tv Netroots Nation Conference - Economic Strategies CSPAN August 11, 2017 10:09pm-11:29pm EDT
largest values-based caucus among the democratic party in congress. we are very happy to have you here and today's panel is pivoting left, how we win by standing up for working families. we would like to take a look at what happened in the last election, and where we need to have a bigger and bolder message as opposed to maybe a message of incrementalism. one of the things that the progressive caucus has always done, for a number of years is we have our annual progressive caucus budget that we put forth, that is full of those big ideas, trying to move the ball forward. it is a big bold way, of trying to get policy solutions that people are asking for, but also trying to help elect early by chuck -- electoral early by talking about those big issues. person kind of briefat does a
introduction and everyone will have five minutes to make some initial comments, then we will ask a couple of questions from the panel, based on that discussion. then we will open it up for questions. our first, i will go in order that we have here, start down this way then come back, we have amy allison who is president of democracy in color, to her is representative from the 17th district in california, then next to row is joshua, partner wildlylling firm that is isgressive and to my right, neil abernathy, vice president of research and policy at the roosevelt institute, which helps a lot of us in the progressive caucus, the democratic party, and candidates to come up with great policy ideas. this is our panel, and we will start, here as we did in the last panel. amy, we will start with you then go to row, then josh.
allison, the president of democracy in color. amy: thank you. good afternoon everyone. the conversation about where our party goes has to be grounded deeply. in an understanding about why we lost in 2016, and who the democrat voters, the most loyal central democrats that are most reliable, really are. some of it, is about a conversation, a hard conversation about how we have been focusing or resources, what messages we have been giving our campaigns and what leaders we are elevating. there has been an assumption amongst the democrats that the fight is for swing voters. but we saw in 2016, some inform ushat should
going forward, first of all, the party is 47% people of color. refiningation about and economic message, must be anded with an open knowledge meant about the role of racial injustice in limiting economic opportunities for nearly half of our party base. this is critical because there has not been a full conversation about the role of race and as trump continues and the republicans continue to use race as a magnet for white voters, and a wedge, the democrats have to be able to fully address race, not only in a platform, but in conversations about policy. so, when we look at the dynamic with 2016, democracy and color was able to demonstrate, and some of the states where clinton lost with 10 points or fewer,
that it was not swing voters who democrats,y, it was or people who went to third or fourth party candidates, and in some cases that number was greater than the win number four trump. so if we want to bring back people from third parties, people who would want to hear a more progressive, stronger message, a party that directly addresses race and racial justice, that are inspired in both leaders and the message, they need to reflect that. today, in this conversation, i am glad to start the conversation by challenging us, as members of the party, to do things differently. assume, not to do and the chasing of white swing voters, who actually we have cast out, but really focus on the new american majority, which is multiracial, progressive and
reliable. it is our challenge for 2018, 2020 and beyond. to evolve the way that we look at empire ties our pretty -- our base -- how we look at and prioritize our face, and talking to them early and often, in the language and the way that we will bring them in. >> great. thank you so much, amy. next we have -- thank you so .uch aimee the representative from california. >> enqueue for having me. it i am honored to be on the panel with mark who really pushes the envelope with the progressive agenda and appreciate being part of the caucus. i agree with what aimee said about racial justice, partly because of the issue of morality. putting aside the politics, and there are two places that i
such asint to, wisconsin. i am sure that mark could speak to that in more detail, but as i understand it, secretary clinton lost by 30,000 votes and there were about 300,000 people identified as not having the right border id, who were unable to come to the polls. there were numerous reports of people calling the polling , who were largely african-american areas like milwaukee and others, not being given the correct information on how to they could get a voter id card. so i think when we look at what of the untold stories of 2016, is the suppression of minority voters. -- the rollback of basic voting rights, protection and legislation, that is had on this country.
while the demographics are under -- are favorable for the long-term progressive movement, they will not be as favorable if we do not deal and have a strategy with making sure that people are enfranchised. the second thing is that we need restorative justice in this country. there is no doubt that we have had historical wrongs. , atink that many people least democrats and others believe that we need to have investment in my view, hbcus, historically black colleges and districts that have not had the same opportunities for business, minority businesses, for educational opportunities, again, putting aside the politics, these are just the right things to do, for us to be a more just country. i don't think the democratic party, or our generation can ever compromise on those basic values. in addition to that though, i
don't think we should be afraid --articulate a bold are economic vision that will appeal to everyone in america. i would say that trump message, i agree that some of it had racial overtones, but there was also a part of his message which said, i am going to bring back skilled workers, and the coal mines, and bring back the communities to the america that they knew. we as democrats have to offer an economic vision for everyone. what is their future? for their kids, how is it going to be better in the 21st century? how are they going to have the same opportunities that they once did? trump is promising them that they will have this false economic security.
