Q1 – How do we best advance progressive values in the reality of a Trump presidency, Republican control of the legislative, and their impending control of the judiciary?

Q2 – What is the most effective political strategy to see progressive policies passed into law?

Q3 – What is the best policy platform to advance that strategy?

Q4 – What can individuals do to advance the cause?

[Q1] Empathy

I have the fortunate and unfortunate position of working in a sales role. Usually that brings to mind cheap trickery, boiler rooms, and money motivation – and trust me, there is plenty of that out there – but in reality it is the art of persuasion. In my experience, the ultimate persuasion is a rational argument advancing the other person’s interests made from a position of empathy for their worldview. There is no difference that can not be bridged with this approach when made at an individual and personal level, as Daryl Davis heroically demonstrates,

https://youtube.com/watch?v=9Y7IqMOyF8c

Like the anchor says, we all have a lot to learn from his example. To highlight one moment, when the reporter interrupts at 4:05 with a reasonable question, we can see the triumph of empathy over reason. Before people will listen to you talk, they need to want to hear you speak. Trust is built by decent human-to-human behaviour and consideration for each other.

Thank God, then, that the progressive left has empathy in spades. In the immediate aftermath of the result, some felt a panic not felt before, like they were living in a nightmare that threatened their identity, their safety, and the future. In the midst of first reactions, a steady message came through: you are not alone; we will protect each other. It is hard, in an uncertain future, where the spectrum of conceivable outcomes includes loss of happiness, liberty and even life, to know where to begin. The most important thing is that you begin. Begin taking some action, as with it comes control, and in turn confidence in the face of adversity. It will take each individual their own time to get off the floor and to get back in the fight. And sadly, some will not, if people end up leaving the country. If you are thinking of giving up on America – any or all of her 50 States – consider that the left will be stronger with you in it. Your country needs you and your talents, possibly more than you’ve ever known.

Even as we pick each other up, it is important to already have a clear idea of how we respond. The first thing we must do is engage our opponents with the same empathy we have for our friends, one by one if necessary at first, and eventually by the millions once we have successfully wrestled back control of our country’s institutions. Anger and aggression, when controlled, are guided by a spirit for justice, but where were these emotions in the teachings of history’s great change-makers? Mandela, MLK, Gandhi, and Christ, all were unified in practicing non-violent, strategically effective, resistance, based in empathy, understanding, and dialogue, and motivated by a resolute conviction for justice. This is the tone of the New Left’s message. This is how we get moderates, principled conservatives, Sanders supporters, and libertarians, all of whom share ideological ground with progressives, to be receptive to our message, which is necessary for their adopting it.

A key element of empathy is listening. If white middle class and lower class voters are telling us that they would rather join forces with the deplorables to kill globalism and neo-liberalism, even at the cost of increased prejudice nationally, we need to understand their frustrations as if they were our own, because their frustrations will become multiplied onto us otherwise. These people have privileges that minority groups do not, but they are also oppressed by the same political and economic system as us all, although in lesser degrees in the aggregate than minorities. Just as Daryl Davis seeks the liberation of some of the world’s most vile oppressors, we need to work towards the liberation of white people, for they have shown a willingness to sacrifice the well-being of minority groups for their own respite from tyranny, and in doing so we free ourselves from the capture of economic and political systems that disenfranchise most of all people of colour and women. The destiny of all those who are oppressed are inextricably intertwined, and if we do not make the first move to engage the white majority, the oppressed will be divided, and maybe even destroyed. Maybe they will destroy each other as the global establishment elite sit back and watch.

[Q1/Q2] Politics

An empathetic tone will not be enough to win power and implement policy. A political platform will need to be built, and we must work within the Democrats, the Green Party, and a new third Party (viz. Unite/the United) to create it.

The Libertarians are not a suitable vehicle as their laissez-faire economic policy is antagonistic to principles of economic and ecological justice. For example, they support the private ownership of land as an indidual’s right, even when Locke’s scarcity principle is being violated, rather than because they simply do not know better.

