NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label 2014 Mid Term elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014 Mid Term elections. Show all posts

08 April 2016

THIRD WAY / JELLYFISH DEMOCRATS NOT INTERESTED IN BERNIE VOTERS & Bernie Voters Not Very Interested in third way / jellyfish Democrats




+Mother Jones has a problem with Bernie Sanders. For some reason, the magazine that claims to "hold the candidates and the powerful accountable with relentless journalism" seems to be dedicated to seeing a third way democrat, someone who is being bought and paid for by the powerful, elected. Maybe the real reason Bernie's supporters didn't vote for JoAnne Kloppenburg in Wisconsin is that she ran her campaign to appeal to hillary clinton's supporters instead of appealing to the Wisconsin Democratic Party as a whole. Maybe Kloppenburg and the Democrats failed to learn the lesson of the 2014 Mid Term elections. Like many Sanders supporters, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I volunteered for and donated to Pres Obama's campaigns and feel betrayed. I never thought he would turn out to be the jellyfish democrat he has been. I have learned my lesson and will no longer compromise my vote. If hillary ends up being the Democratic candidate for president and wants my vote and the vote of many other Bernie supporters she is going to have to cut her ties to the 1%, corporate America, wall street funded super-pacs and start campaigning as a candidate running for the 99%, for all Americans, and not just those who can afford her. 

Bernie Voters Not Very Interested in Non-Bernie Democrats


| Thu Apr. 7, 2016 11:38 AM EDT

Dave Weigel notes that Wisconsin's Supreme Court race was yet another setback for Democrats:
They saw a decent chance to defeat Rebecca Bradley, a conservative justice appointed to the state Supreme Court by Walker. Her opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, nearly won a seat on the court in 2011.
…Bradley won the election, a surprise to Democrats. This morning, some progressives picked a culprit: voters who cast ballots for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and left the rest of their ballots blank. According to exit polling conducted by the independent group DecisionDesk and BenchMark Politics, perhaps 15 percent of Sanders voters skipped the Bradley-Kloppenburg race; just 4 percent of Hillary Clinton voters did the same.
Bernie endorsed JoAnne Kloppenburg, so this isn't a matter of him refusing to play ball with anyone running on the Democratic ticket. Nonetheless, it's a serious issue, no matter what you think of Bernie versus Hillary on the issues. Bernie is basing a lot of his campaign not just on anti-Hillary sentiment, but on anti-Democratic-Party-establishment sentiment. That's fair enough, but like it or not, the Democratic Party is all we have to compete with Republicans.
Bernie has been asked before if, for example, he'd raise money for Democrats if he won the nomination, and he responded, "We'll see." That's really not going to cut it anymore. Bernie doesn't have to mindlessly support every Democrat on the ballot, but voters deserve to know what he'd do if he won the Democratic nomination. Would it be all Bernie all the time? Or does he become a fighter for all the down-ballot races Democrats need to win in order to pass all that revolutionary legislation we hear so much about?

KEVIN DRUM

Political Blogger
Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click hereRSS |



15 November 2014

PCCC OP-ED: Democrats must embrace Elizabeth Warren's agenda & Elizabeth Warren's Op-Ed: It’s time to work on America’s agenda 9&11NOV14


HERE is an op-ed piece from the PCCC, published in +The Hill  analyzing the results of the 2014 Mid Term elections and just why the democrats did so bad. The article was published the week of the election and it seems someone in the democratic party leadership paid attention because Sen Elizabeth Warren has been appointed to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (are you paying attention Hillary?). Flashback, "It's the economy, stupid!" Read Sen Warren's op-ed (below) in the +Washington Post to understand why she was the most popular democratic speaker for campaigns this year and why she is one of the most popular politicians (with regular Americans, not the rich, or the bank-financial cabal or corporations) in Congress.


Craig...we just published an op-ed telling Democratic leaders, "We won't win our own tidal wave elections unless we can build a movement around big ideas -- like free college education, full employment, Medicare for All, expanded Social Security, and real reform of Wall Street."