there, i think of course, we have progressive people's budget, which we have talked about, investing in infrastructure, and in new industries. creating a -- creating a partnership -- apprenticeship programs, so that we can say that for those who are going through this economic transition, we are going to make sure that we -- we get that your life is hard, that your life is not the same rate we are not going to lie to you. we will not tell a 65-year-old steelworker that things are great. they will not believe that. here is what we can do, we can at least make sure you have health care, but you at least have dignity in retirement. and you know what, we can ensure your kids have the same shot as kids in palo alto, or new york, or anywhere in this country. that message is one that i think does kind of cross racial, denture, ethic lines. in my view we need a strong
message, on issues of restorative justice and voting rights, and we also need a --ong economics of platform economic platform. i think we can do both. >> thank you very much, ro. josh? >> thank you. i am a research partner in a progressive research firm. i will talk for five minutes and hopefully about what we are learning in terms of public opinion, where we are falling short, and how to make some improvements. the research has been coming out lately. these are notg, just my rules, these are three rules that i repeat often to candidates that i am working for for public office. three reasons why people do or do not vote for democrats. in no particular order. the very first reason is that there was not an economic reason to vote for democrats.
there is no reason to vote for democrats if there is no economic reason and we are not giving them an economic reason to vote for us. is my number one rule, no economic reason, is an reason to note vote for us. the second reason is that people do not dislike democrats, they do not dislike aggressive, because they think you are liberal, they dislike us everything we are weak. we do not stand hard enough on our principles, we do not fight hard enough for the groups who we are supposed to fight for. we bend too easily and too it -- they dot of not believe that we will fight, they do not believe what we believe often in our liberal progressive principles. the third one that i tell them, is that people support our progressive agenda. you have seen survey after survey that says that we support health care for all, better environmental and arts, hold
--porations accountable, better environmental standards, and hold corporations accountable etc. so why do people not vote for our people. what is a problem, why can we not put this together in a campaign? i amore thing to note, reminded of the end of this when people are having conversations about what happened. and someone said that even had one, because of the margins we had, she would not of had a democratic senate work with aura congress to pass legislation with. so we would not have gotten done what he wanted to get done. because we are not bringing enough people along. we are not bringing enough our folks into office so that we can bring change. so there was something happening, where we do not have a core unified message. so what i think is our -- there
are lots of individual reasons, but we need a fundamental overhaul, not a piece by piece way to make this work. the reason people do not believe us or do not vote for us, is poor to our challenge, court our problem. i think part of the challenge is often, we have to bring the conversation down, we often have very elite conversations about the economy, whether it is college issues. we have these elite kind of conversations with each other that do not reach voters. the problem is voters often think that we are the elites to read we are the ones who defend government, we wish to reform it .eare the representatives that i think we doactly right, is that not have conversations where people are. we talked about a strong
economy, instead of talking about shrunk -- strong families. we talk about good jobs, is that of talking about what that means for families and for people. we are having conversations that do not reach them because we are talking about things at a level that they do not been brought into these kind of conversations. say, tor piece i will abstractions on how we talk about the economy. it is too abstract and we do not bringing down to where they are direct we have to talk more about how they live, and not just about what is happening happening in the economy through it we work for a reason, to pay our bills and for other things. but were the -- what are the other things? the economy that we want has to -- we need to know what they are undergoing in their daily life. the last point i am making, and it will turn it back to the team
have 10 point agenda is to fix the economy. we now havepoints, four sub points for every one of them. so really we have a 40 point agenda to fix the economy, right? i am an idiot. voters are not idiots who want to hear 40 points, they want to have a conversation. we cannot boil this down to them in a way that is good to them, so i think that is a big issue for us here. enough aboutear what our progressive principles are to voters, and we are having too much of an elite conversation with them and they do not talk about the issues the way we tend to talk about them. >> thank you, josh. ll? i am now abernathy, and i study economics, so i will try
to not be too elitist. i am actually very optimistic right now about the prospects for a progressive economic vision. i think what we have seen is that the conservative story about how the economy works, that has really guided policymaking for the last 30 to 35 years, not just on the right, but within the democratic party, is fraying, people do not believe it. many of us have never believed it, but the idea that wealth is going to trickle down, that intervention of any sort hurts growth, and therefore hurts jobs and average american, the idea that markets are fair and efficient and all that we need is legal protection in order to compete in a market fairly, these are absolutely laughable to most americans at this point. toy may have been laughable many people, particularly people
of color and women for the last 35 years, and a lot of people thought they were true. that is how we got to where we are. so i think that progressives have a huge opportunity to tell a coherent torry about how the economy actually works. about howherent story the economy actually works, that institutions and ideas shape outcomes, that it is not as though we all show up on the marketplace on equal footing. it is not that the outcomes are inevitably going to be just and fair. at the end of the day, the way that we have an operating is also really bad for growth. we have the economists on our side now, some of them, which may or may not be a benefit. that this anti-, which was a part of the better deal agenda promoted by the democrats recently, it a really useful entry point to this conversation, to the idea that
corporations have too much power, and the rich and corporations have been able to rig the goals on their own behalf. story to tellg there, but i think that average americans get it. and talking about antitrust is a way to sort of signal that you also get that. i do think that there is a lot more than antitrust that needs to be in our agenda. us, we talkeed for about this a lot in the roosevelt institute, how do you connect the top issues around tax rates, monetary policy, antitrust, two people who lived the experience? whether that is the job of the skilled worker, or to a racial justice agenda, or a women's agenda? it,e are two aspects of one, i believe things like antitrust are intersectional issues. when you grasp monopoly power"
society that is also -- that also has deep structural inequalities, those get worse. but i also think that we need to while corporate power is necessary to do what we want to do in -- it is also not sufficient. broadband and infrastructure -- broadband infrastructure is a great example. if we had a more competitive telecoms world, we would all pay a lot less for a lot better service. thate would perhaps feel the corporations had less power and our allies. but it would not be sufficient, to close the digital divide. we would still need massive public investment to target the communities that have for historical and continue structural reasons, not been able to get access to the goods and services that are critical to participate in the economy.