The Democrats have several major advantages. They are a well established Party, meaning that they are salient in the collective American conscience, with highly developed organisational capacity, millions of existing members, and considerable financial resources. Their major disadvantage is a consequence of the fact that the Party has considerable financial resources; it is bought by corporate interests, for the time being at least. Some would say it is naive to pursue a comprehensive reform of the Democratic Party, with corruption so completely institutionalised that the effort will be wasted. No matter the weight of injustice, nothing is insurmountable, and it would be more naive not to explore fully every possible path to success, because we have the numbers to do so, because we do not know which path will be successful, and because it will accelerate our victory. On the last point, we will chip away at the Democratic establishment by reforming the Democratic Party, which not only strengthens the reform of the Democratic Party itself, but strengthens, both directly and indirectly, the avenues to success that are made possible by the Green Party or Unite. If our attempts to reform the Democratic Party are not successful, then they will not only have weakened one of the opposing political forces, but also strengthened our numbers in the Green Party and Unite by persuading Democrats to leave the Party. Remember, we can only persuade people by engaging them, and that is done most effectively on their own ground, in their own terms. Sanders is the clear choice to lead this effort within the Democrats. Warren is also a possibility.

Neither Sanders nor Warren are ideal candidates for a number of reasons, not least because when push came to shove, both sided with the establishment Democrats. It is a historical fact that this was a massive strategic misjudgement given Trump’s victory. There was no way of knowing it at the time, but there were reasons to think a partnership with the Green Party would be more productive, and people were saying this, loudly, including Jill Stein. Each candidate has their specific failings, but this strategic misstep is a serious black mark against their judgement, setting the progressive movement back years. Furthermore, there is a time and place for compromise, but both compromised some of their core values in supporting Clinton. It is possible that a Green Party candidate is the more electable in 2020 and beyond, and so we must also work towards strengthening the Green vote. The strength of the Greens is in their values, which reflect just ideals that promote the People’s interests much better than the policies of the establishment parties, which are tainted by the influence of special interests. Simply put, the Green Party is on the right side of history when it comes to the economy, the environment, social values, and civil rights. The weakness of the Greens is where the Democrats are strong: the Greens are not well known, with little organisational capacity, around only 250,000 members and 1,000,000 voters, and limited financial resources. The Greens are coming from a much lower base, although there is reason to believe that gains will accelerate as the Party is built and economies scale up. The Greens have another particular weakness in that they are viewed as the Party of hippies, dreamers, political losers, and outcasts. That stigma loses more votes than the Greens win by having a comprehensive policy message.

The third way, creating a United political movement, presents an even more daunting task than remaking the Greens, but it does have its benefits. It has no stigma, as all other parties do to a greater or lesser extent, and specifically avoids the half-truth afflicting the Greens that places responsibility for Gore’s defeat at Nader’s feet, which has cost the Green Party left-leaning votes dearly. Additionally, a new party requires the creation of an original policy message and political identity that is contemporary and relevant to the unique situation we find ourselves in, which may be better suited to our cause than those of the Democrats and the Greens. This message could be crafted to win votes from all other parties, thus possibly shifting America further away from bi-partisanship.

Our efforts and numbers should be focused on building the Greens and Unite, not only because that is were the most work needs to be done, but also because the chances of reforming the Democratic Party completely are small, because its corruption and misguided partisan narrative run deep. People will be naturally drawn into one of these three groups, but we must remember that despite our political affiliations, we are all working together towards common objectives, namely ecological conservation, equal opportunity, equality before the law, democratic representation, inclusivity, and peace.

We also need to consider the scope of the application of our efforts. To win the executive, one of the three horses we have in the race would need to win 270 electoral votes under the present system, which means the suppression of the other two parties. Consequently, at the first possible opportunity, the New Left should end the electoral college and move to a system of proportional representation. This will pave the way for a multi-party political landscape that better represents the People, and it will begin to cool the us versus them mentality that has divided the nation. There are two avenues to this end: a Constitutional Amendment, or The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. An Amendment has serious barriers to execution. One would need votes from two-thirds of Congress and the Senate, or two-thirds of the state legislatures, to propose an Amendment, and additionally to ratify the Amendment votes from three-fourths of State legislatures, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the States.

The good news is that there is a significantly easier way of achieving proportional representation. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has been passed into law by 10 States (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia. The NPVIC is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most votes is elected president by legally requiring the participating States to award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, regardless of the outcome within each of the participating States. The law would only come into effect when it guarantees the outcome of the election. So far, the States that have passed NPVIC into law constitute 165 electoral votes, meaning that States worth a combined 105 electoral votes are still required to make it effective.

