Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Donatello Trumpi]

With the right message any of the big 3 can.

You need 3 willing democrat candidates to summon Hillary.

[Spectral]

Now, if Warren had proposed a set of cabinet picks for her Presidency, and none of them were people of color, then you'd have something to work with.

What would you have to work with?

[Endus]

What would you have to work with?

I'm pretty sure the answer is in the exact sentence you chose to quote, so I'm really not sure what you're even asking.

[jellmoo]

Every single candidate is either incompetent or a complete nutjob. Just pick the loser you think has the best chance of beating Trump, because none of them are good candidates by any objective measure.

What exactly is wrong with the current crop of candidates? They cover a pretty wide field of the political spectrum.

[Skroe]

You need 3 willing democrat candidates to summon Hillary.

I'm sorry little Trumpkin, but she isn't running this year.

Donald Trump is in fact, running against himself. God help him, because nobody else will.

[Elegiac]

What exactly is wrong with the current crop of candidates? They cover a pretty wide field of the political spectrum.

The issue is less that and more that the political energy is clearly with the progressive wing of the party, so "centrists" (read: Bezos) urged Bloomberg to run as an alternative if Biden flops.

One wonders why there is such increasing anti-rich sentiment in the US when the rich go "vote for my interests or I will support actual white supremacists". /s

[Spectral]

I'm pretty sure the answer is in the exact sentence you chose to quote, so I'm really not sure what you're even asking.

I guess I didn't realize that there was now a more or less explicit quota for how many non-whites a candidate needs for the cabinet.

[Endus]

I guess I didn't realize that there was now a more or less explicit quota for how many non-whites a candidate needs for the cabinet.

I never mentioned any "quota". I'll thank you to not build straw men and staple my face to them.

[Spectral]

I never mentioned any "quota". I'll thank you to not build straw men and staple my face to them.

OK

[Elegiac]

I guess I didn't realize that there was now a more or less explicit quota for how many non-whites a candidate needs for the cabinet.

Lol, what a ridiculous strawman.

[jellmoo]

The issue is less that and more that the political energy is clearly with the progressive wing of the party, so "centrists" (read: Bezos) urged Bloomberg to run as an alternative if Biden flops.

One wonders why there is such increasing anti-rich sentiment in the US when the rich go "vote for my interests or I will support actual white supremacists". /s

I mean, already Biden is not the only "centrist" running, he just happens to be doing the best out of the lot. If he crashes, there already are a slew of other options.

I was mostly trying to get the dude I quoted to explain why every candidate running was inadequate. It's a really huge statement and he didn't offer anything to back it up, so I was really curious.

[Spectral]

Lol, what a ridiculous strawman.

Can you write me the version that you think is the actual position being expressed so I don't keep addressing a strawman?

[Skroe]

I guess I didn't realize that there was now a more or less explicit quota for how many non-whites a candidate needs for the cabinet.

Quota? No. But considering our multicultural, multiracial and multiethnic society, expecting a healthy proportion of the Presidential cabinet in 21 century America to be minorities is perfectly reasonable.

Cabinet roles shouldn't be stunt cast, but should represent the diversity of America, much as the entirety of the federal government today otherwise does.

But the core qualification is competence. Lest we forget we just lived through 2 years of Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy, the head of the Department of Energy, aka a Carter-era euphemism for the renamed Nuclear Regulatory Commission, aka the Atomic Energy Commission, aka the Manhattan Project.

Remember, these people in the White House are so unqualified that they thought "energy = oil", so they put a Texas oil man in charge of "energy", when he was really managing the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons establishment, fissile material stockpile, nuclear power regulators, and nuclear threat management experts.


It's ironic really. The magnitude of the sheer stupidity of the Trump era Cabinet - lowly unqualified men who and women who are more looters than anything else - is that the next President is going to have an ocean of extremely willing bipartisan talent to draw from to set right the malpractice Trump voters wrought upon the United States. Because don't forget Trump's ongoing crisis in hiring talent - nobody wants to work for this motherfucker... black, white or anything else. He's has had worst case scenario year 7.5 Presidential staffing problems since year 1.5.

Thank god for the standing federal bureaucracy, you know, the thing Eisenhower - an actual conservative - built in a recognizable form.