that is a lot. i just wanted to say, that i am at a loss, we have not done it perfectly. combining these agendas, the corporate power agenda, the racial justice agenda, the women's agenda, and i am very optimistic, that by continuing to have conversations like this, we can find ways to make these connections that actually look at the expense of all americans? >> thank you. so we will start the discussion up here. we will open up the discussion in a little bit. , youted to start off, ro said that we can do both. how do we get to making sure that we are covering all of the issues? i think an interesting thing is that after the election, there was a hold on half of our democratic and sick -- constituencies, a wide variety of them said that they had an unexpected -- if they had an unexpected $500 expense, they would be in trouble.
50% say that jumps to not pay enough to live on and it is a struggle to save up anything. we see a strong economic message out there, across a multitude of our constituencies, and i liked what you brought up, nell, and entry point for these issues. anyone was watched what happened with united airlines pulling the person off the plane, that's why happens when you get a consolidation of industries. you know -- you don't even have to consider your actual customers. how do we create a message that can accomplish both? >> i just want to say that progressives in the democratic party have to start thinking intersectional he. i am glad you brought up that word -- intersection elite, we need to learn what that is and how to be that. intersectionally.
for me, as a woman of color, all of the things that make me me, our politics needs to accommodate that, and we need to look at the party and those who are the best intersectional, who articulate intersectional politics. i thought it was really led byting, revolutions nina turner, one of the top articulators of an intersectional policy. she articulated a suite of congressional bills, should we win in 2018, that would address a whole lot of issues. we need to start tying together, there are a lot of women of playing this role, in the party and in movements in the resistance, and those addressing immigration reform and criminal justice reform, and education -- we have to be able andring together a -- articulate the economy and the context of these movements.
those at best, are to collated by elevating the voices who do it best already. we do not have to scramble around, and wonder what the magic phrase will be. i would also like us to think about, really challenge ourselves about who we are really trying to convince to vote for us to love the example hillaryia, where clinton lost by 213,000 votes, and every statewide democrat, from jason carter to michelle nunn who ran for senate, they lost about 22% of the white vote. georgia,state like having an economic message that is aimed at white voters without looking at other movements, or articulating intersectional, we have already hit the ceiling there in a state like georgia.
