Pierce Long

Cory Booker takes the third Democratic debate

Sep 14, 2019

I disagree.

What divides is not in fact policy differences, but corporate money. There is a certain subset of candidates, two to be exact, that have absolutely sworn off raising money from wealthy donors. Unfortunately, Senator Booker has decided to continue to take money from large contributors, attend private fundraisers, and even has a Super PAC, which allows large dark money contributors to influence our process, supporting him. The country is not tired of ‘divisive’ rhetoric, but rather wealthy individuals holding extraordinary influence over our elections. This jab about “getting distracted by what divides our party” in the context that you used it is nonsense, because that is what a primary election is all about, letting the people decide which set of policies they best support. When there are only two political parties, it is natural, if not given, for there to be differences within the party, although I would say that polling suggests that the platforms of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren best suit the desires of democratic voters.

This article is completely absent of any policy substance, which isn’t particularly surprising, but worth mentioning when considering the validity of your argument. I’ve already spoken to the popularity of certain platforms as opposed to others so I will digress in that regard. Winning elections is not in fact about “bringing the country together,” but rather motivating a party’s base support enough to accumulate more votes than the other party. Hillary Clinton’s loss should’ve been enough evidence towards this point, but apparently it is rather hard for some people to understand. This misunderstanding, however, is rather unsurprising coming from a member of the democratic delegation from the Iowa House, it doesn’t seem as though they have been particularly successful in recent years, I can’t quite put my finger on why that might be.

The same people denouncing the ‘divisive’ nature of our politics are in fact the main purveyors of division. As mentioned before, the majority of democratic voters support the platform of Warren and Sanders, and yet this not reflected in the slightest among federal or state legislators. The method for correcting this disparity would seem to be running everyday people in primary elections against incumbent democrats who don’t support the same general policy prescriptions as the people they represent (the central idea of democracy). Cory Booker said last week “We cannot tolerate Democrats who turn against other Democrats and try to tear us down” in reference to primary election challengers. Running in a primary election is not in fact ‘trying to tear us down’ but rather trying to give the people an opportunity to express their opinions, that is the central idea of democracy! We need look no further than Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, a ‘democrat,’ who voted to nominate someone seriously accused of sexual assault to the Supreme Court. Trying to empower the people of West Virginia by giving them an alternative in a primary election to someone complicit in sexual assault, is not tearing us down, in fact, those who would prevent such a challenge, are guilty of the crime which they accuse others of doing, “tearing us apart.”

Twelve quick takes on the third Democratic debate

Sep 13, 2019

Crazy Bernie

I agree completely! Why does Bernie have to be so honest about his ideology? Why doesn’t he just do what every other politician does and change his message to appeal to different groups of voters! No wonder he got so little support last time running against the underdog Hillary Clinton, she was clearly better at changing her message so that she wouldn’t make people uncomfortable! Look back at the last polling in head to head match up with Trump between Bernie and Hillary, she clearly had way more support because she had so much more integrity.

IA-02’s starting to look like a lean Democratic seat

Jul 09, 2019

Let's Have an Honest Response

Responding to accusations of ‘Venezuelan Socialism’ from the right, is not an effective long term strategy. The economic collapse of Venezuela was due to harsh economic sanctions put on the country back in 2013, and although the country’s reliance on oil did not help, the United States is infact the root cause of their poverty. Venezuelan Socialism was radically successful at pulling millions out of poverty, one of the reasons people today are reluctant to overthrow the current administration. That’s the reason Juan Guiado has not succeeded in his coup attempts. Pink Tide governments all across Latin America have been successful as bringing people out of poverty. The reason these governments have failed is due to power tampering by the United States government and instead of trying to deflect these accusations of socialism; why don’t we embrace the achievements of these countries and start to undue our dirty deeds down south. All of these things happened under Obama, and the Clinton state department as well, proving we need to be even more hypercritical of our own party.

Come on, progressives

Jun 26, 2019

Civility and Compromise Delusion

This whole notion that the American people just want civility, and for both parties to get along has no factual basis. Perhaps its easy for some people to over look those struggling in society; however, these people are truly struggling, and compromise and civility will not solve any of their issues, and they understand that. Just to get a sense of the amount of people struggling; United Way’s ALICE (Asset-Limited, Income Contained, Employed) project estimated that around 40 percent of the country cannot afford a basic monthly budget. In Iowa that number is very similar, as it is in the rest of ‘middle America.’

No true progressive would support someone who borderline supported a republican in a midterm, a move which would only empower the current president. The type of thinking present in this article is the reason we are in this mess in the first place, the electorate already chose radicalism over civility. You seem to be old enough to remember the 2000 election, but your writing completely misses every lesson for progressive politics over the last 20 years. The last election should have been warning enough, but apparently some people still can’t grasp the reality of the situation.

P.S. Rebutting ridiculous notions with evidence is not ‘uncivil’ it is moral. If you can’t defend your positions don’t write articles.

Why I’m caucusing for Beto O’Rourke

Jun 18, 2019

Voting Against Your Interest

If you were truly, labor-oriented, you would be appalled at the fact that Beto O’Rourke has previously called for Social Security reform. We all know what that means. You are infatuated with a person and not policies which actually aim to help the American people or a social understanding of the inherent disparities within our society, you are narrowly focused with the personality of a oligarchic Texan who’s infatuation with power radiate from him tongue every time he speaks. We need a candidate who will stand up to big business and not just stand on tables for attention. I could barely bring myself to vote for Beto in a general election against Trump, how do you think struggling lower- and middle-class Americans will. This delusion with personality got us in this mess in the first place and surely listening to people partly responsible for the republican controlled state legislature is not the most intelligible decision.

View More...