[Elegiac]

Quota? No. But considering our multicultural, multiracial and multiethnic society, expecting a healthy proportion of the Presidential cabinet in 21 century America to be minorities is perfectly reasonable.

Cabinet roles shouldn't be stunt cast, but should represent the diversity of America, much as the entirety of the federal government today otherwise does.

But the core qualification is competence. Lest we forget we just lived through 2 years of Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy, the head of the Department of Energy, aka a Carter-era euphemism for the renamed Nuclear Regulatory Commission, aka the Atomic Energy Commission, aka the Manhattan Project.

Remember, these people in the White House are so unqualified that they thought "energy = oil", so they put a Texas oil man in charge of "energy", when he was really managing the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons establishment, fissile material stockpile, nuclear power regulators, and nuclear threat management experts.


It's ironic really. The magnitude of the sheer stupidity of the Trump era Cabinet - lowly unqualified men who and women who are more looters than anything else - is that the next President is going to have an ocean of extremely willing bipartisan talent to draw from to set right the malpractice Trump voters wrought upon the United States. Because don't forget Trump's ongoing crisis in hiring talent - nobody wants to work for this motherfucker... black, white or anything else. He's has had worst case scenario year 7.5 Presidential staffing problems since year 1.5.

Thank god for the standing federal bureaucracy, you know, the thing Eisenhower - an actual conservative - built in a recognizable form.

One positive thing is that the next Democrat is probably going to have miles long queues of qualified individuals clamoring for positions in a sane administration.

[Omega10]

One positive thing is that the next Democrat is probably going to have miles long queues of qualified individuals clamoring for positions in a sane administration.

And... the ones that actually get the jobs will look VERY GOOD in comparison to their predecessors.

[Spectral]

Quota? No. But considering our multicultural, multiracial and multiethnic society, expecting a healthy proportion of the Presidential cabinet in 21 century America to be minorities is perfectly reasonable.

Cabinet roles shouldn't be stunt cast, but should represent the diversity of America, much as the entirety of the federal government today otherwise does.

But the core qualification is competence. Lest we forget we just lived through 2 years of Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy, the head of the Department of Energy, aka a Carter-era euphemism for the renamed Nuclear Regulatory Commission, aka the Atomic Energy Commission, aka the Manhattan Project.

Remember, these people in the White House are so unqualified that they thought "energy = oil", so they put a Texas oil man in charge of "energy", when he was really managing the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons establishment, fissile material stockpile, nuclear power regulators, and nuclear threat management experts.


It's ironic really. The magnitude of the sheer stupidity of the Trump era Cabinet - lowly unqualified men who and women who are more looters than anything else - is that the next President is going to have an ocean of extremely willing bipartisan talent to draw from to set right the malpractice Trump voters wrought upon the United States. Because don't forget Trump's ongoing crisis in hiring talent - nobody wants to work for this motherfucker... black, white or anything else. He's has had worst case scenario year 7.5 Presidential staffing problems since year 1.5.

Thank god for the standing federal bureaucracy, you know, the thing Eisenhower - an actual conservative - built in a recognizable form.

So is there an actual acceptable amount of whiteness that people have in mind then or not? It kind of has to be one way or the other. Evidently some people would settle for having a couple random cabinet members o' color while others would be affronted by anything less than three black cabinet members. Personally, I can't say that whether the Department of Energy is led by someone that's sufficiently Latino is that high on my list, but it's apparently critical to others. Of course, sheer odds would suggest a likelihood that there will be some ethnic diversity, I just can't really relate to that being a priority when picking who's going to run the HHS.

Regarding the DoE naming euphemism, they're not the only one with that problem. The rebranding of the War Department as being about "defense" is a hell of a trick.

[Skroe]

So is there an actual acceptable amount of whiteness that people have in mind then or not? It kind of has to be one way or the other. Evidently some people would settle for having a couple random cabinet members o' color while others would be affronted by anything less than three black cabinet members. Personally, I can't say that whether the Department of Energy is led by someone that's sufficiently Latino is that high on my list, but it's apparently critical to others. Of course, sheer odds would suggest a likelihood that there will be some ethnic diversity, I just can't really relate to that being a priority when picking who's going to run the HHS.