PCCC Op-Ed In The Hill:
By Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, PCCC Co-Founders  
Democrats lost on Tuesday, as widely predicted. But for months, pundits got wrong what Democrats would need to win.  
There was rumor that youth turnout, Latino turnout, and cutting-edge Get Out The Vote practices would tip the balance in close races. But when "close" elections are decided by 7 to 12 points, something much bigger is happening.  
Pundits say President Obama was unpopular. Score one for the pundits. But the critical question is: Why was the president so unpopular?  
Did voters not show up because of Syria, Obamacare, or Ebola? No. 
Was President Obama proposing some big liberal idea, sparking backlash? No. It's hard to remember the last time the President offered a big idea.  
Jobs and economic security are consistently the top issues voters say they care about in red, purple, and blue states. But Democrats did not have a united economic agenda in this election.
Voters did not wake up on Election Day thinking that their ability to have a job, have affordable college education, or to retire with security was at stake. It was a Seinfeld-ian election about nothing. And nothing does not inspire potential voters to vote. In the absence of big ideas, Democrats lost.  
(Of note, some Democrats campaigned as Republicans. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) campaigned as the "most conservative Senate Democrat" -- but voters chose a real Republican over a fake one.)  
However, someone did spark energy this election cycle. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) attracted standing-room only crowds in red and purple states. Democrats who didn't want to be seen with the president were proud to be seen with Warren.  
And Warren was the most popular Democrat on the campaign trail for a reason: Her message of taking on Wall Street, reducing student debt, and expanding Social Security benefits is popular everywhere.  
While progressives such as Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-ore.), and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) won re-election -- and Representatives Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) and Mike Honda (D-calif.) won their close races -- they won because they have consistently been economic populists and local voters knew that. But for other Democrats across the nation, nothing substitutes for a clear, authentic, united Democratic message focused on big ideas. 
Moving forward, something needs to change for Democrats. We need a bigger politics. We won't win our own tidal wave elections unless we can build a movement around big ideas -- like free college education, full employment, Medicare for All, expanded Social Security, and real reform of Wall Street.  
We need to make these issues so central to the national debate that candidates actively campaign on these ideas. And we need to start now.  
Hillary Clinton may be coming around to this strategy. In the final few weeks of the campaign, she tried to sound more and more like Sen. Warren. (While not hitting the language precisely, the intent seemed admirable.)  
Progressives will be organizing in states like New Hampshire and Iowa to ensure that all Democrats running for president take a position on -- and campaign actively on -- Elizabeth Warren's bold populist agenda. This is the path to victory in the primary and general election. 
A national progressive movement stands ready to work with those leaders in Congress who choose to recognize this imperative and step up to champion big ideas.  
And if Obama makes Warren's agenda the centerpiece of his agenda in 2015, his popularity will rise and Americans will get the debate about big, bold ideas that we deserve.  
Focusing on big ideas is the path forward for progressives and Democrats. The Warren wing of American politics is ready to lead.  
Green and Taylor are co-founders of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, at BoldProgressives.org




Elizabeth Warren published an op-ed in The Washington Post, warning Democrats:
Before leaders in Congress and the president get caught up in proving they can pass some new laws, everyone should take a skeptical look at whom those new laws will serve. At this very minute, lobbyists and lawyers are lining up by the thousands to push for new laws -- laws that will help their rich and powerful clients get richer and more powerful.

