 Mayor of South Bend Indiana Pete Buttigieg is currently surging and I think that he's surging largely because the mainstream media and the pundit class Has unquestionably fallen in love with him and to give you a snapshot as to how in love with him They are cable news gave him as much coverage as Bernie Sanders who's the current frontrunner in the Democratic Party primary field So this is a perfect example that demonstrates how powerful the mainstream news media is because they can take someone who on a national level is Completely unknown and turn that person into a political icon Simply by covering them a lot giving him more coverage than other candidates It's also the type of coverage that they're giving to him because more so than any other candidate Pete Buttigieg has gotten a lot of puff pieces about him including in the Daily Show with Trevor Noah Who did a segment about him and literally said nothing bad about him and Trevor Noah claims quote? I'm being serious. There's no dirt on this guy Which just shows that Trevor Noah and his team didn't do their research and additionally CNN's Chris Eliza ran a nearly seven minute long puff piece on Pete Buttigieg and Explained that he's having his moment and he's currently surging in the polls And we're seeing the makings of a political super star while not mentioning that really the reason why he's surging the reason Why this phenomenon is currently taking place is because of the mainstream media now This begs the question. Why do pundits in the mainstream media love Pete Buttigieg so much? And I think it's because he's replaced better or Rourke as the establishment's best bet To possibly dethrone Bernie Sanders because Beto's campaign I mean, even though he is a prolific fundraiser He's not really drawing very many large crowds like Bernie Sanders is so they need the next best thing That they can prop up to compete against Bernie Sanders to thwart off this threat that Bernie Sanders poses to the status quo and he's what I'd like to call a palatable progressive and He's a progressive to them in the sense that he can pass as a progressive to a pretty large Portion of the public. Is he actually? Progressive is the question because he certainly wants you to think that he's progressive and even if he's tried to avoid labels He says if he was forced to if his arm was twisted He would self-identice self-identify as a pretty staunch progressive and the media certainly wants you to think that he's pretty Progressive we're told over and over again just how progressive he is now It's odd because the media often attacks what they call the far left Which they're also claiming he's part of yet simultaneously reaping and this praise on him So what's going on here? Is he actually a progressive? Well, what makes a progressive a large reason why someone like Bernie Sanders is appealing is because of his fund raising And when you look at Pete Buddha judges fund raising methods It's easy to see that he's not very progressive in the specific area when he was running to be the DNC chair in 2017 He had a pack and he now has Democratic Party mega donors doing fundraisers on his behalf And he made it very clear that he's not shutting out the possibility of Taking bribes from Wall Street because as Politico's Ben White reports Pete said in an interview that he would not shy away from seeking Wall Street cash Quote, but I'm not sure they would be too wild about me Anyway, he said noting that he too is focused on small-dollar grassroots donors in other words He's willingly making himself susceptible to corruption By opening the door to these bribes that Wall Street will Unquestionably give him if he starts to win some primaries So I don't think that the descriptor that the mainstream media and he gives himself of Progressive is Appropriate but that's just based on fundraising. What about the policy because there are various policies that I think really are The hallmark of progressivism Modern-day progressivism anyways and these policies include medicare for all and tuition free public colleges and universities So what does he say about these policy ideals? Well at a scene in town hall. Here's what he said about medicare for all That's why I believe we do need to move in the direction of a medicare for all system now I think anyone in politics who lets the words medicare for all escape their lips also has a responsibility To explain how we could actually get there because as you know from working on this day in and day out It's not something you can just flip a switch and do in my view The best way to do that is through what you might call a medicare for all who want it set up In other words, you take some flavor of medicare you make it available on the exchange as a kind of public option And you invite people to buy into it. There's another name for the policy that he's describing It's called a public option but if you'll notice what he's doing here, he is taking that name medicare and He's attaching it to his non medicare for all policy because he knows that medicare for all is incredibly popular But yet he wants you to think that he supports medicare for all when in actuality He's not saying that he's going to do medicare for all He's saying that his goal is a public option medicare for all who wanted although It's a goal for him, you know further down the line So one day we can get to medicare for all but we've