Although the constitutionality of this approach is subject to debate, the arguments are, on balance, in favour of its legality. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution establishes the plenary power of the States to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…” Congress, however, may have to approve NPVIC before it could go into affect. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.” However, the Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy. It is arguable that the compact does not encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. However, it is possible that NPVIC would be subject to a legal challenge on the basis that it does affect the federal system in a significant way, and that consequently Congressional approval may be required.

We should work under the assumption that Congress will need to approve the law. It is highly unlikely that Unite or the Green Party will be in a position to win a general election or a significant share of the legislative by 2020, and so it is of paramount importance that our brothers and sisters who work within the reforming Democratic Party put themselves in a position to repeal the electoral college at the next opportunity. This means having the requisite Democratic majority in Congress, as well as a Democrat in the White House in order to avoid a presidential veto, which could only be overturned with 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats must understand that while removing the electoral college undermines the Democratic Party’s strength, it strengthens America, and that if they betray the People, they will destroy the Party forever. The only political parties that survive in this new age of anti-neo-liberalism are those that promote the will of the People, for better or worse. Now we can begin to see a path to a just society that uses the Democrats as a short-term vehicle to facilitate more significant changes carried out by other parties in the medium and long-term.

This all begs the question of where the New Left should concentrate its efforts in order to get the 270 electoral votes needed to make NPVIC law. In general, Red States will be opposed to the idea as they currently benefit from the electoral college. Florida (29 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Colorado (9), Conneticut (7) and Oregon (7) would be sufficient to reach 270, and are all States where there will be lesser political resistance to the measure. There are other, smaller States in which we should also concentrate our efforts, such as Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), Maine (4), New Hampshire (4), and Delaware (3). If NPVIC were to be passed by the State legislatures of this latter group, it would not need to be passed by Florida for it to become the law of the land. If you live in any of these States, get to work; if you don’t, and are of able means, consider moving. Be the vanguard.

To win the legislative, we need only win Congressional Districts or a State by a plurality. The strategy here must be State selective and driven by data. For the Senate, the New Left should concentrate its first efforts in the smallest States with the most homogeneously progressive populations – it is no surprise that Vermont is home to the Independent Senator Sanders. Hawaii is the other obviously furtile ground to serve as a launching pad for the New Left, home to Congresswoman and New Left icon Tulsi Gabbard. Winning seats in the Senate has the added advantage of having potential influence to block Trump Supreme Court nominees, which is not to suggest that that is what we should do, but it is best to keep all strategic options open (until we can close that Constitutional loophole). For the House, due to its proportionally representative nature, we can focus on winning certain districts that are aligned with the New Left’s values, regardless of the specific State those districts are in. These districts are best identified by using validated psychological measures of political and moral values to predict which districts are most ripe for progressive change. In this way, we focus resources towards the biggest returns. We need to pick and choose our battles, at least initially, before a broader national movement can gain steam. Creating a methodological approach, State by State, district by district, is another immediate objective of the New Left so that we can compete as effectively as possible in the mid-terms. It is also important to note that while influence in the Senate allows us to block bills from becoming law, we need influence in the House to create law.

A key element of strategy in general is to be adaptive, and so depending on the expected relative severity (or benignity) of Trump’s current and future policies, we will put more resources into contesting the Senate (if Trump is relatively harmful) or the House (if he is relatively harmless) so as to balance blocking the alt-right with advancing our own agenda. We should start off more heavily in blocking given the current mandate Trump has and its potentially devastating implications, and because it will take time for the movement to mature into one that is capable of winning enough seats to turn policy into law.

To win the judiciary, you have to win the executive, but as the Republicans have demonstrated, control of the legislative allows a party that doesn’t control the executive to block the executive’s nominations whenever a Justice dies, so long as they have the political capital to sustain the pocket veto until the next general election. As an aside, we need a Constitutional Amendment to ensure that the Senate does not pocket veto Supreme Court nominations in future, which is a systematic risk to democracy itself by facilitating the politicisation and manipulation of the Court.

In short, we should take an all of the above approach when it comes to which political party to use as a vehicle for change, and by working in concert over multiple election cycles, we can erode the systematic and institutionalised barriers to our success. In particular, the Democratic Party must be in a position to overturn the electoral college system as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, The Green Party and Unite must be strengthened (and in the latter’s case, established) to provide multiple paths to our ends. In the medium term we can target selectively certain legislative seats to turn to the New Left. In the long-run we will build for a general election challenge with the ultimate aim of returning all three branches of government simultaneously to the service of the People’s interests.