The American people ... want a government that will stand up to the big banks when they break the law ... help out students who are getting crushed by debt ... [and] protect and expand Social Security.
Read her piece below and tell us what you think.
Elizabeth Warren's Op-Ed in The Washington Post:
Elizabeth Warren: It’s time to work on America’s agenda
There have been terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Election Days for Democrats before -- and Republicans have had a few of those, too. Such days are always followed by plenty of pronouncements about what just changed and what’s going to be different going forward.
But for all the talk of change in Washington and in states where one party is taking over from another, one thing has not changed: The stock market and gross domestic product keep going up, while families are getting squeezed hard by an economy that isn’t working for them.
The solution to this isn’t a basket of quickly passed laws designed to prove Congress can do something -- anything. The solution isn’t for the president to cut deals -- any deals -- just to show he can do business. The solution requires an honest recognition of the kind of changes needed if families are going to get a shot at building a secure future.
It’s not about big government or small government. It’s not the size of government that worries people; rather it’s deep-down concern over who government works for. People are ready to work, ready to do their part, ready to fight for their futures and their kids’ futures, but they see a government that bows and scrapes for big corporations, big banks, big oil companies and big political donors -- and they know this government does not work for them.
The American people want a fighting chance to build better lives for their families. They want a government that will stand up to the big banks when they break the law. A government that helps out students who are getting crushed by debt. A government that will protect and expand Social Security for our seniors and raise the minimum wage.
Americans understand that building a prosperous future isn’t free. They want us to invest carefully and prudently, sharply aware that Congress spends the people’s money. They want us to make investments that will pay off in their lives, investments in the roads and power grids that make it easier for businesses to create good jobs here in America, investments in medical and scientific research that spur new discoveries and economic growth, and investments in educating our children so they can build a future for themselves and their children.
Before leaders in Congress and the president get caught up in proving they can pass some new laws, everyone should take a skeptical look at whom those new laws will serve. At this very minute, lobbyists and lawyers are lining up by the thousands to push for new laws -- laws that will help their rich and powerful clients get richer and more powerful. Hoping to catch a wave of dealmaking, these lobbyists and lawyers -- and their well-heeled clients -- are looking for the chance to rig the game just a little more.
But the lobbyists’ agenda is not America’s agenda. Americans are deeply suspicious of trade deals negotiated in secret, with chief executives invited into the room while the workers whose jobs are on the line are locked outside. They have been burned enough times on tax deals that carefully protect the tender fannies of billionaires and big oil and other big political donors, while working families just get hammered. They are appalled by Wall Street banks that got taxpayer bailouts and now whine that the laws are too tough, even as they rake in billions in profits. If cutting deals means helping big corporations, Wall Street banks and the already-powerful, that isn’t a victory for the American people -- it’s just another round of the same old rigged game.
Yes, we need action. But action must be focused in the right place: on ending tax laws riddled with loopholes that favor giant corporations, on breaking up the financial institutions that continue to threaten our economy, and on giving people struggling with high-interest student loans the same chance to refinance their debt that every Wall Street corporation enjoys. There’s no shortage of work that Congress can do, but the agenda shouldn’t be drawn up by a bunch of corporate lobbyists and lawyers.
Change is hard, especially when the playing field is already tilted so far in favor of those with money and influence. But this government belongs to the American people, and it’s time to work on America’s agenda. America is ready -- and Congress should be ready, too.
Do you agree? Which big ideas do you think Democrats should rally behind?
Click here to share Elizabeth Warren's op-ed on Facebook, and click here to share it on Twitter.




Want to support our work? Ed Schultz called us "The top progressive group in the country"! And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in $3 here.




Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

13 November 2014

Are you reflected in the new Congress? How does Congress compare to the country overall? 6NOV14

 map of united states
HERE is an interactive map (not the one above) from +The Guardian , check it out and see just how many people in the 114th Congress (to be sworn in in January 2014). Click the choices at the top and when you are done the map will show you which members of the new congress are like you.....


Are you reflected in the new Congress?
Despite the record number of women and the first black senator elected in the south since Reconstruction, the new US Congress will still be largely male and largely white. A person's gender, race, sexual orientation, or age doesn't necessarily mean they represent the views of a whole demographic, but lack of diversity could result in certain concerns not being heard – or not heard loudly enough. Click the categories below to find yourself in the new Congress. This graphic will be updated as more seats are called.CLICK here to try the map
*Notes: (1) Our dataset did not include cross-categorization of ethnicity and race. All race categories ("white", "black", etc.) should be interpreted as non-hispanic. (2) The "under 45" category is meant to be inclusive, but – fun fact – the US Constitution bars those under the age of 25 from serving in the House of Representatives and you need to be 30 to serve in the Senate.
Source: AP; United States Senate; House Press Gallery; US Census, 2010; American Community Survey, 2012; NALEO; MAP and the Victory Fund. Additional research by Amanda Michel and Sarah Galo/The Guardian
This interactive was updated on 6 November 2014 to correct information related to the graduate degrees of members of Congress, which had been underreported by the Associated Press.

