Last week I highlighted the proposal by Timothy Snyder that Democrats should form a “shadow government”, like they do in the UK and other countries. (See Timothy Snyder and Shadow Government.) I suggest we form an opposition government, with certification for people to speak on specific areas of public policy.
While this isn’t a bunch of named officials for posts, I think we can use the areas in the cabinet as a good guide to which areas of expertise we use. And I think the party, probably through the DNC, should certify people to speak in these areas, giving them official backing.
In the poll last week, an enormous majority (55%) of the 330 votes went for Attorney General (out of all cabinet positions). This is clearly the area where people think we most need someone out there leading our opposition to the fascists. Perhaps the DNC could start with this area and appoint one or more spokespersons to lead the opposition. Who do you think we should put forward to address this issue? I want to revisit that later, but I’m putting that on the table now, because I agree that this is a critical area for us to address.
DNC certification would not mean they would automatically have specific posts, but it would provide the public with stark alternatives to the political hacks our opponents plan to put in office starting in January. The popular expression is that you can’t fight something with nothing. Having people promoting our alternative to the fascists gives us something.
But what policy should they promote?
I want to discuss three areas of policy, with specific recommendations. These are clearly not the only areas, but my intent is to open up the discussion.
Right now, the Democratic Party is in a free fall. We appear to have no coherent leadership opposing the fascist Republicans, and our opponents are taking all the initiatives. They are proposing stupid ideas, like a war with Panama, (which would never happen in a sane world), but because they are proposing things, they have the initiative.
We need to seize that initiative from them. The areas I’m discussing here are areas where Democrats can do exactly that. We can take action that will demand response from our opponents.
No one ever wins a defensive battle. When you are on the defense all the time, there are only two possible outcomes: You lose, or you don’t win. The only way we are ever going to win (and rescue our country from the humiliation and agony of defeat) is to take at least some offensive actions.
Area 1: The Economy
Every proposal for the economy that I’ve seen from the Republican side is horrific. They want to lower taxes for the rich, raise tariffs, and deport workers, many of whom form the foundation of our economy. All of those things raise prices for consumers, making life harder for Americans and lowering the standard of living.
But what would a good idea look like for the economy?
Let’s say we wanted to lower costs for the consumer. Here are a couple proven ways to do that.
- Increase competition.
- Apply technology to production.
Increasing Competition
One area of expertise we should fill is the area related to competition in the market. I suggest that Lina Khan is a natural for this position. As current Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, she has done an excellent job promoting competition. She is outspoken about the perils of business monopolies and sought expanded anti-trust regulation and enforcement. She’s been aggressive in this area, which is exactly what we need to keep consumer prices in check—but also to protect worker and consumer rights.
In addition to Khan, another good person for this area is Rohit Chopra, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is one of the main targets of the fascists because it is an independent agency which finds and stomps out abuse of consumers by businesses. One of its key mandates is to write and enforce rules for financial institutions. This is all anathema to Republicans, who are lackeys for big business and entrenched wealth.
Chopra has a long history of opposing giveaways to major corporations in cases where they abused their powers. He suggested tech companies can be a threat to our civil rights and to fairness in society. Under his watch, the agency took action to oppose junk fees, progress we expect the next administration to throw away.
Technology in Production
An example where we could do better with production is agriculture. And this is where the Democratic Party has a major opportunity to increase our vote share.
People who own small farms are first of all workers, who also have businesses. Just like people who own small businesses are workers who also have businesses. These two groups are natural Democratic constituencies. But I’ve never detected any concerted effort by the Democratic Party to reach out to these people.
Let’s talk about farming as an example. Right now, people who own small farms are essentially serfs. Realistically, they are just workers for big agricultural interests, which are the companies that make all the real profits in farming. The companies sell farmers what they use: seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, farming equipment, crop insurance, and everything else used to grow crops. Then, the output from those farms are marketed through large businesses which distribute food and sell it to consumers.
Who is actually looking out for farmers? You can bet it isn’t the Republican Party. Yet, these people overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates. It would be enormously beneficial to our party to form a real bond with these farmers. We can start by looking at how to free them from serfdom.
The Democratic Party needs to be smart about this. One of the reasons big business dominates small farmers is because we’ve developed a successful, but rigid process for producing food. In that process, we’ve prioritized money over quality. One reason Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is popular with some people is because he is critical of the way food is subsidized and regulated. That’s nice, but to change that, we have to change how we think and act in this area.
One good book on farming is Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life by David B. Montgomery. In his book, Montgomery suggests we should focus on increasing the health of our soil. He suggests conservation agriculture, which favors non-till farming, cover crops, and complex crop rotation.
But cover crops, for example, run afoul of rules for crop insurance. Even though they help preserve the soil, insurance companies think they cut crop yields. Our policy should help farmers, not insurance companies. I mean, if you want cheaper food prices and better food quality.