in a place like wisconsin, and in a place like michigan, you have to look at the $200 million that were put to -- when progressive movements were ing whether to spend that money on october, zero dollars were spent on colored -- on black voter engagement. the question of who we need to win over, led to the ways that money in those communities was invested in, and we did not lift up the right leaders. i would like to challenge us to think about who it is that should be articulating, and being spokespeople, and witching hours and bringing in all of these messages of economic injustice. messages that we can motivate our voters to come back to the polls, even amongst african-american voters there was a 7% drop between 2012 and 2016. proving to be a critical swing
vote for hillary clinton's loss. so, let's have an open conversation about that. i keep talking about race, because if you are not willing to talk about race in a conversation about democrats, doing that a huge part of the party are people of color, and they are the swing vote, then we will not have a conversation about how to really strengthen our progressive movement. i like that you said that there is no magic phrase. if there was a magic phrase, then why do we not run david copperfield for president, right? it is not that simple. many subnot have so points, right, josh? anybody want to make a comment? >> i think this is fantastic. i think the issue for us is there is this tension, a real tension pulling at both ends here, and it is often the way that we want to talk about how
, justerate, not just our the progressive base, within that race, the people of color, there is a tension about the kinds of conversations we have, when at base they want the jobs that pay them enough to avoid the things -- afford the things they would like to afford. when we have conversations about holding corporations accountable and making them pay more, etc., our bases feel the tension on what that could mean for the jobs they are trying to find. so we often counterpunch ourselves with these conversations about who to hold accountable. the issue is that it is very important to name these corporations, whether it is a , or other big pharma corporations. when we think about the kinds of conversation -- conversations you want to have, the key is to ways, talk about in many
what we lose when we do not do the right kind of thing. what we lose when we make the decision. ll lose, families wi what they will have taken away. the conversation should be about what we gain, and what we lose. that is why the health care fight was so successful in many ways, because a lot of americans were saying, we going to lose coverage. we are going to have coverage taken away from us. so we need to have a conversation about what is taken away, what we lose, so that it helps people focus and hone in on the progressive agenda. >> thank you. ro? 's,i appreciated aimee conversation about intersectional it. lity.glad -- intersectiona
i think that we should start by saying, what is our vision for america? i actually think that whatever you think of politics, barack obama, one of the things that was so powerful about his candidacy, rooting aside his ideology, he started in 2004 by saying, this is the america that i believe in. it was a message that was first wrapped in the churches in, but his vision of america was very different than donald trump's vision. his vision of america said, look, every person should have a shot. at the greatness of the country -- the greatness of the country is not with the elite people in wall street, or elite industries, or -- it is about honoring individuals of every background. if you start with that framework, that our vision is about giving everyone in this country a shot, whether they come from economic disadvantage or or whether they have at
racial injustice or racial discrimination, the point is that we believe in their potential. then i think you start to have a frame for all of our policies. i think it is so important, to frame it in that this is our vision of the country. drives me things that crazy as when donald trump says, his policies are going to 3% economic growth. we say,, no they are not, they will lead to 1.8%. then he says, you do not believe in america. we should say, our policies will lead to a 4% growth, let us tell ! will make sure everybody has an education, we will get rid of health-care costs, we will give people what never had new job opportunities, and invest in real people and not and the elite, and will get
4% growth and will make america anlly great! we have to have aspirational, patriotic message , andappeals to people guts i think of that obama did that. i think that was why he was president and a sense. and i think that aspiration is very important. >> i think that part of our struggle is that, i think that was terrific, but in terms of -- president obama's vision for the he was, and i think that great for the country terms of what we were facing. he was not really great for progressives and democrats. later -- eight years later, where are we? times, what happened? are we better off, we are safe, think goodness, we did not have a years of mccain, but how much real progressive change have you seen? we have lots of -- lots of the
have -- choose not to we are not in fights when we should be, and we are not defending people that we should be defending. commission, wey do it, we had control of congress for two years. .e passed some of those laws we are often too big to fail. we did not prosecute these corrupt son of a guns in new york. and now they are empowered to do it again. so, have we delivered? what kind of mistakes have we made, by commission or omission, and how do we fix those? great stuff have a vision, but, the american people -- it is great to have a vision, by the american people are wondering, ist??is the gsi >> i would like to address something, that you said about the growth argument, about attacking corporations and potentially undermining people
-- people feeling that might be attacking their jobs. i do not know if it is a winning message, i am not a pollster, but i do think that there is a deep seated belief that intervention will hurt growth. and that that is ultimately going to be bad for me and my job. we tend to make this argument around fairness come up and i have slowly think we should keep on making it, but we have some new tools at our disposal. which is that there is an actually i growth argument to be made about progressive economic agenda items as well. we can talk about, we haven't upcoming tax fight, and we can talk about the fairness argument, we need to raise taxes on the richest americans, they are not paying their fair share -- we can also talk about it as a growth issue. that taxes structure of the kind of economic choices that businesses and it -- individuals
make. economy andep the cities, where people have a lot of very expensive real estate, and icr, but do not actually create the economy that creates shared prosperity, raising taxes on the rich, not lowering corporate taxes, well increase -- increased job. i think there are a lot of economic issues that we can tell the story to but which is not to, which is to make the moral argument. i subscribed to the moral argument, i do not know what more people do not, however, when you feel like your livelihood is threatened turned, perhaps a great argument will serve you better. >> we will open up the questions after this question. let me ask a provocative question. i can tell that one of the members of staff and our
democratic caucus is saying, what is he doing, he is going off crypt? -- off script. in wisconsin, donald trump one by 22,000 votes. we lost a lot of core voters, and a lot of areas across the state. i was a journalism major and i've always been told to write, -- we talked about our problems and we heard this before, that people viewed us as a party of the elite in the last election, and so far, folks have brought intersectionality, which unfortunately is also a seven syllable word. it is provocative. i am putting it out there, how ctionality,interse and talk to those voters that we lost, and not run the risk of looking elite in general.