CONGRATULATIONS SEN ELIZABETH WARREN ON YOUR NEW SENATE LEADERSHIP APPOINTMENT!!! & Elizabeth Warren Gets Senate Democratic Leadership Spot 13NOV14


Congratulations Elizabeth Warren on your new leadership appointment! We look forward to continuing our strong partnership with you!
SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN D MA, Bold Progressive and champion for the American people, has been appointed to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee by Sen Harry Reid D NV to guide the party on progressive policies that the electorate, even in the 2014 mid term elections in red and blue states, support. I love this quote in +The Huffington Post article "Somebody asked me on the way in here, 'Elizabeth Warren's going to be part of your leadership. What do you expect her to do?' I expect her to be Elizabeth Warren," Reid told reporters during a press conference introducing his new team." From the Bold Progressives of the PCCC / Progressive Change Campaign Committee and +Huffington Post Politics .....

BREAKING NEWS: Warren now in Senate Leadership

BREAKING: Warren in Senate Leadership!!!
Huffington Post reports:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gained a leadership position in the Senate Democratic caucus Thursday ... Warren's role, which is a new position created specifically for her, will be in crafting the party's messaging and policy.
This is a good reminder that when we invest early in progressive leaders, it's not just about winning elections in the short term -- it's about building power over time.
As Elizabeth Warren advocates for big ideas like reforming Wall Street, making college affordable, and expanding Social Security benefits, her voice will now be even louder -- because she'll be at the Democratic leadership table.
Click here to sign a congratulations card to Elizabeth Warren (and add a personal note), which we will deliver to her.
PCCC members led the "Draft Elizabeth Warren for Senate" campaign. We were her #1 grassroots supporter in 2012, and partnered with Warren on big legislative pushes in 2013 and 2014.
With this news, that partnership grows stronger -- and all of our work together has more impact.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
-- Stephanie Taylor and Adam Green, PCCC co-founders.

Want to support our work? Ed Schultz called us "The top progressive group in the country"! And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in $3 here.

Elizabeth Warren Gets Senate Democratic Leadership Spot

Posted: Updated:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined the Democratic leadership Thursday. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gained a leadership position in the Senate Democratic caucus Thursday, giving the prominent progressive senator a key role in shaping the party's policy priorities.
Warren's new role, which was created specifically for her, will be strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, helping to craft the party's policy positions and priorities. She will also serve as a liaison to progressive groups to ensure they have a voice in leadership meetings and discussions, according to a source familiar with the role.
A source close to Warren told The Huffington Post that the senator was interested in the position because she wanted to have a seat at the table in the leadership meetings in order to influence the agenda.
Sources told HuffPost that Warren had the strong support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who wanted her as part of his team. Warren's presence in the weekly leadership meetings and her role helping to shape the caucus' policies are significant achievements for progressives.
"Somebody asked me on the way in here, 'Elizabeth Warren's going to be part of your leadership. What do you expect her to do?' I expect her to be Elizabeth Warren," Reid told reporters during a press conference introducing his new team.
Reid's support for Warren also underscores his desire to push progressive policies in the next Congress, a priority his office has confirmed.
"If the ballot measure results are any indication, actual progressive policies remain popular with voters in red and blue states. I believe you’ll see a Senate Democratic caucus fight on behalf of those policies and provide the votes if and when Republicans are ready to act," Faiz Shakir, a senior adviser to Reid, told HuffPost earlier this month.
Speaking to reporters after the leadership elections, Warren sounded familiar themes when detailing what her policy priorities would be.
"Wall Street … is doing very well, CEOs are bringing in millions more and families all across the country are struggling," she said. "We have to make this government work for the American people. And that's what I will fight for."
The Warren announcement took many senators by surprise, with some saying that the leadership simply informed them of the change with little debate.
"It's a fait accompli," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), adding that there wasn't much discussion about what exactly Warren would be doing.
Throughout Senate history, individual members have often steered away from leadership positions, worried that the horse-trading and consensus-gathering that leadership involves would neuter their power. But the Senate has been evolving in recent years into a much more leadership-driven institution, in which individual senators and even chairmen have less power than they once did compared to caucus leadership. Today, decisions that would have been made in side negotiations, in committee or on the floor are instead made by leadership.
It's those meetings that Warren will now be a part of. At the same time, she will diminish her ability to maintain that inside position if she criticizes the party from the outside. That dilemma, however, has been with her every step of her career, as she has moved closer to the center of power.
"I really rather doubt, knowing Elizabeth Warren as I have over the last couple of years, that she's going to give up her progressive views and her strong commitment to consumers, even if she is part of the leadership," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Thursday. "I can't imagine that happening."
Erica Sagrans, campaign manager of Ready for Warren -- the campaign to convince Warren to run for president -- welcomed the senator's new role.
"Warren's new role shows how much of a leading voice she's become," said Sagrans. "It's a great opportunity to put her vision for working families front and center in Washington."
Jennifer Bendery, Michael McAuliff and Sabrina Siddiqui contributed reporting.