Our policy should focus on helping farmers. For example, we should direct the USDA Agricultural Research Service to focus on helping farmers. This would include farm trials, plant breeding, and work on plant pathology. The people in this agency need to go back to the farm.
By building solid agricultural policy, the Democratic Party could potentially capture a large and significant constituency back from Republicans. And this is strategically important, because if we could recapture legislatures in states with large agricultural populations, we could potentially change the national election map.
Consider Ohio. This state was a swing state until the Republicans launched their culture war there. But Ohio is mostly rural (by area, not population). A really concentrated effort to reach out to Ohio farmers could make that a swing state again. What would it mean to our prospects for winning the White House if Ohio voted for the Democratic nominee?
I’ve presented a very specific proposal. Focus on soil health. Focus on cutting costs for farmers. Go at the root cause (yeah, pun) of costs and reduce the cost of food for consumers.
But there’s an underlying principle. Expand the Democratic Party thinking to include groups we’ve ignored. Look for ways to make things better and more efficient. Serve the public. Form a long-term relationship. Work on building support for the party at all times and in all places.
What will help small businesses? What will help manufacturing? What will help young people get established in society?
Our constituency includes farmers, small business owners, workers in manufacturing, young people. And we can reach these people with intelligent policy for the economy.
Area 2: Immigration
Republicans were able to exploit the issue of immigration because the United States has a lot of people born in other countries. About 14% of people in the U.S. were born elsewhere. When U.S. voters look around and see so many people they think are foreigners, it’s easy for Republicans to demagogue the issue.
If the Democratic Party is going to win, we first need to be realistic about immigration, and that means looking for ethical ways to reduce the overall numbers.
Frankly, this is where we part company with Republicans over immigration. They have no sense of ethics. You can see this in their willingness to deport young American citizens with their undocumented parents. It’s implicit in their approach to immigration, which repeatedly used the racist phrase “southern border” to refer to the problem. Republicans never looked for ethical ways to reduce immigration, preferring to vilify immigrants, even legal ones. Remember the legal immigrants in Springfield, OH?
But, the typical Democratic response to Republican attacks has been that we want immigrants. That the U.S. economy can’t function without them. So, suck it up, Republicans.
That’s not going to win elections. We have to field a realistic policy on immigration. I broached this subject in Defeating Republicans on Immigration, where I pointed out:
- Immigration is a serious problem, and we need a real fix to it.
- Republicans have no idea what this problem is or what’s causing it. So, they can’t be trusted to solve it.
- Democrats [should] have a comprehensive plan to solve the problem, one that will not just keep Americans safe, but will make the country stronger.
I suggested three areas for our policy:
- Fix the Asylum Problem.
- Fix the Economic Problem.
- Fix the Overpopulation Problem.
We should divorce asylum from immigration. All asylum should be temporary until the asylee can be safely returned to their home country. We should then increase the number of people we take in, because forced displacement is a real worldwide problem and we have a responsibility to help address it.
Rather than people coming to the U.S. to get a better life, we should help them get a better life where they currently live. We should work with countries south of here to increase their standard of living by investing in those countries. This allows people to remain in their home countries.
Sensible public policy would be to allow the population of the U.S. to decline, very gradually. That would allow us to increase our standard of living without additional impact on the environment. And by promoting increased respect for women’s rights, we can help to cut population growth here and abroad.
But what about American jobs (I hear Republicans cry)?
There is a simple, easy, and effective way to balance the needs of American workers against the needs for an adequate workforce. That’s a foreign worker tax.
I suggest legislation that requires any company or person who employs a foreign worker to pay a percentage of that worker’s compensation to the government. By foreign worker, I mean anyone who is not a U.S. citizen (natural or naturalized) or on a green card (in the formal process to become a citizen) and is paid for work in the United States (including our territories).
By percentage, I suggest both a federal and possibly a state tax.
The federal rate would be 10% plus the official unemployment rate (rounded up, so around 5% right now). The state rate would be set by the state and not to exceed 5%.
By compensation, I mean total compensation: wages, salary, bonuses, benefits, everything.
If we needed more foreign workers, Congress could lower the rate. For example, they might set the federal rate initially to 5% plus unemployment, and just see how it goes.
The addition of the official unemployment rate is an automatic adjustment that would increase or decrease the tax in response to economic conditions. If a lot of people were laid off and the rate went to say, 8%, then the tax on foreign workers would go up, giving companies incentive to hire U.S. workers and bring our unemployment rate down. (This should be calculated yearly and apply to the following year, so that companies have an opportunity to adjust their hiring.)
To implement this, anyone from any country could apply to work in the U.S. If they passed a background check (they aren’t spies or felons) then they would automatically get a visa to look for a job. They would not get benefits, except for appropriate public healthcare. (We have to protect the American people, so we cannot afford to have sick workers from abroad come here and spread disease.)