>> if we try to play trumps game we lose. that is all i am saying. let us not play that game. >> come on, let us clap for that. [applause] little further, if you do not mind? >> what i mean is that we are not going to be more hateful, we are not going to denigrate other people, we won't do that because he really represents the worst democratic reality that we are dealing with. are, as a progressive movement, inclusive and multiracial. division, like anna said, weh should not in our approach try to emulate or try to play on his field. what i believe is very powerful, --to figure out, go to our
go back to our core values, who we are, and recognize that most of what we did wrong in 2016 was not recognize who the core voters of the party are. and to invest in leadership messaging and actually on the ground engagement, talk to the voters who brought -- and bring them to the polls. in some states, fewer people voted for hillary clinton than voted for john kerry. i think part of the reason is that we have not committed to engaging voters of color, in particular lack voters, and in particular, black women who came up for hillary clinton at 94% but came out in fewer numbers. play donald's not game, i'd say that we get -- we need to get right to the movement about who actually comprises progressives, and who are the most progressives? the you american majority,
majority that elected president obama, they are waiting for the kind of message that is inclusive and multicultural. there are also waiting for the light -- the right leaders and the right intersectional message, and the right investment from the top progressive organizations, and the party. if we talk early and often and engage people, we cannot win -- i am most want to say to progressives who feel -- all my god we lost, and we're losing, we cannot win without getting right about being inclusive and bringing everyone to the table, and taking that, $1.8 billion that was raised and and on the election last year, without a sizable chunk dedicated to voters of color, their engagement and on the ground -- we have to admit that it is not just the message on a piece of paper or on a website. it is the structure of how we are organized, that keeps us
losing. when i say, do not play the game? i am not saying that it is not just that donald trump want, it is that we have to involve in a movement that is multicultural, bring in all of these different issues, so that we can move forward with the voters that we can rely on to be with us. [applause] >>ro? i have been reading john quincy adams's biography and there is a chapter where john adams father says that it is not sufficient for him to read aristotle and lehto, in english, he has to -- and plato in english. he has to read it in the greek language. what happened to the thinkers who founded this country? it is amazing, they were so proud of their education. they were so proud to have been well read, and thoughtful.
obama, and i over respect. as, but if our consultants had gotten their ends -- their hands on the 2004 democratic convention beach, it wouldn't have been such a great speech. part of what made it extraordinary was that he actually had intelligent inks to say. so i think -- intelligent things to say. need to shye do not away from thoughtful conversation or complicated sentences, i think that is different from showing respect. we cannot be one of not showing condescension or some sense of -- i am better than you, i think we have to do a better job of showing up and being authentic. i do believe that there is a large number of people who will respond to a thoughtful message. if you look at john f. kennedy's speeches or obama's speeches, many of the best beaches were
very, very complex. >> let me add this to josh. we did a poll in wisconsin on the governorship, and one of the interesting thing that came out of it, was that it is becoming thatof a national trend, more educated white men are starting to vote democratic, and women with less education are starting to vote more republican. there was only a six-point gap, and we're starting to see a gap based on education. how does that relate to the ?onversation we're having josh >> i think the trend is correct. in a lot of places. across the country, the more educated are becoming more democratic and progressive, and the more worldly part of it is what trump is and can do and their response was to turn back and become more
democratic. then, white working-class women, and our problem is not just white working-class women, it is working-class people across the board. it is why they did not turn out as they did in 2012. working-class is not just a blackpeople problem or a dust or a people of color problem, we did not have enough of a message to get to them. the other thing is that we are very complex -- we are a complex movement, and we welcome diversity, and welcome complication, but we cannot talk about aggressive as just progressive. -- progressives as just progressive. men of color, african-americans and latinos in particular, moving closer to the middle. giving back votes to the middle, they are no longer turning on us.
