

*****

No one is quite certain just what President-elect Trump will do, or how much he will be able to accomplish.  To progressives everywhere, the prospects are scary.

In Wisconsin, however, it is certain what will happen; it can only be worse for working people, the poor and minorities.  There will be attempts to weaken labor even more, there will be no increase in the minimum wage, there will be cutbacks in life-supporting assistance such as food share and Title 19, and weakening of the health care system.  All that was promised on the day after the election by Republican leaders of the state.  Read more

The 2016 election is behind us and the question is: what do we do now?

First, what we don’t do is to sit on the sidelines in despair, fretting as we watch the Packers blunder through another season, perhaps awaiting a Aaron Rodgers “Hail Mary” to miraculously bring joy to us cheeseheads.

Secondly, what we must do is to stay alert to every action being planned by the legislature, continuing to question issues with whatever strategy that seems to work, whether it is to storm the Capitol with masses of protesters, to write letters to the editor (or to tweet) or to plan for next election.

Thirdly, we must figure out how to rebuild a progressive movement in Wisconsin.  The possibilities include revitalizing the Democratic Party, working through such groups as Citizen Action, Move On, and Wisconsin Now or by building a whole new movement.

To regain Wisconsin, progressives have to figure out how to win in the rural counties; it means reaching out to a heavily white population, while not losing touch with the minorities that are part of the heart and soul of the progressive movement.  Trump won 59 of the 71 counties, and that ratio needs to be reduced somehow.  The state built its now-fading progressive nature on the old La Follette coalition of organized labor, big-city Socialists and rural Progressive Republicans.

This won’t be easy, but it’s necessary to save the state from being destroyed by a single party dictatorship that threatens to make its citizens among the poorest in the nation.  Ken Germanson, Nov. 10, 2016

Democracy for the Elites

The signs are unmistakable: the United States is sliding more and more deeply into a caste system, not much unlike the Indian system that created a caste of “untouchables.”

An untouchable was unlikely to ever climb out of the hole into which society placed him or her.

Now, this blessed nation which became great during the first 80 years of the last century as it become more and more egalitarian is morphing into a Third World society where the wealthy and favored live in posh gated communities, surrounded by the makeshift houses of everyone else.

Perhaps that is an overblown conclusion; yet I can’t resist thinking such a picture may be in our nation’s future.

It is not only that the wage gap has been growing, sinking more and more families into seemingly hopeless monetary holes, but so has what I choose to call the “Democracy Gap.”

Just the other day, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law and ruled the law could go into effect for the Nov. 4th election in which Republican Gov. Scott Walker is in a neck-to-neck race with Democrat Mary Burke. Never mind that there likely will be glitches and costs rising from such a quick implementation of the law nor that there has been no major evidence of voter ID violations anywhere, the Court ruled the law could go ahead.

The real impact of the law will NOT be to stop voter fraud, but it will be to disenfranchise some 330,000 Wisconsinites who have no drivers’ licenses or other authorized forms of picture ID. To get them, they’ll have to locate birth certificates – or more likely write to county clerks in their home states and pay up to $20 for a certificate, which can be a bureaucratic morass for some folks, even if they can come up with the money.

(Quick aside: Presumably the law provides some relief for those who have trouble finding the money, particularly if they were born in the state of Wisconsin, but we question the machinery needed to do the checking as required can be set up to work smoothly less than two months before the election.)

Is it not obvious that the principle purpose of this law was to take away the vote of our poorer citizens, most of whom would likely vote Democratic?

Why the three-judge panel of judges failed to see this confounds me. Certainly these bright and learned people could sift through the evidence to see the truth, even if they were Republican appointees. Weren’t they sworn in to be impartial?

Who were these beacons of legal jurisprudence? Chief Judge Frank A. Easterbrook, who wrote the decision, was appointed by President Reagan, being confirmed only reluctantly after the American Bar Association gave him a low rating. Judge Diane S. Sykes, appointed by George W. Bush, is divorced from notorious Rightwing radio talker Charlie Sykes in Milwaukee but appears not to be separated from his ideas, and John Daniel Tinker, of Indianapolis.

Nothing in their backgrounds indicate they have the least bit of understanding of what it is to live on the edge of society, where people often have to choose whether to pay the rent to avoid eviction, to pay the utility bill to keep the lights on or to buy gas in order to get to their minimum wage jobs in the burbs.

This decision – whether it ultimately stands or not – is indicative of the trend that is creating a democracy gap that is forever heading to putting many Americans into the bottom rungs of a permanent caste system.

Other signs are obvious: the sorry story of redistricting in state-after-state where majorities are overruled by cleverly drawn politicos that see Republicans winning the majority of seats in state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives, even though the raw vote heavily went Democratic. Also there is the starving of public education in our cities and poor rural area thus depriving the children from struggling families to rise into higher standards of living. Then, our judicial system puts millions of young people – overwhelmingly those of color – into prisons that doom most of them to a life of failure.

The people who make these decisions usually aren’t evil or in a grand conspiracy to create the caste system I’ve imagined. Most care about the future of the United States and maybe even show up at charity functions or make generous contributions to worthy causes. Their problem is: they just don’t understand.

Such leaders grew up in supportive families in safe neighborhoods and attended good schools and chummed around with other bright and cheerful people. Some might even have had summer jobs where they rubbed elbows with “other” people. Nonetheless, they can’t understand why a single mother can’t find time to get her voter ID, much less pay for it. They ask: What’s the matter with “those” people?

How to stop this trend? In the U.S., we still have a political system that retains many democratic protections, even as it more and more penalizes our less fortunate citizens. It means all of us must find ways to to work around these onerous, wrong-headed laws; it means using social media to fill the ether with the need for all to be active; it means registering “everyone” to vote and to assure they get those hateful voter ID cards, using whatever means possible. In short it means getting involved in politics – even though it’s getting harder and harder to believe in the system.

If we fail, will we not be creating a caste system with untouchables? Ken Germanson, Sept. 13, 2014.