If you're looking for me or anyone to toss out a percentage, then I don't think you'll have any luck. It's a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing. There are a lot of qualified experts from many, many backgrounds who are willing to serve their country.

The Bush Administration did it just fine too. It's that Trump's White House goes out of their way to exclude minority candidates in keeping with its monkier of America's experiment in a White Supremacist Presidency. But I a grant you, their core problem right now candidates, because everyone with a brain and a meaningful resume knows how the Trump era ends, and nobody wants to willingly climb aboard the Hindenburg. I'll state again, one of the more dog whistling racist things Trump did early on was put Ben Carson, his "one black friend", in charge of HUD, a department he has no qualifications for. HUD mostly serves black Americans. So it's really fucking cynical and racist to put a black man at the head of it, despite not being qualified, and then targeting it for savage cuts. That's the Trump Administration approach to diversity in government. His. One. Black. Friend.

The diversity of a cabinet isn't something that should or really could be structured. But the fact of the matter is, is that the best minds and best leaders of America have all sorts of skin colors now. When assembling the entirety of a cabinet, I'd consider it something that is important to consider.

Case in point, at my company I'm a project leader and assemble teams from our research staff. My field is heavily male dominated. I could easily make an all-male team. But perception to the wider company and the company's messaging matters. So I don't. Nobody does. And the project is better for it.

More ideally there should be qualifiers / disqualifiers based on subject matter expertise. For example:

-the head of the DoE should have a research background in physics or have worked for the Navy's nuclear reactor program.
-the head of the DoD should be someone with expertise in security / procurement policy / defense project management, and not have been an executive at a Defense contractor.

A good example is that the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (an Assistant Secretary rank) is traditionally a person of Native American background on the basis they have "real world" experience in how the Bureau effects American Indians.

A person's background should absolutely play a role in assembling the entire team, but it shouldn't ever disqualify anybody. A person shouldn't be denied because "they're white and we got enough white guys". And realistically as people come and go over 4 years holding to a certain target percentage is unrealistic and undesirable. But an Administration that looks at how many Americans with expertise are willing to serve will find no shortage of candiate.

The core problem is this Administration, reflecting the *snort* wisdom of the rural working man, full of grit that makes up its base *snort* loathes expertise. The entire purpose of Trump's Administration has been to install unqualified men and women into office to damage American's faith in government to do anything positive for the American people.

That's how we got Rex Tillerson, who wanted to cut the State Department by 39% by other things.
That's how we have an army of "Acting Secretary of" this and that.

Regarding the DoE naming euphemism, they're not the only one with that problem. The rebranding of the War Department as being about "defense" is a hell of a trick.

This is incorrect. The Department of War was the name of modern Department of the Army. Until the National Security of Act of 1947 created the National Military Establishment (NME, renamed to the Department of Defense in 1949), the Department of War (Army) and Department of Navy were cabinet-level positions since 1789 / 1798. The creation of the Department of the Air Force had all three "demoted" to be under the NME/DoD.

Historically, "War" was analogous to "Army", particularly in this country which for along time had a Navy that was little better than a glorified Coast Guard. Even to this day we see the colloquial legacy of that in how people sometimes refer to all military services as "the Army", and all service members as "soldiers".

It is accurate though that after World War II many countries, the United States included, did adopt the euphemism that transformed the offensive language of war to defensive ones. Calling the Department of Defense what it is, rather than "The Department of War" (and having it mean something different than its historic name) is part of that. Many other countries, both free and unfree did the same. Part of it may be due to making psychological departure from the pre-World War II era. A big part of it is due to legal liabilities coming from the fall out of World War II and the then-new UN system in which countries of the world forswore war without UN approval and then only in the name of defense. And a large part of it is political. If a side always acts in defense, then the other side is always the aggressor. And from a national perspective, paying for defense is more politicaly defensible among the growing middle class taxpayers - a kind of insurance policy for the nation you could say - than paying for "war", which is offensive and rhetorically would fair poorly against domestic needs.