we areting on us to read not talking to them, so it is not just a question of how do we talked to progressives, it is about how do we talk to this aggressive as opposed to that progressive? men and women are very different. in terms of their priorities. we talk a lot to women, as we should, they are our base, they are our voters. uh,,um,, we have not done a good job, honestly, to talk to traditionally progressive men and their votes have been moving to the middle. >>um, i am probably not the right person to talk about better ways to have intersection ality but i have been reminded of the meeting that we had a couple of years ago where
we had a bunch of economists and activists, and they unveiled a powerpoint presentation that was like, we discovered that power matters in economics. and all the activists were like, yeah. we have been doing this every day for a whole lives best for our whole lives. i think in some ways we can overcome the case things. i do to overcompensate things. thatpeople understand there is something really wrong with the economy. that they do not have autonomy over their own lives. when i say people, i mean all people, our polling shows that a message about corporate power, or the rich getting richer, or the rigged economy, resonates with republicans, with white more with young people of color, young women,
young millennials, obviously young millennials is redundant, but, then a message like hillary clinton ran on, such as breaking down barriers. it was not economics, it was inclusive, but it minor -- she might not have been the best messenger for that. we need to know that inclusion is not just about civil rights agenda, which is critical, but it is also about an economic justice agenda as well. about been reading a lot work from jesse jackson's campaign and going back to the populace, and they built a multicultural coalition. they talked about what economic rights mean, to control your
life. about not being controlled by a corporation, not being controlled by history, or a racial category, that truly having the freedom to determine your own destiny. i think there are a lot of messages around back that are already resonating with people and it is our job to pick them up. >> alright, will open it up. if you do not mind, keep your questions to one minute or less. as concise as you possibly can do. please say your name, where you're from and asked the question. >> i am a philosopher teaching at the university of georgia. i would like to put before you to game changing proposals that are crucial to making this paper -- the pivot in consideration. that none of you are advancing this and virtually no one at this conference is advancing it. -- the new social bill of rights i run for congress in georgia's 10th district, the first is guaranteed employment.
ofa fair and minimum wage $20 an hour, with full inflation and productivity gain adjustment. this is the basis of economic security, and also of providing the job market in which any possibility of raising incomes becomes possible. was dearomething that to franklin and eleanor roosevelt, but has fallen into complete oblivion since then. i think it is a complete game changer that needs to be put at the front of our agenda. secondly, our measures for employee empowerment. this has two sides to it. givee one hand, we have to employees a fair share of management, in business, by boards ofthat all directors of private and public corporations have 50 -- 15% of their seats filled by employees
picked by their peers and we also have to mandate something that is not being achieved nlrbgh the efforts of the or the efforts of unions themselves. we have to make it a matter of law that any corporation employing freelancers are part-time or full-time workers have mandatory collective bargaining. >> ok, thank you very much. we appreciated. let us open that to the panel. anyone wants to address that? >> i am a big fan of -- >> please speak read into the microphone. >> thank you, i am a big fan of eight jobs guaranteed. we did not really get into specific policies, but i would imagine that many of my colleagues on the panel would also have interesting things to say about it. mostnot sure it is the politically viable thing in the near future, but i think it is worth talking about, and depending on the politics of
one's congressional district, it is certainly worth running on. >> any other comments? >> i think it is terrific that we have more philosophers running for congress. i think one of the dumbest things marco rubio said is that we need more welders and less philosophers. i think it is not a good thing for our country -- i think it is a good thing for our country. i think that for employment, i think the people budget has trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending and other things that would do that. but i will caution this, there are a lot of folks who had shot -- jobs in steel factories or minors or other jobs in the private sector, and if you talk to them, they want to have opportunities also in the private sector. they want to be small business owners, they do not want, ok, everyone in my district gets to
go to work at google, facebook and as buyers to make millions of dollars and everyone else has a federal job. that is not what they want. you want a chance to participate in the private sector jobs as well, for them and their kids. so i think we have to be careful in framing this, in a way that has access to the private sector jobs as well, and not just a government job, as much as i respect them. irate >> next question. can you give me your name please and where you are from? >> iron from chattanooga, tennessee. this is towards the opening comments. i think that most people i work with, the oregon trail generation and millennials, for them, when you were talking about telecom, it is a real powerful thing. look at what john oliver, basically all of the stuff that is going on with telecom, it has been engaging for the generation. there is also the idea that we have to push, that -- i would like to ask josh, in
chattanooga, we have what is , municipal owned, owned by the power they have 90,000 customers now, the largest cable company in chattanooga. the best internet company in the country and it is owned by the city. would that be something -- it boats.sfts all they are more apt to support other government initiatives. do you think may be approaching it and using it as a case study or example may have a better affect them looking at things ?nd saying deregulation is bad this is what happens when we let
government work. >> i think the chattanooga model is a great model. we are doing a case study on it. this issue is really interesting, and interesting intersectional issue because in amazingoga, you have service for everyone but they are not allowed to sell the internet. >> that is marsha blackburn. representative did everything in her power to convince state legislature to prevent them from going outside the service area. option. is no free they are not allowed to give it to low income people. >> you are right. york has undertaken a model where they are using
isps to provide free housing.to public they are hoping to expand from there. it is a question of -- chattanooga has chosen a universal model they hope can be targeted to people most in need. started with the people most in need and are hoping to go get a verse oh. broadband -- are hoping to go universal. issue of is an accessing the economy. this is not a luxury product. americas to the things has already done quite well. electrification -- i am an fdr fan, obviously.
the national highway system. >> others? thank you very much. congressional district , if you look at a map of broadband connectivity, you have it in madison and the northwest -- the most socialistic republican town in the country, they own the water distribution, electric, phone company, cable, broadband and they expand everything in the whole part of the county. businesses are so happy to be there. scott walker does not allow that anymore.