Congress has 11 percent approval ratings, yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected in 2014. 10NOV14

WHEN you start, or for most, continue bitching about the government and especially about congress be sure you are looking in a mirror. From +PolitiFact .....

True
Facebook posts
Congress has 11 percent approval ratings, yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected in 2014.
Facebook posts on Monday, November 10th, 2014 in a meme on social media

Congress has 11% approval ratings but 96% incumbent reelection rate, meme says

A reader sent us this social media meme. We looked at whether its numbers check out.
It would be an understatement to say that voters in the recently completed midterm elections didn’t exactly feel warm and fuzzy about incumbents on the ballot this year -- even about the ones they voted for. According to the 2014 exit poll of voters, 59 percent of those who voted said they weren’t happy with Republican leadership in Congress, even as they were handing control of the Senate to the GOP.
A meme making its way around social media, sent to PolitiFact by a reader, captured the frustration many Americans felt. The meme said, "11% approval ratings. 96.4% re-elected" -- in other words, Congress has 11 percent approval ratings, yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected in 2014. The text was superimposed over a photograph of the House chamber in the Capitol.
We wondered whether that was true, so we took a look.
Does Congress have 11 percent approval ratings?
While the meme features a picture of the House chamber, the most common polling question refers to Congress generally, rather than the House specifically, so we looked at Congress’ approval ratings overall. We found congressional approval scores from October 2014 from five different pollsters on the poll-archive website PollingReport.com:
• Fox News: "Do you approve or disapprove of the job Congress is doing?" 13 percent said "approve."
• CBS News: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?" 14 percent said "approve."
• CNN/ORC: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?" 13 percent said "approve."
• ABC News/Washington Post: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is doing its job?" 20 percent said "approve."
• NBC News/Wall Street Journal: "In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Congress is doing?" 12 percent said "approve."
That averages out to 14 percent -- slightly higher than 11 percent, but in the same, miserable ballpark.
Were 96.4 percent of congressional incumbents re-elected?
To be consistent with the polling, which covers Congress broadly, we’ll lump together the incumbent winning percentages in both the House and Senate. There are a few contests still to be decided, but there are enough settled that we can make a pretty close count.
In the House, we counted 390 incumbents who ran on Election Day. Of those, four haven’t had their races called as of Nov. 10, so we’ll set them aside. Of the remaining 386 incumbents, 373 won, for a winning percentage of 96.6 percent.
If you add in three incumbents who ran but lost in primaries, the incumbent winning percentage drops to 95.9 percent.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, 23 out of 26 incumbents won, with one more (Alaska’s Mark Begich, a Democrat) trailing in a race that has not yet been called, and another (Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, also a Democrat) heading into a runoff.
If you don’t include Begich and Landrieu, the combined House-Senate incumbent winning percentage is 95.4 percent. If you do include them, it falls slightly to 95 percent.
All of these percentages are exceedingly close to the meme’s stated 96.4 percent, and they’re a moving target due to late-called races. So we won’t quibble.
Our ruling
The meme said that Congress has 11 percent approval ratings, yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected.
We found small differences in the actual percentages -- Congress had roughly a 14 percent approval rate, and the incumbent re-election rate may be as low as 95 percent -- but the point of the meme is solid. Voters hold Congress in low regard, yet they re-elect almost everyone. So we rate the claim True.