I think an excellent, direct example of this is how the British Government had a "War Office" during World War I and World War II (actually since the mid 19th century), which was more analogous to the later US DoD-system than the ad-hoc arrangement the US had at the time. But the British public were clamoring before, during and after World War II for increased social spending (culminating with the post-war creation of the welfare state under Clement Attlee, Churchill's successor). So Churchill names himself Minister of Defense in 1940. Churchill then bypasses the War Office for most of World War II entirely. And after the war, Atlee formalizes the arrangement with a permanent "Minister of Defense" position. And in the 1960s, a formal "Ministry of Defense" is created that pulls in the historically independent services under one umbrella.

A similar euphemism, in modern terms, is "Homeland Security", a phrase the next democratic president should banish by demolishing that department.

[Spectral]

If you're looking for me or anyone to toss out a percentage, then I don't think you'll have any luck. It's a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing. There are a lot of qualified experts from many, many backgrounds who are willing to serve their country.

The Bush Administration did it just fine too. It's that Trump's White House goes out of their way to exclude minority candidates in keeping with its monkier of America's experiment in a White Supremacist Presidency. But I a grant you, their core problem right now candidates, because everyone with a brain and a meaningful resume knows how the Trump era ends, and nobody wants to willingly climb aboard the Hindenburg. I'll state again, one of the more dog whistling racist things Trump did early on was put Ben Carson, his "one black friend", in charge of HUD, a department he has no qualifications for. HUD mostly serves black Americans. So it's really fucking cynical and racist to put a black man at the head of it, despite not being qualified, and then targeting it for savage cuts. That's the Trump Administration approach to diversity in government. His. One. Black. Friend.

The diversity of a cabinet isn't something that should or really could be structured. But the fact of the matter is, is that the best minds and best leaders of America have all sorts of skin colors now. When assembling the entirety of a cabinet, I'd consider it something that is important to consider.

Case in point, at my company I'm a project leader and assemble teams from our research staff. My field is heavily male dominated. I could easily make an all-male team. But perception to the wider company and the company's messaging matters. So I don't. Nobody does. And the project is better for it.

There seems like a motte and bailey here where we probably agree on the motte. What I don't trust is the bailey - Warren's interlocutor that kicked this off wasn't asking for a general strategy, they're explicitly looking for black candidates to be hired. This seems like a pretty common trend when it comes to diversity. The general line that most people take is that teams work better when you have a wide variety of backgrounds because people draw on different experiences, but when people say they want a "diverse" cabinet, they mostly just mean that they want less white guys around.

More ideally there should be qualifiers / disqualifiers based on subject matter expertise. For example:

-the head of the DoE should have a research background in physics or have worked for the Navy's nuclear reactor program.
-the head of the DoD should be someone with expertise in security / procurement policy / defense project management, and not have been an executive at a Defense contractor.

A good example is that the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (an Assistant Secretary rank) is traditionally a person of Native American background on the basis they have "real world" experience in how the Bureau effects American Indians.

A person's background should absolutely play a role in assembling the entire team, but it shouldn't ever disqualify anybody. A person shouldn't be denied because "they're white and we got enough white guys". And realistically as people come and go over 4 years holding to a certain target percentage is unrealistic and undesirable. But an Administration that looks at how many Americans with expertise are willing to serve will find no shortage of candiate.

The core problem is this Administration, reflecting the *snort* wisdom of the rural working man, full of grit that makes up its base *snort* loathes expertise. The entire purpose of Trump's Administration has been to install unqualified men and women into office to damage American's faith in government to do anything positive for the American people.

That's how we got Rex Tillerson, who wanted to cut the State Department by 39% by other things.
That's how we have an army of "Acting Secretary of" this and that.

Right, these are my core concerns. I'm not excited about the front end of the conversation starting with "we must be diverse", which is increasingly the way mainstream Democrats seem to frame the matter.

This is incorrect. The Department of War was the name of modern Department of the Army. Until the National Security of Act of 1947 created the National Military Establishment (NME, renamed to the Department of Defense in 1949), the Department of War (Army) and Department of Navy were cabinet-level positions since 1789 / 1798. The creation of the Department of the Air Force had all three "demoted" to be under the NME/DoD.

Historically, "War" was analogous to "Army", particularly in this country which for along time had a Navy that was little better than a glorified Coast Guard. Even to this day we see the colloquial legacy of that in how people sometimes refer to all military services as "the Army", and all service members as "soldiers".

