Are Seth Moulton’s Policy Positions Predictable Based On His Campaign Finance History? (I think yes)
In this American era of ridiculous inequality: an era of declining lifespans and exorbitant infant mortality (especially in poorer communities), an era of 50,000+ opioid deaths per year, an era of a massive number of suicides per year; an era where citizens still die for lack of healthcare; an era where we’ve spent trillions on pointless foreign wars over the past two decades; and an era of Climate Crisis, it’s reasonable to ask: why is the federal government not addressing…well…any of these pressing issues in a meaningful way? Our broken campaign finance system is as likely an answer as anything else that exists today. Honestly, I think our broken campaign finance system combined with our historic levels of inequality are primary culprits contributing to many of today’s cultural, social, economic, and environmental woes.
As I think about the above mentioned societal ills, I can’t help but consider the representatives vying to “protect” and “work for” the American people by throwing their hat in the presidential candidate ring. Actually, I’ve created a game to help me unpack who these “representatives” are and what they are truly protecting and who they are working for. I like to play “follow the money.” It’s an age old game, but very effective, and can lead to fruitful results.
Recently I watched an interview with Democratic Primary Presidential hopeful Seth Moulton who was interviewed by Tommy Vietor on the popular “progressive” podcast Pod Save America. Moulton is an ideal case study because, by most accounts, he appears to be a relatively rational actor operating in what most Americans can agree is a corrupted political system. As I watched Seth Moulton’s interview on Pod Save America, I thought, “Why are they not talking about the issue of money in politics? It’s the era of small donors, Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, The Brand New Congress, and Justice Democrats. Why not talk about the damaging impact of money in politics? I also asked myself, why are his policy positions so tepid, so weak in the face of what we need today?”
Let me flesh this out a bit more. Forcefully making the case of the corrosive effects of big money in politics can be a tedious and difficult task. That is because in American campaign finance the corruption isn’t right in front of your face. It’s usually difficult to quickly identify that Company X gave $10,000 to Congressman Y. Congressman Y then voted to directly benefit Company X. Though this does happen, it’s generally not how our insidious campaign finance system works, and it’s not how the world works. In fact, our campaign finance system is much subtler. Still as we consider American campaign finance one age ole maxim will help us identify who our politicians are truly representing. All we have to do is: Follow the money.
Campaign finance corrupts by heavily influencing what political positions politicians do and do not advocate for, as much as it effects which way they vote on any given issue as a member of Congress. As an example, let’s return to Moulton whose political positions during his time in Congress and during his Presidential campaign align closely with donations from industries that have financed his meteoric political rise.
I’m not calling Moulton a corrupt person or accusing him of campaign finance violations. I’m arguing that he is a rational actor operating in a fundamentally corrupt system. I am saying he has made significantly different, and arguably far less progressive, career choices than the small donor candidates backed by Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats. He’s financed by the rich; he supports them while in Congress. A simple calculus Anthony Kennedy just doesn’t believe in. I’ll let Jon Swartz’s work speak for itself:
“Kennedy’s ruling contains some of the silliest, wackiest, most preposterous pronouncements in the tens of millions of words extruded by the Supreme Court in its 229-year history:
[W]e now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. …
The fact that speakers [i.e., donors] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. …
The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”
Kennedy was wrong. One way or another Citizens United must end.
In focusing on this one interview, we learn a lot about “progressive” politics and American campaign finance. It’s pretty clear at the outset of the interview as to how Moulton will frame his Presidential candidacy. Vietor and Moulton begin by discussing Moulton’s status as a veteran of the armed forces. A veteran myself, I see through this chauvinistic B.S. Moulton clearly holds some kind of reverence for his military service, which is okay, but let’s just acknowledge that these beliefs shape his views on war and they generally tend to promote bellicosity.
These facts make me immediately inclined to believe that Moulton will endorse and continue funneling ungodly amounts of money into the Military-Industrial Complex, which lines the pockets of billionaires who get rich, while the average American veteran relies on the kindness of strangers to survive or is one of 6,000 veterans to kill themselves a year. In an ideal world, veteran status would have zero influence on a Congressional candidate’s odds of success.