About this statement:

Published: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 4:56 p.m.
Researched by: Nai Issa, Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Subjects: Congress

Sources:

Social media meme sent to PolitiFact
Pollingreport.com, Congressional job rating, accessed Nov. 10, 2014
CNN election results, 2014 midterm House elections, accessed Nov. 10, 2014
CNN election results, 2014 midterm Senate elections, accessed Nov. 10, 2014
Roll Call, "Casualty List: 113th Congress (2013-2014)," accessed Nov. 10, 2014
Politico, "Exit polls 2014: Voters hate everyone," Nov. 4, 2014

08 November 2014

God's Politics Blog Election 2014: Here's What You Missed 6NOV14

A review of how Christian America failed the nation with the results of the 2014 Mid Term elections, from +Sojourners .....

Election 2014: Here's What You Missed

In Tuesday’s elections, most voters didn’t see their candidates as leaders. Americans are cynical about politics, exhibited by the broad-based discontent with both parties, the president, and Congress. Nearly two thirds of the electorate didn’t even vote — turnout this year was likely lower as a percentage of the electorate than any time since 1942. Negative campaign ads reached depressing lows, directly appealing to Americans’ fears and anxieties, and most people don’t think the results of the election will change political gridlock in Washington. This election campaign was a loss for the common good.
We seem to have become cynically resigned to politicians always blaming the other party for every problem instead of solving them and alleged political leaders pursuing a 24/7, 52-week strategy of winning instead of governing. There are no more off election years to make society better; every day and every decision is just a part of the next campaign.
The campaigns and the media coverage were all about polls, attacks, and sound bites. The Republican campaign message was simply: vote against President Obama. And the Democrats deserted him, wouldn’t discuss either his accomplishments or his failures, and had no message of their own that got through. The campaign wasn’t about the most important issues facing the country. Here’s what we should be talking about:
The economy
While we are making progress in reducing international poverty, poverty in America is still 2 percentage points higher than it was in 2007, the year before the most recent recession. The inequality gap is growing while social mobility is declining — a very bad combination. People who live paycheck to paycheck (nearly half of Americans) have stagnating wages and declining quality of life, while the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the economic recovery. Unfortunately, these big problems were barely discussed as election issues this fall. Both Republicans and Democrats need to articulate how we could create an opportunity society, which both parties say they support.
Immigration
Our immigration system is still completely broken, and the Republicans were not held responsible for obstructing reform and blocking a bipartisan Senate bill from going to a clearly passable vote in the House. Republicans and Democrats don’t talk about when and how they will work together to fix the system. Instead, some candidates used immigration as an appeal to fear, condemning “amnesty” and raising the specter of terrorist threats from across our borders. We should hold our political leaders accountable for their fearful distortions, confront them with the facts, and insist that they explain how they plan to fix this broken system.
International terrorism
ISIS presents a very real danger to millions of people, but our political leaders need to do a much better job articulating how best to confront the crisis instead of just blaming the president or other party. We should ask our elected officials if it really makes sense to keep doing what we have been doing in Iraq, Syria, and the entire region. If alienated and angry young people, even in our own country, are being attracted to such a perverted cause because of perceived grievances, wouldn’t it make sense to discuss those grievances instead of burying our collective head in the sand? Instead of circulating the endless rhetoric of defending our values, we need to ask the hard questions about how we have violated those values for so many years in the Middle East — and about the consequences of our past foreign policy mistakes so we don’t repeat history.
Health crises
The Ebola crisis became the most pathetic use of human tragedy for political self-aggrandizement that we saw this fall. Instead of propagating a narrative of fear and paranoia, elected officials should be focused on how best to save lives — starting in West Africa — and not allow American isolationism and its underlying racial prioritizing to create bad health practices.
Money in politics:
In one of the only stories I’ve seen on this issue, Luke Russert reported on “Meet the Press:” “Remarkably, you could pay for 80 British general election campaigns with what’s being spent on this year’s midterms alone.” The media reported on how much was being spent but not what that means for the future of our politics. The reality that the richest people in America have increasing influence over all our elections has disturbing implications for our democracy, and we need to insist that our politicians talk about how they will confront the problem — or at least demand disclosure so we know who is spending the enormous outside money to win elections.
Race:
The endless media talk about how President Obama’s unpopularity was bringing down Democrats almost completely ignored how race played into that. Disagreement with Obama’s policies is, of course, legitimate, but so much of the animosity, even hatred for Obama as a person, has roots in our country’s complicated history with race. Not talking about it is to be oblivious to its continued influence on our lives and our politics. Older white voters dominated this electoral campaign, but if the demographic and voting trends of the past couple of decades continue, it is likely that the 2016 elections will see a another decrease in the share of white voters and an increase in the share of minority voters, especially Latinos. So despite the results of this election, the future belongs to candidates who can appeal to the changing demographics of America.
The new title of my current book, The (Un)Common Good, painfully resonates in this election, as concern for the common good was all too uncommon. Unless we return to the ancient idea and vision of the common good, the health of our public life will continue to deteriorate. The greatest social leaders are always the ones who demonstrate hope despite the challenges and show us that there can be a positive future if we make good decisions and build it together. That is the kind of hopeful leadership our nation so desperately needs, from the bottom to the top of American society — and it may be the only way our political leaders can find their way again. Our best leaders today are not coming from politics but from civil society, courageous non-profits, and social entrepreneurship from both the private and public sectors — they just want to solve problems. What politics needs will most likely come from outside of politics. Cynicism is easy, but hope takes more of a commitment. Fear can’t lead us in a better direction, but the decisions to act on hope always can and always will.
Jim Wallis is president of Sojourners. His book, The (Un)Common Good: How the Gospel Brings Hope to a World Divided, the updated and revised paperback version of On God’s Side, is available now. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Image:  / Shutterstock.com