>> there are some proposals by groups like microsoft. modelse looking at other . >> my name is frank and i am from california, from a district next to [inaudible] anyway, i want to bring up a point i have not heard from you. representingeen as the corporate wing of the democratic party. bernie was representing the people. i want to hear you address that. that is one of the keys. i have not heard you talk about that. >> frank, i will open it up to that or if you want to go a little broader --
>> whether it is from the corporate wing or representing the people. flex i am glad you brought that up -- >> i am glad you brought that up because my opening remarks were about the progressive movement. we need to figure out who voted .or third-party candidates if you look at your home state, interestingly enough, both johnson and stein got 110,000 more votes than candidates who .an the previous elections where did those votes come from? in the case of wisconsin, rights, you have a situation 235,000, 200,000 votes.
we can make some assumptions about how the party needs to and draw inetter people who are looking for an alternative to moderate or corporate centered democrats. partyetty broadly -- our probably has done a poor job. updated deal is the economic platform the democrats released two or three weeks ago. better for want? -- better for what? that are for him? whom?tter for it does not fully embrace an agenda that takes -- it does address trust issues, but it
does not go as far as it needs to. not go far enough to activate and bring in people who were disappointed they did not have better alternatives than the democratic party. it is a serious and fundamental conversation that we have to have in order to win. otherwise, our weaknesses and our inability to fully embrace a progressive agenda that goes far enough, brings people who did not vote or who went to third parties last year, brings them back into the fold under a powerful banner of economic change. thank you for your question. from they's money came
corporations. bernie's money came from the people. about the new america majority as oppressive base and press the voters -- progressive base and progressive voters. it does not mean they are democrats. it means they are progressive. we are not capturing -- they are not republicans, we know that. younger african-americans are not republicans. they are not democrats. this is a generation we could lock in that we continue to give back. they are looking for an outlet
and they are not finding the kinds of candidates that we are nominating speaking to them. >> next question. >> i am from california. tired of 10th it plans -- 10 point plans. clear andng for a cogent stand for what we are against. how come we cannot have half a dozen points we will fight like deathsomething tax. why does the opposition have clear goals? we are against this. why is that? can't we be negative, too? [laughter] >> who wants to go negative on the panel?
>> progressives love governing. >> part of our challenge is our progressive base. it is a generational break right now. the older folks are stand up and stop and prevent. ,et's prevent what he is doing let's stop the damage. the millennials are not negative. they are resistant. want to make good things happen, i want to help people. we have to have room for both of those in the conversation. when we talk to young people, it junior-college or whatever we want to talk about. it is more program oriented and
more doing good. our older folks are stop this guy. isn't the millennial generation likely to be identified as a party affiliation? i occupy a lot of spaces in the community college world in california. you came to visit my classroom in 2014. i think if we are not asking the question every day, how do we build the relationships where we can have those deeper conversations, we are failing. who are weor draw, bringing with us all the time?
mark, how do you come up with a catch your way to talk about intersection analogy? look at the three musketeers. all for one and one for all. that is not an abstraction. education, wef have programs that are specifically designed for the people who we think of as struggling the most around learning. we have the ada, specific programs that target minority groups. what i find is to the extent i have made my classrooms more accessible for people who were deaf or blind, all of those accommodations improve the learning opportunities for the entire classroom. maybe somebody did not raise
their hand to say, my goodness, i could not hear, that if we can create opportunities for everybody and we think, so are the people who are most excluded , if we can demonstrate -- and i think it is easy to demonstrate this in a variety of ways. when we make the world work for the people who are struggling most, the world works better for everybody. in very concrete ways. that is an argument that can be made easily in a lot of different settings. it requires a little bit more time sometimes. having those relationships, the right wing has spent a lot of time destroying our infrastructure. is thederstand why. that social space where we are able to have more meaningful conversations and relationships.
anyway, i have said about five things, and i will stop. >> i will paraphrase. better when we all do better. what is wrong with saying we all do better when we all do better? about at to tell you preconference session i attended on wednesday that was convened the miss foundation. second wave feminism, largely white, now convening conversations about what our women's issues? what i found is that they exclusively had a representative who was disabled, a trans
african-american woman, immigrant woman. they had women coming from who represent and our act of in all kinds of movements -- active in all kinds of movements. that was a beautiful, very point in example of how an organization can evolve to be .xplicitly intersectional the bases of our conversation started with everyone is included. we all do better when we all do better. as a person who has been an activist for a long time, i want to see that all of us in this room go back to the movements. if you look around and everybody is not at the table, you are doing something wrong. i know who runs america's
progressive organizations. areessive organizations trying to be -- progressive organizations are trying to be relevant. -- if everyone is not at the table, they are not part of the thinking and you are still in the position of saying, we need to diversify, you are doing something wrong. i believe very deeply that the potential and the possibility of where we can go from here is for people to accept and sometimes make room, that means step away and bring in new generations, people from all kinds of other movements. it is not the women's movement anymore. it is a movement of women. it is not any one thing for us.
