Establishment Extinction Event Reaches Wisconsin

Francesca Hong and the death of old school politics

Francesa Hong

There was a Democratic primary governor debate last night in Wisconsin and all the news media can seem to say is “socialist.”

It’s national security code, blinking red, deployed against 37-year-old chef and state legislator Francesca Hong, to suggest that she is a walking threat. Not because she is, but because she is polling with more support than all other candidates combined.

The debate was the best illustration yet of how the Democratic Party establishment is facing an extinction-like event, as I’ve written about and will explain in a moment. But the media obviously isn’t going to talk about that, so instead the commentary focuses on whether Hong is “qualified,” has enough “experience,” and other coded ways of nudging voters away from outsider candidates.

In fairness, I guess that’s an improvement over earlier coverage, which focused on her old social media posts, penchant for cursing, and credit card debt.

Hong is a more complex candidate than this type of coverage suggests. During the debate, she said she does not support the Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) charter, and is “not here to govern by slogan.” But the media’s singular focus on the socialist label avoids any of that complicated stuff of defining what a candidate actually stands for, particularly when they are not a Party hack who can be controlled.

As for the political extinction event, anyone watching the debate got to see it happen in real time.

The governor-endorsed, establishment candidate Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, stepped in front of the asteroid just minutes into the debate.

The candidates were asked a simple question about how much they would tax different income levels. Hong answered with specifics that she would increase the millionaire tax rate to 8.85 percent. No waffling, no vagueness.

Crowley, the Party candidate? He launched into a spiel that ran over a minute long and never got to an actual answer on what his tax rate would be.

“Well, let’s be very clear. It’s just not the … the income, uh, tax, but it’s also the property taxes that are also extremely high in the state of Wisconsin,” Crowley said.

He went on:

“Well, when we talk about income taxes, what we really need to be focusing on is how do we actually fix this system moving forward? What we need to do is take a holistic view of our tax, our taxes here in the state of Wisconsin.”

And then:

“I don’t think that we should be just focusing on how we can increase taxes just particular for, for, for certain income own … earners, when we haven’t looked at the entire system. When it comes down to those who are making hand over fist, we absolutely need to, to tax the ultra wealthy, but we need to be smart about how we’re doing things long term.”

Finally the moderator interjected, repeating the question: “And do you know how high you’d like to tax them?”

Crowley’s reply was the funniest of the night.

“Uh, no. I think that we have to look at the, the entire system, holistically,” Crowley said.

Dinosaur meet asteroid.

This is precisely what people are done with: the bullshit. Pickup-artist-level psychological tricks like saying “Let me be clear” to distract from the obvious and utter lack of clarity that inevitably follows.

If I wanted to explain to someone this national political moment in which outsider candidates keep winning, I would show them this debate. People are done with the focus-grouped, controlled, party-managed approach of the dinosaurs that dominate our politics.

People might not agree with Hong, a member of the state legislature’s socialist caucus who outspokenly defends democratic socialism while not wanting to be tarred with another Party’s doctrine (in this case, the DSA’s charter). During the debate, Hong defended her own version of democratic socialism, defining it as “a form of government that puts working class people first, that puts work first.”

There’s no question where she stands on stuff — as I saw myself in her answers to my questions on national security policy. I didn’t agree with all of it but I came away thinking this person clearly has a vision.

The national media in the coming days are going to try to make this about socialism, claiming she’s a naive “Bernie bro,” maybe even brand her a communist (recall the State Department’s recent scaremongering report on communism’s supposed penetration of the American left).

But what the election will really come down to is that people want to elect someone — anyone — willing to challenge a broken system and think big, bold, even brash, and are willing to say so. No one gives a shit about what’s “practical” anymore because, well, look where that got us. It’s not about whether you agree with all the specifics. It’s about the big picture vision — and the demand that there be one.

This is one extinction event that I’m rooting for.

— Edited by William M. Arkin