Related Reading

Foreign Policy's Editor's Picks 3-7NOV14


THIS weeks Editor's Picks from +Foreign Policy magazine
Today, we look at growing anarchy in Iraq, the Pentagon's reassessment to leave Afghanistan after 2016, and go deep inside the Ebola epidemic in Liberia.
 
 
1
 
 
 
 
GANGS OF IRAQ: Marauding pro-government militias are using the fight against the Islamic State as a pretext to destroy Sunni Arab communities across Iraq: Read more
 
 
 
2
 
 
 
 
EXCLUSIVE: 2016 might not be the end. The Pentagon’s man in Kabul is reassessing whether Afghan troops will be ready when the last American forces depart. FP’s Gopal Ratnam reports: Read more
 
 
 
3
 
 
 
 
INTO THE HOT ZONE: From New York to Brussels to Dakar to Monrovia: FP’s Laurie Garrett makes the trip to see Ebola-ravished Liberia, up close and personal: Read more
 
 
 
4
 
 
 
 
BARGAINING WITH BASHAR: The State Department has eliminated funding for an NGO dedicated to documenting Assad’s atrocities. Is the administration relaxing criticism of Syria’s dictator to keep him in the fight against the Islamic State?: Read more
 
 
 
5
 
Sponsored Content
 
 
HOTBED IN THE ARCTIC: The melting ice cap is opening shipping lanes and creating potential for conflict among nations jockeying for the region’s natural resources. Experts weigh in.
 
 
 
 
 
Check in later when FP contributor Konstantin Kakaes writes on why America needs to embrace a culture of risk in order to build the next-generation space program, and other news and views from around the globe.
Today, we look at the foreign policy implications of today's midterms, religion's role in Liberia's Ebola outbreak, and how Beijing views U.S. elections.
 
 
1
 
 
 
 
GOP SHOCKWAVE: Today’s midterms could see Republicans take control of the Senate. But would that kickstart the global economy? The latest from FP’s Daniel Altman: Read more
 
 
 
2
 
 
 
 
THE PULPIT AND THE PLAGUE: Some Liberian clerics say Ebola is a punishment from God. But others are preaching peace, calm, and a chlorine rinse. FP’s Laurie Garrett reports from Monrovia: Read more
 
 
 
3
 
 
 
 
THE VIEW FROM BEIJING: China's ambassador to the United States shares his thoughts with FP on the problems with American elections, Obama's trip to Beijing, and fighting the Islamic State: Read more
 
 
 
4
 
 
 
 
THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS: If Washington wants to stop youth radicalization, the United States needs to offer something better than extremist groups. Right now, it doesn't: Read more
 
 
 
5
 
Sponsored Content
 
 
Business in the Global Context: Navigating the complex landscape of business today requires attention not only to business, but to the many forces that impact it, from economics to policy to law.
 