This would radically lower the need for border enforcement. We would no longer have to use force to keep people out. The market would employ workers as needed, creating the appropriate demand. We would not be trying to find “illegal immigrants” because essentially there wouldn't be any.
And this would protect American workers, because it would cost more to employ a foreign worker. By adjusting the foreign worker tax rate, we’d give American workers an advantage to get jobs. If they want them and are qualified for them.
“I’ve heard about H-1B visas. What about them?”
People here on H-1B visas are foreign workers. That means the tax would apply to them.
So, let’s say you wanted to hire someone for a tech job in Silicon Valley, and you could hire someone from, say, India, for $75,000 a year on an H-1B. That means that the federal tax would be (right now, by my proposal) 15%. That means you would be paying $86,250 for them. (This does not take into account payroll taxes and other incidental costs, like medical plans, and so on. And it doesn’t take into account that California would probably add another 5%, because it’s California, and someone has to pay for all that stuff.)
Or, you could hire a U.S. worker for $85,000 and save some money.
This is wildly unrealistic, of course, because it probably costs $100K now to live in Silicon Valley. But you can scale up the pricing accordingly.
I have nothing against H-1B workers. I’ve known and worked with a lot of H-1B workers, and I have the utmost respect for them. But as a matter of public policy, we should treat all foreign workers the same. With the same tax rate.
Area 3: Foreign Policy
I’m going to start here with the war in Ukraine, because I see that as an existential threat to democracy. Losing Ukraine to the Russians would set up Europe for further invasion (armed or otherwise). The proposed next President said that he’d end the war there on “day 1”. So, what should that look like?
For the American people, the only acceptable terms for ending the war in Ukraine include.
- Russia must pay for all damage to Ukraine it has caused since it was made independent under the terms of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine (1990).
- Russia must give back or pay for (by mutual agreement) all Ukrainian territory taken by Russian forces. Under that condition, Ukrainian forces will vacate Russian territory.
- Russia must accept responsibility for armed intervention in Ukraine by whatever name. That includes accepting responsibility for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.
- All military forces and their responsible leaders, including political leaders, will stand trial in an international tribunal for any credible accusations of war crimes.
- All Ukrainians taken without their consent into Russia must be returned to Ukraine. This includes both military personnel and civilians, and includes any children removed without consent of their parents.
- Russia must pay Western countries, including the U.S. for the costs of supporting Ukraine during the war. This includes both military and civilian aid. It also includes the costs of hosting refugees.
- Russia must accept Ukraine’s entry into both the EU and NATO, if the parties involved agree.
- Russia must pay for all incidental damage caused by the war, including damage to third parties that results from military operations of either side.
“Damage” means all damage. That includes the cost of rebuilding infrastructure. That includes payment for the loss of life, rape, separation, and any other personal damage. That includes the cost of taking care of injuries and lifelong support for anyone disabled. It includes economic damage, resulting from loss of opportunity to make any and all products and market them, including the costs of internal loss of economic activity. It means all damage. All of it.
“All Ukrainian territory” includes Crimea. It is reasonable for Russia to have military bases there, but only if they make an agreement with Ukraine to pay for the territory. And I would suggest only the actual bases, not Crimea as a whole.
Russian leaders, including Vladimir Putin, must stand trial in an international tribunal for the crime of aggression and any war crimes committed by Russian troops during this armed conflict.
Russians reportedly kidnapped and shipped back to Russia numerous children from Ukraine. They must return all of them and pay for the damages done.
That’s right, Russia is on the hook to pay both European countries and the United States (and Canada and other countries that had to respond) for both humanitarian aid and the military aid we gave Ukraine. We have spend billions of dollars just in providing weapons and munitions for this war. I expect Russia to reimburse us for all of it. They didn’t have to start the war. They are responsible for all costs. By that I mean all costs.
It is clear from this war that Ukraine needs to be part of NATO. If Ukraine had been part of NATO in 2014, none of this would have happened.
And, there are other costs. The Azerbaijani plane that was just shot down is an example. I expect Russia to pay for that and every other similar incident. If you own a farm in Poland and a Russian missile landed in your field, you should get compensation.
And then, there’s what Ukraine wants. In addition to what the American people should demand of any resolution, nothing can or should happen without the consent and cooperation of the Ukrainian people.
This may seem like a pipe dream to some of you.
But here’s the thing. Unless the newfound President gets all of this from Russia in negotiating a peace deal, then he’s giving away something to Russia he shouldn’t.
I know he’s adhered to Russia for years, giving them aid and comfort. But let’s just be really, really clear what it would mean if he gives even one of these things to Russia.
More treason. That’s what it would mean.
In Summary
We need to be proactive about policy. Right now, the Democratic Party isn’t even asking for anything, let alone demanding it.
We should be out there with what we think is best for the American people. Let the Republicans argue for their whimsies. The country needs opposition to what the fascists want.
We should have solid, progressive policy, and an official opposition promoting that policy.
We should have something to fight their something with.