Another indication that Moulton will continue to pour money into the Military-Industrial Machine is that he is not for ending the long-meandering war on terrorism. He’d rather redefine the war on terror, though he gave few specifics on how this would look. Not very reassuring. For example, Moulton criticized Trump’s handling of North Korea, but never brought up the fact that a majority of South Koreans favor open peace talks with North Korea.
As Tulsi Gabbard has smartly recognized, when psychopaths John Bolton and Elliot Abrams work furiously to start what would inevitably be quagmire wars with Venezuala and Iran, they undermine the U.S.’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the North Korean regime. After all, as Gabbard noted in a campaign ad, one of the most significant deterrents preventing Bolton and Abrams from turning their nefarious gaze towards regime change in North Korea is the regime’s nukes. Gabbard is right, Moulton isn’t. In fact, I believe most of Moulton’s foreign policy positions are untenable…much like, well, his entire Presidential bid.
Also, almost immediately in the interview Moulton propagates the establishment Democratic Party talking point about the need to “defeat Trump.” Moulton views Trump as a symptom of a sick society, not a single illness to be treated and cured in order for society to return to normalcy after Trump’s presidency. This is a fair assessment, but a stupid talking point. Every Democrat wants to beat Trump. It should go without saying, but the Democratic Establishment is beholden to billionaire donors, and they want to use billionaire money to blast “defeat Trump” over the airwaves and Internet as much as their rich donor money will allow. But, if you are listening carefully, you will hear that the “defeat Trump” strategy offers little to no solutions to address the country’s most pressing problems (see above). To commit to the real issues that American people care about — like Medicare For All or Cancelling Student Debt — would mean upsetting his corporate backers, so he very clearly steers clear of any tangent ideas about how to help the tens of millions of Americans who are suffering. Wtf is up with that?
Another subtle tactic Moulton is using to dodge the elephants of class and climate in the room is using the “generational change” point of view. Instead of insisting on class war against the billionaire class and tax dodging corporations, Corporate Owned Democrats like Moulton would much rather talk about some artificial divide between the young and the old, rather than the gaping chasm between those Americans that have(Billionaires Bezos, Gates, Buffett, etc.) and those who have not (150M American’s who can’t come up with $500 for an emergency). While there is no doubt an age divide, the intensity and consequences of the forces that have created this enormous class divide dwarf those of the age divide. In his interview, Moulton spoke on inequality, but did so in a generic way that failed to name names or institutions driving the unsustainable levels of inequality in modern America.
Moulton barely, if ever, mentioned the issues that are pressing on the American people in the Vietor interview. Unsurprisingly, Moulton never addressed the corrupting influence of money in politics. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does this routinely. What’s the difference between them? Mmmmm, maybe it’s that Moulton takes millions from rich donors, and AOC doesn’t. While Moulton did address healthcare, he came out pretty solidly against Medicare for All. He threw out some real “cutting edge” ideas like “competition” to “bring down prices,” apparently lacking the basic amount of awareness that this ideological way of viewing healthcare got our healthcare system to the sad state it is in today.
Moulton did publicly express support for the Green New Deal which is the most promising piece of legislation being proposed for dealing with the Climate Crisis. Still the real question follows: based on Moulton’s closeness with big donors and his tepid voting record, what are the odds he’ll push the policies of the Green New Deal where they need to be? For example, will he use the federal government to take over and unwind fossil fuel companies? His political career suggests not. We’ll take a look in a different piece at some of his donors of his past campaigns and see what we can infer.
We need a Congress of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes. The Seth Moultons of the world will boil us like the proverbial slow boiled frog who died because of his gradual demise in slow heating water. A presidency with Moulton’s worldview and donor list will lead to the premature deaths of hundreds of millions, if not billions, in a matter of a few decades. We really don’t have time for the egotistical and careerist rise of Seth Moulton. The system he thinks is okay to operate within…well, it’s not for the above reasons.
(Click here to read a broader explanation of how Corporate America has Corrupted America)