 
 
 
 
Check in later for FP's coverage of the eight midterms races where the outcome could have massive impacts on national security, and other developing stories from around the world.
Today, we look at Obama's dwindling legacy in the wake of a midterm drubbing, why it's difficult to have a strategy to fight the Islamic State, and remember the fall of the Berlin Wall.
 
 
1
 
 
 
 
TRICKY BARRY: After the GOP’s big win yesterday, Obama could end his term as the most isolated president since Nixon. The latest from FP’s David Rothkopf: Read more
 
 
 
2
 
 
 
 
A COLD WAR MEMOIR: It's hard to remember just how impassable the Berlin Wall was -- until one day it wasn't. FP’s Christian Caryl remembers watching the wall come down: Read more
 
 
 
3
 
 
 
 
A HYDRA IN SYRIA: The U.S. military takes out terrorist leaders around the world, but it's been unable to cut the head off of the Islamic State. FP's Kate Brannen reports: Read more
 
 
 
4
 
 
 
 
THE FIERY FALL: FP’s Leela Jacinto profiles Burkina Faso’s now deposed leader, Blaise Compaoré, who was finally dislodged by the uprisings he spent decades avoiding: Read more
 
 
 
5
 
Sponsored Content
 
 
Fighting poverty with light: Armed with seed funding, two graduate students pilot a business initiative to bring solar lights to rural Africa using existing bus lines and mobile phone kiosks.
 
 
 
 
 
Check in later when FP's Colum Lynch reports on how the Islamic State is fueling global jihad, and other developing stories from around the globe.
Today, we look at America's delusions of grandeur, Putin's Hungary power play, and Georgia's political game of thrones.
 
 
1
 
 
 
 
IT’S NOT YOU, IT’S THEM: Obama’s foreign policy didn’t lose Democrats the midterms. There’s no reason to change course now, writes FP contributor Michael A. Cohen: Read more
 
 
 
2
 
 
 
 
ENERGY EMBRACE: Hungary is helping Putin keep his chokehold on Europe's energy by green-lighting a $70 billion pipeline into the heart of the EU. FP's Keith Johnson reports: Read more
 
 
 
3
 
 
 
 
TROUBLE IN TBILISI: Georgia’s government is falling apart and its most beloved, pro-Western politician is going with it: Read more
 
 
 
4
 
 
 
 
indispensable, in name only: The world doesn’t need the United States nearly as much as Washington likes to think it does, writes FP’s Micah Zenko: Read more
 
 
 
5
 
Sponsored Content
 
 
Test Your Contextual Intelligence: Is clean water the new oil? Does microfinance cause political upheaval? Is the Eurozone tomorrow’s emerging market? What are the global questions that affect businesses today?
 
 
 
 
 
Check in later when FP contributor Susannah George reports on the 10,000 ruthless Shiite fighters who are Baghdad’s best hope for escaping the Islamic State, and other news and views from around the globe.
Today, we look at real reason the Berlin Wall fell, the Pentagon's latest troop deployment in Iraq, and China's market appeal in Asia.
 
 
1
 
 
 
 
WHY THE WALL FELL: The United States has misinterpreted the end of Communism for a quarter of a century. Now it's time to set the record straight: Read more
 
 
 
2
 
 
 
 
NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND?: President Obama authorized the Pentagon to double the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, bringing the total to a little more than 3,000. FP’s Kate Brannen reports: Read more
 
 
 
3
 
 
 
 
NOT SO GREAT EXPECTATIONS: From India to Brazil to Indonesia, reform in emerging markets is going to be a lot harder than investors want to believe, writes FP contributor Nicholas Spiro: Read more
 
 
 
4
 
 
 
 
XI’S ALL THAT: The United States is a welcome counterbalance to China for many Asian countries. But when it comes to economics in the region -- Beijing still brings home the bacon: Read more
 
 
 
5
 
Sponsored Content
 
 
The Future of Money?: Bitcoin isn't your grandfather's currency, but some variant of it might be yours in the future.
 
 
 
 
 
Check in later when FP contributor Trita Parsi writes on the pragmatic politics of Obama's letter to Khamenei, and other news and views from around the world.