we have to be a movement of movement. that broadly, that boldly, and that simply of what the possibility is for our political future. >> others? sir? organization the -- until recently, i lived in oakland, california. i now live in madison, wisconsin. thank you so much for being here. this conversation needs to keep happening and i want more and more of these conversations. the millennial question, what has been said already has been great. me and a lot of my peers are very progressive but don't
necessarily identify with the democratic party as an entity. it is a challenge. part of that is a trust deficit. organization is working on where the money is coming from. i would be curious to hear from you around the corporate backed democrats. how do you see the divide going forward? something i have been thinking a post-trump, the need to get back to global and local politics. see howbe interested to
you see that playing out as well. do we really need to go back to state legislatures and city councils and building our base their? -- our base there? >> i will address both. let me go to the last one first. the local and state is a fundamental angle. the conservatives do not give up anything anywhere. they are fighting almost all the time from dogcatcher to school board. -- the state legislative , we are winning in
so-called trump districts. local is really key. that is good and bad. you cannot often win these races -- you can win them in progressive ways. progressive campaigns. key is thesey local races. expensive.t as we have enough people to work them and they can make real change. the gentleman in the green shirt, what was the issue you raised? was it broadband? these local examples are quite key. phoenix tofor me in
talks about -- to talk about what works in tennessee. the local is really key. that is the way they started. i just wanted to get to your point about this divide between progressives and moderate democrats. i say this as someone who supported bernie sanders in the primary. it is so important that we not get into a point where we are divided and just firing at each other. i supported sanders. some of the vitriol directed against hillary clinton, in my view, was unjustified.
here is someone who stood up and said women's rights are human rights. on the mostran progressive democratic agenda that we have had in recent memory. for a lot of people, would have broken a glass ceiling and that is not to be underestimated. what she represented in terms of dedicating her life to women's rights, children's rights. --we are not able to respect people say she is a corporate democrat. dismissing so many people who voted for her. i believe more in sanders and his platform. what we ought to do is figure out how we go forward on having a progressive platform. we ought to show respect for those who voted for her while
disagreeing on issues. i disagree with a number of things, her vote on iraq or libya. that does not mean we cannot have a sense of respect for a person. the party needs to respect both sides and find some common ground. the final point on millennials. a person at a town hall and stand up, what do you tell my 18-year-old son now that donald trump is elected, he thinks politics is not worth it and does not want to get involved? i tell him the same thing i tell -- politics is hard work. years inther spent
jail fighting for india's independence. we have to have an aspiration and we have to realize that takes years and decades of hard work. the party is one of the ways to build to create that change and that would be my hope that millennials will keep their idealism, push us to have a great vision, and realize it will not happen overnight. at 2:15ve a hard stop p.m. i still think we have to move to the house of representatives and effect that change. thanks for coming out today. thank you all for being here. [applause]
>> live coverage of the net roots nation 2017 conference saturday on c-span. elizabeth warren and ben jealous speak at the conference. pamela p.m., al gore and chomba. >> next week at 8:00 on c-span, on monday, former national security adviser who serve the last two presidents, including stephen hadley. >> i am a little worried. we are in a dangerous period
with russia. wooden has decided that americans -- vladimir putin has decided that americans are anti-russia. he is saying, if you think i am an enemy, i will show you what it is like to have an enemy. >> tuesday, the future of the internet. howe are talking about certain platforms seem to provide people with information that reaffirms people with what they already think. said, i will show you things from the people you know and i will show you content from the pages you like. when you start clicking on those things, i will figure out what content you seem to like. done that, had not we would not be having this conversation. >> wednesday, the changing role
of cities. here is the former mayor of rio de janeiro. >> this is a transition period and cities will play a major role. the way cities can change representatives. a great machine to change what is going on. >> thursday, a look at the opioid epidemic. >> what is different about this drug problem we have is how pervasive it is. it is absolutely everywhere. smallest communities, cities, most affluent suburbs. >> friday, a conversation with supreme court justice elena kagan. that means the judiciary has
an important role to play in policing the boundaries of all of the other branches. that can make the judiciary and unpopular set of people when they say to a governor or president, you cannot do that because it is not within your constitutional power. >> watch next week at 8:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. listen using the free c-span radio app. recess,he senate august senators have been holding town hall meetings with constituents. in this meeting in kansas, he answered questions about services for veterans, farm policy, and the effort to repeal the affordable care act. this is one hour and 20 minutes.