[Q2/3] Policy

What is Trump’s greatest policy weakness? The environment. What is the most important issue to the average voter? The economy. The Green Party has effectively synthesised those two over-riding concerns for voters into one in the form the Green New Deal. If you aren’t familiar with the policy specifics, you should be,

This is the winning message of the New Left, one that is narrowly tailored precisely in order to garner the broadest appeal. A typical black household has 6%, and a Latino household 8%, of that of whites on average. There is something inherently wrong with a system if that is the outcome, enough said. And not just in America, but around the world, the people who feel the affects of climate change in their greatest degree are people of colour, by the billions. The economy and the environment are core issues in which everyone – everyone – has a stake.

We do not need to compromise our values in order to win power, but we do need to limit our message to make it more effective. There is a key difference between the message and the platform: most voters hear the message, but very few read the platform,

And with good reason – I thought my posts were long! The message must be an accurate representation of the platform, but it can not, and should not, include everything. Fringe topics like tackling the national debt and nuclear proliferation should not be in the message, but should be in the platform. Heavily politicised issues like universal healthcare, cutting defence spending, and having a more balanced relationship with Israel should not be in the message. There is good reason to highlight common ground, and pivot back to it when in more divided territory, because doing so puts us closer to the power necessary to implement a complete progressive agenda.

The New Left’s goals naturally make it so that it is comprised mainly of racial minorities, women, LGBT activists, environmentalists, social anarchists, and their allies. As such, its platform will be the one that is most opposed to conservative social values. Everything, since the first conception of right and wrong in human consciousness, from slavery to smoking, has undergone a process of moralisation. Some wrongs are further along that process than others. More people understand today that slavery is wrong than understand the private ownership of land is wrong; some wrongs are more self-evident than others, although we only say that now, when not so long ago white people thought nothing of owning a person of colour. The core of the New Left will hold values that others have yet to adopt in their moral system.

People’s moral systems are a complex function of factors like genetics, social and cultural setting, life experiences, religion, upbringing, education, socioeconomic status, and the global and regional levels of enlightenment to which they have exposure or access. Morality falls broadly into 5 categories. Those are fairness, harm, respect for authority, sanctity, and in-group biases. Progressives weigh fairness and harm more heavily, while social conservatives draw more equally on all 5 pillars. Morality goes to who we are as individuals and human beings, and although you and I may believe that our values will be proven by the passing of time to be right, we should be careful not to dismiss the vast differences in human moral views in a way that will harm reconciliation, or our chances of winning the political power necessary to advance our complete agenda.

This means that our movement is pro-choice, but does not take out 2-minute attack ads that demonise pro-life political opponents, and by extension people who hold that moral belief,

This is how Clinton, a white woman, in conjunction with appealing to their sex alone, lost the white woman vote to someone who is a sexual predator. Don’t take my word for it,

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/corrupt-liar-deceiver-opportunist-focus-group-women-rips-hillary-clinton-video/

Listen to the woman at 1:05 above. People do not want to support a candidate who views Republicans as the enemy. There is a right way to convey our moral differences, and that is through a positive message, not by shaming people,

Clinton lost because she preached to the choir, creating an echo chamber of support, and a divisive campaign that ultimately cost her the election. In the process she put the deplorables in a position to undo many social advances that others have taken decades to see through. If you want to defend marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose, if you want respect for minority groups, if you want to advance any progressive cause at all, you need to win the votes of white Americans, and white Americans vote for policies that will advance their interests. You might shame them for putting their interests above those of minority groups, but they will regardless of what you think, so you have a simple choice: focus your message to their core interests, or lose. These are the times we live in, and if we want to build a future where civil rights and progressive social values are the norm, we will have to adapt or die.

[Q4] Action

As you can see, we have a lot of work to do, and everyone has a role to play. There are an infinite number of jobs that need doing to create and advance the New Left, requiring an infinite range of talents. Programmers, community organisers, teachers, lawyers, writers, political leaders, social media managers – the list is endless. Follow your talents to find your niche.

This will take time. We are talking about a political project that begins immediately, but which we may never live to see realised. People will need to dedicate their lives to the New Left. Do not expect quick wins, but pre-position yourself for them. Do not expect things to get better before they get worse. And do not give up, whatever adversity you are facing.

To your battle stations! Byaahhh!