Soon to be ex-Newark Mayor Cory Booker gave the platform speech yesterday to the Democratic National Convention.
But don't worry, this time Booker didn't call President Obama's campaign ads against Booker campaign contributors/Mitt Romney "nauseating." Instead he used his tried and tired tactic of pretending ideas don't matter in contests of ideas.
Our platform, crafted by Democrats, is not about partisanship but pragmatism.
Putting aside that this is a party platform statement at a party convention (obviously and appropriately it is partisan),
pragmatism? Really? Again with this bullshit?
Lets be clear "pragmatism" is not an agenda or a platform. Pragmatism is easily the most dishonest term used in politics, a chameleon that reorients itself to whomever invokes it. The Republicans also believe they are being "pragmatic" when they play chicken with the debt ceiling or taking unemployment benefits hostage "it's just what works to get what we want." That's not what is being embraced right?
Of course the non-ideological pragmatic narrative is contradicted about a minute later.
Our platform emphasizes that a vibrant, free and fair market is essential to economic growth.
Agree or disagree with that statement it is absolutely ideological not simply "pragmatic." It is even a little odd given the continued references to the success of the auto-bailout and the fact that
Romney opposed it.
The Democratic Party is celebrating the auto bailout which was completely outside the processes of "free and fair markets" - the market failed and President Obama using the mechanism of the state stepped in to prevent further job losses and loss of economic growth - it is one of the President's most popular and often cited achievements. In opposition to the auto-bailout were the free marketeers/Neoliberals like Mitt Romney that pragmatically said it would encourage irresponsibility in the future or moral hazard. It's not about ideas, it's just about what works (or doesn't work) right?
Coming from Cory Booker this speech is even more troubling. Booker was brought to power with continued support of right wing foundations like the Bradley Foundation and the Manhattan Institute. He lost his first election against Democratic incumbent Sharpe James. It was not until then US Attorney Chris Christie added Mayor James to his pragmatic prosecution spree that Booker was able to win office in Newark. Because the Mayor who beat him was not running.
The first race focused much on Booker's connections to the Republican Party and right wing foundations that demonize unions. The people of Newark looked at both candidates...and voted Sharpe James back in.
After James was essentially removed from power by now Republican Governor/GOP Keynote Speaker Chris Christie, Booker was able to use his superior fundraising (Bain Capital) to make his way into office where he has, after close to two terms, pretty much made little to no actual difference besides raising his public profile.
What Booker has done is invoke "pragmatism" as a strategy to privatize public education and other state services in Newark like the city's water supply.
Given Booker's commitment to privatizing public education his involvement in the platform caught those that know who he actually is off guard:
Yes, folks, Supermayor will be helping to write the planks on education.
The guy who wants to do away with seniority for teachers.
The guy who welcomed Eli Broad's money into Newark to remake the public schools with a minimum of local input.
The guy who wants more charters and more vouchers, even if they lead to segregation by income, disability, or even race.
The guy who turned Zuck's bucks into a gravy train for his friends.
The guy who said of gutting tenure: "There is no greater urgency in my city," apparently unaware of his city's soaring murder rate.
The guy who got a paid consultant in his first mayoral campaign hired as the superintendent of schools; the same superintendent who overrides the will of the citizens elected by the people to ensure a system of charters replaces public schools in Newark.
The guy who endorsed a report that threw the teachers who serve the most difficult students to educate under a bus.
Of course it goes without saying that unions thwart progress and teachers are the root cause of failing schools in impoverished areas right?
Just pragmatism.