Communist Cleveland

A Communist is running for office. And he’s not going to call 1% of the vote a victory—he means business.

It’s a race for election to the Cleveland City Council and Rick Nagin, a Communist Party member (though registered to vote as a Democrat), placed in the primary in his Ward 14. He will now face off against Brian Cummins for a spot on the Council. Cummins has already served on the City Council, representing Ward 15, but because of redistricting he has found himself in the intense Ward 14 fight. The voters will choose between the two on November 3rd.

A number of surprises have sprung upon the residents of Ward 14, the first being that this heavily Latino area will be represented by a Caucasian (both Nagin and Cummins are white). But the newsworthy part is that Nagin, a serious Communist, is a serious candidate. While he has toned down and suppressed his affiliation, the facts remain: former Chairman of the Ohio Communist Party and former contributor to the People's Weekly World, the official voice of the Communist Party of the United States of America.

There are plenty of left-wing fringe candidates in all sorts of local, state, and federal elections, but Nagin has not only made it into the final vote, but has received the endorsement of Senator Dennis Kucinich. Of course, Cummins is no reactionary. He is essentially affiliated with the Green Party. But we all know Ralph Nader. The Greens have been around. But the machine, back in the '50s, blacklisted and jailed the Communists, not the Greens (yes, they didn't exist then, but hey).

I'll admit it: the election is considered nonpartisan, which means political affiliation is not listed on the ballot. Furthermore, if Nagin gets elected, he will not be able to nationalize Goldman Sachs, create a single-payer healthcare system, or mandate a living wage. But it will be a symbol.

I'll admit this too: we're the Young Democrats Party and I'm waxing poetic, mesmerized about a Communist. But he's also a Democrat on his voter registration card. More importantly however, as the Young Democrats of SRVHS, we desire less the triumph of the Democratic Party and more the triumph of justice. We value freedom and equality above Congressional victory and a filibuster-proof majority. These things often coincide. But if a man can stand outside the structure we've built up, if he can represent an ideal that the established interests have been endeavouring to squash, then I will support him if his cause is just.

Surprisingly, CNN even covered the election. You can see the video below.

What's Up With the Stimulus?

The first version of the $819 billion economic stimulus package (aka the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) was passed by the House on the 28th, by a vote of 244 in favor and 188 against (our Congressman, Jerry McNerney, was in favor).  Not one Republican voted for the bill (one abstained) and eleven Democrats went with the Republicans in a vote almost entirely along partisan lines.  The eleven against the bill were largely Blue Dog Democrats--an official coalition of Democrats who proclaim economic conservatism.  The full record of votes can be found here.  The Republicans as a bloc completely spurned Obama's attempts at compromise--but it was expected.  This has provoked a fair amount of outrage.  It has become quite fashionable among liberals to trash Obama and the Democrats for watering down the bill (adjustment of the alternative minimum tax, removing family planning funding, and cutting National Mall renovation).  But that's a really myopic viewpoint.

The House of Representatives is bigger and less likely to compromise than the Senate, which is where we'll see some bipartisanship (hopefully).  The aforementioned liberals are angry that the Democrats compromised since as they see it, there are no moderate Republicans anyway.  Actually, the House Republicans had nothing to gain by going with the stimulus the first time around.  It didn't meet their criteria (lots of tax cuts, less spending), so voting in favor would have looked weak to their constituents, especially to a party that prides itself on strength.  Furthermore, by going with it, it would have weakened the case of the Senate Republicans who will endeavor to develop the bill more in favor with their tastes.  And if they can't work something out, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell always has the filibuster option to stop a vote from happening since the Democrats are just tantalizingly short of a filibuster-proof supermajority (60, whereas the Democrats have 58, and should have 59, Al Franken, on the way).  

By compromising with House Republicans even when they showed no real commitment to the bill, Democrats have built up some good ol' faith with the Grand Ol' Party.  Also, if Republicans get too aggressive in their opposition, they'll run the risk of appearing as obstructing the necessary business of the country in favor of party politics--which is the partisanship we need to be afraid of.  Right now, however, we're just seeing the natural, virtually harmless political maneuvering that no amount of change will ever end.