It is accurate though that after World War II many countries, the United States included, did adopt the euphemism that transformed the offensive language of war to defensive ones. Calling the Department of Defense what it is, rather than "The Department of War" (and having it mean something different than its historic name) is part of that. Many other countries, both free and unfree did the same. Part of it may be due to making psychological departure from the pre-World War II era. A big part of it is due to legal liabilities coming from the fall out of World War II and the then-new UN system in which countries of the world forswore war without UN approval and then only in the name of defense. And a large part of it is political. If a side always acts in defense, then the other side is always the aggressor. And from a national perspective, paying for defense is more politicaly defensible among the growing middle class taxpayers - a kind of insurance policy for the nation you could say - than paying for "war", which is offensive and rhetorically would fair poorly against domestic needs.

I think an excellent, direct example of this is how the British Government had a "War Office" during World War I and World War II (actually since the mid 19th century), which was more analogous to the later US DoD-system than the ad-hoc arrangement the US had at the time. But the British public were clamoring before, during and after World War II for increased social spending (culminating with the post-war creation of the welfare state under Clement Attlee, Churchill's successor). So Churchill names himself Minister of Defense in 1940. Churchill then bypasses the War Office for most of World War II entirely. And after the war, Atlee formalizes the arrangement with a permanent "Minister of Defense" position. And in the 1960s, a formal "Ministry of Defense" is created that pulls in the historically independent services under one umbrella.

A similar euphemism, in modern terms, is "Homeland Security", a phrase the next democratic president should banish by demolishing that department.

I can't quite see where I'm incorrect on this one. Yes, this summary is more complete, but it's still basically correct that the apparatus responsible for conducting foreign wars has rebranded as being about "defense".

[Skroe]

There seems like a motte and bailey here where we probably agree on the motte. What I don't trust is the bailey - Warren's interlocutor that kicked this off wasn't asking for a general strategy, they're explicitly looking for black candidates to be hired. This seems like a pretty common trend when it comes to diversity. The general line that most people take is that teams work better when you have a wide variety of backgrounds because people draw on different experiences, but when people say they want a "diverse" cabinet, they mostly just mean that they want less white guys around.

I don't think that's the case at all. But a diverse team should absolutely be a consideration from the outset. I think you're ascribing sinister, exclusionary motives where there aren't any. Diverse inclusiveness doesn't imply excluding whites.

Right, these are my core concerns. I'm not excited about the front end of the conversation starting with "we must be diverse", which is increasingly the way mainstream Democrats seem to frame the matter.

In our current national political context it is absolutely appropriate. Donald Trump is a racist. His White House is filled with racists in key roles. His Administration policy is racist. His supporters, broadly speaking, are racists. He is rural Americans and working class whites letting out their inner white supremacist and has operated as such. So for Democrats to adopt an emphatically pro-diversity message is both smart politics and the right answer to the political challenge posed by Trump, because he and his supporters are morally and politically in the wrong.

So the framing is objectively spot on. It is positioning the party in direct opposition to Trump. They should not shrink from it at all. They should armor up and charge directly over Trump's side.

But I don't think that would translate at all into motivations when in actual government. Democrats are nothing if not highly pragmatic first and foremost. And we have in the Obama Administration recent evidence that Democrats in the White House would consider diversity, but not build with specific targets in mind. After all, all of Obama's Secretary's of Defense, State and Treasury were White. The only other of the big four - the Attorney General - had a black man in Eric Holder from 2009-2015, followed by a black woman, Loretta Lynch for about 18 months.

I can't quite see where I'm incorrect on this one. Yes, this summary is more complete, but it's still basically correct that the apparatus responsible for conducting foreign wars has rebranded as being about "defense".

I think you missed the point. We're talking about different things. Domestically "Department of War" was replaced with a more accurate name of "Department of the Army", that was aligned with the accurate and descriptive name of the "Department of the Navy" and "Department of the Air Force". Continuing to call the DoA the Department of War would have needlessly clouded lines responsibilities when it came to public messaging that the post-war defense "reset" offered.

The Department of Defense is not a rebranded Department of War, but an entirely new concept. Joint Military Operations didn't really exist as a concept until World War II and only came of age then. World War I and before didn't really have it in a recognizable form.

[JohnBrown1917]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...696229889?s=19

Sanders once again showing how much better he is on foreign policy relative to the rest of the field.