Some local politicians, and their activities, are questionable. While they may be capable of winning elections for progressively higher offices, they ultimately can have non-supportive effects when campaigning nationally and losing. If their capabilities with the positions they hold were high enough, they might not feel a need to risk the esteem. That said, intuition informs that the Democratic Party’s nominee will be the next president.
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy–pursuant to substantial attempts by other Commonwealth lawyers such as Dukakis (1988), Kerry (2004), and Romney (2012)–has made a solid showing thus far. It is too early to think of who the front-runner, Joe Biden, another attorney, might choose as a running mate. A Biden/Warren or Warren/Biden ticket are among myriad possibilities.
However, in appealing to political bases, actual issues can be avoided by candidates. Some officials, traditionally Democrats, like to identify with labor unions. I am not criticizing their support of workers who organize or seek to. When matters are disadvantageous or unfair to employees, elected leaders can help meaningfully and make situations gainful. Unions can offer key endorsements at election time. There are other considerations though, and they are bigger than minutiae.
Data affirms suspicions that labor unions are not as important as they used to be. Their private sector ranks dwindle as different forces affect the relevance of employee bargaining. The decline coincides with a shift away from manufacturing industry and employment. There are multiple possible explanations for concurrently lower union membership. Regardless, candidates either do not discuss, offer, or have solutions to underlying (structural?) problems.
Consider facts pertinent to automobiles (motorcycles are also classified as manufacturing):
Garbage trucks used to require multiple workers. There still needs to be someone to drive. Though there also needed to be a person(s) to collect refuse, those jobs have been automated away in places. There is fervent effort to do the same thing with transport vehicles and a push toward self-driving cars. (My initial impression is that measures such as California’s new law is a means of taking on similar but different issues. Persons may identify as Democrats rather than members of a “Gig economy”).
There is also outsourcing and offshoring.
We could have better attention to matters involving compassion and values. Lawyers, through the course of their studies, tend to have a terminal degree that can effectively nullify most other educational credentials. Yet they (habitually) outnumber all other presidential candidates–among Democrats. Presidents Clinton and Obama are both attorneys who met their spouses in law school. Warren is a former law professor and her husband is reportedly still in the same field. To my knowledge, none have proposed higher pay for school teachers. Evidently anyone having the capacity to earn a master’s degree in history, maybe awarded for defending a thesis on Betsy Ross, would be unionized if pursuing pedagogy under Warren (Reference plans about “Rebuilding the Middle Class” and “Strengthening our Democracy”).
Unfortunately, while there has been no scandal or lack of integrity to my knowledge, which is quite positive (and a noted aspect of the a two term Obama presidency), Governor Charlie Baker has proven ineffectual with issues that include public transportation. If it is not the next worst thing to a typical scandal, Baker’s motor vehicle appointee’s failure to insure adequate administration of his agency is connected to several deaths. Such stories and issues have been persistent and consistent.
However, rather than take on Baker, several local Democrats vie for a national Senate seat that is held by a member of their own party, Senator Ed Markey. Thus far, no rival is pointedly criticizing the incumbent’s job performance; and he has the support of environmental groups. Does it make sense that campaigning against one’s own party member could (further) weaken the Democrats’ identity because other aspirations are of greater importance than partisan incumbency?
None of these candidates are implying that they would challenge Baker, a Republican whose current office is the state’s highest. One reason could be that they do not think they can win. So they try to join the United States Senate because it is feasible, apparently not because their people need it. They could help Democrats–and arguably others–by challenging and defeating the governor (if he campaigns for a third term). Evidently none of the Senate candidates feels they have a great chance at prevailing before voters if he could be their opponent.
Some would rather take a different route, that may be all-too-familiar, toward what could be a future failure at campaigning for the Oval Office. That failure can inflict a stigma. Yet there is no need to emphasize the humanities, economics, business or public administration? The president, vice president and next senator could all be new lawyers.
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy–pursuant to substantial attempts by other Commonwealth lawyers such as Dukakis (1988), Kerry (2004), and Romney (2012)–has made a solid showing thus far. It is too early to think of who the front-runner, Joe Biden, another attorney, might choose as a running mate. A Biden/Warren or Warren/Biden ticket are among myriad possibilities.
However, in appealing to political bases, actual issues can be avoided by candidates. Some officials, traditionally Democrats, like to identify with labor unions. I am not criticizing their support of workers who organize or seek to. When matters are disadvantageous or unfair to employees, elected leaders can help meaningfully and make situations gainful. Unions can offer key endorsements at election time. There are other considerations though, and they are bigger than minutiae.
Private Sector Unionization, Source: AEI |
Consider facts pertinent to automobiles (motorcycles are also classified as manufacturing):
- Tariffs on foreign-made pickup trucks, in place since 1963-4, must artificially support some industry jobs.
- Headlines now describe how a General Motors push toward electric vehicles will eliminate employment and lower wages.
- A different story, presented by other media outlets, pertains to Carvana’s (CVNA) investments in West Memphis, Arkansas; and it is likely that there will be opportunities at Inspection and Reconditioning Centers (“IRCs”), for the resale of used vehicles, nationwide.
Garbage trucks used to require multiple workers. There still needs to be someone to drive. Though there also needed to be a person(s) to collect refuse, those jobs have been automated away in places. There is fervent effort to do the same thing with transport vehicles and a push toward self-driving cars. (My initial impression is that measures such as California’s new law is a means of taking on similar but different issues. Persons may identify as Democrats rather than members of a “Gig economy”).
There is also outsourcing and offshoring.
We could have better attention to matters involving compassion and values. Lawyers, through the course of their studies, tend to have a terminal degree that can effectively nullify most other educational credentials. Yet they (habitually) outnumber all other presidential candidates–among Democrats. Presidents Clinton and Obama are both attorneys who met their spouses in law school. Warren is a former law professor and her husband is reportedly still in the same field. To my knowledge, none have proposed higher pay for school teachers. Evidently anyone having the capacity to earn a master’s degree in history, maybe awarded for defending a thesis on Betsy Ross, would be unionized if pursuing pedagogy under Warren (Reference plans about “Rebuilding the Middle Class” and “Strengthening our Democracy”).
Warren with striking hotel workers, 2018 |
However, rather than take on Baker, several local Democrats vie for a national Senate seat that is held by a member of their own party, Senator Ed Markey. Thus far, no rival is pointedly criticizing the incumbent’s job performance; and he has the support of environmental groups. Does it make sense that campaigning against one’s own party member could (further) weaken the Democrats’ identity because other aspirations are of greater importance than partisan incumbency?
None of these candidates are implying that they would challenge Baker, a Republican whose current office is the state’s highest. One reason could be that they do not think they can win. So they try to join the United States Senate because it is feasible, apparently not because their people need it. They could help Democrats–and arguably others–by challenging and defeating the governor (if he campaigns for a third term). Evidently none of the Senate candidates feels they have a great chance at prevailing before voters if he could be their opponent.
Some would rather take a different route, that may be all-too-familiar, toward what could be a future failure at campaigning for the Oval Office. That failure can inflict a stigma. Yet there is no need to emphasize the humanities, economics, business or public administration? The president, vice president and next senator could all be new lawyers.