got to have a stepping stone First and to him that is a public option medicare for all who wanted It's incredibly misleading. It's disingenuous and really it's a bait and switch But moving on to another really I think important progressive issue to wish and free public college and universities Recently at northeastern university He said that he does not support this and this is the reasoning he gave at the end of the day Americans who have a college degree earn more on average than Americans who don't and as a progressive I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that a majority who earn less because they didn't go to college Would subsidize a minority who earn more because they did all the way to a hundred percent I think some of that subsidy is justified because it's an investment in our whole future But I think expecting somebody to pay zero Might go further than than what's reasonable Especially if we have robust ways to get your student loans forgiven Anyway, if you're willing to commit to some kind of public service or career in teaching So I know it's not the most popular answer, but hopefully it can be viewed as a reasonable one Now for those of you who don't know what he just used Was a right-wing justification for not supporting tuition free public college because think about this What do republicans say when it comes to health care? Well, why should the healthy subsidize the health care costs of the sick? Why should we have to pay taxes that go towards public education if we don't have any kids in public schools? This is a conservative argument that republicans make against our social safety net And it is right-wing at its core But here he is lying to you saying that subsidizing free college is something that Forces more disadvantaged people to subsidize the tuition of elites What he's leaving out here is that rich people and elites are not going to benefit From public colleges being tuition free because they're already going to send their kids to private institutions Elitist ivy league schools So it's important that people are given the opportunity disadvantaged people who normally can't afford college To actually get into college if they work hard and have tuition be free because for a lot of people It's a non-starter. You can't even consider college because the cost of tuition now Is a non-starter So what he's trying to do is weasel his way out of supporting a progressive policy But he's invoking a right-wing justification for him not supporting something that is overwhelmingly progressive Now, what about the green new deal? We've gotten a lot of indications from him that he loves the green new deal and he supports it He's spoken very kindly about it But when you look at his platform according to jeff stein of the washington post and what he received from mayer peat Well, the green new deal was conspicuously absent in favor of quote comprehensive climate change plan and that sounds wonderful But we have to know what that plan is if you're running for president I don't expect you to one day come up with a plan from the jump You should be in favor of a plan, but there are other policies that are I think intentionally vague He says that he supports medicare for all but wants to keep private insurance Okay, what does that mean because that doesn't necessarily make sense Do you support the public option that you alluded to supporting at the cnn town hall? What does that mean? He says that he has a plan for automations impact on jobs. Okay, great, but I don't care if you plan to have a plan I care that you give us the specifics of your plans now not just promise to have a plan eventually I mean, how are you going to market yourself to voters? By saying look, I promise you I'm gonna come up with a bunch of sweet plans You can't see him right now, but I'll have a plan. Just trust me It's absurd. So there's A real lack of policy details here that I think Characterizes his campaign the most and he was actually asked about this in an interview with vice news And he's leaving out the policy specifics Intentionally, he literally said that platitudes should be prioritized Over thorough policy specifics Don't take my word for it. Take his word for it You definitely speak very progressively, but you don't have like a lot of super specific policy ideas Part of where the left and the center left have gone wrong is we've been So policy led that we haven't been as philosophical We like to think of ourselves as the intellectual ones But the truth is the right has done a better job in my lifetime Of connecting up its philosophy and its values to its politics right now I think we need to articulate the values Lay out our philosophical commitments and then develop policies off of that and I'm working very hard Not to put the card before the horse. Is there time for that? You know, they want the list They want to know exactly what you're going to do I think it can actually be a little bit dishonest to think you have it all figured out on day one Look, I think we're all anybody in this race or conversation is going to be A hell of a lot more specific and policy oriented than say the current president But I don't think we ought to have that all kind of Locked in on day one. Uh, yeah, you absolutely should have that locked down on day one because if you don't Run with any policy specifics in mind. Why are you choosing to run for president? For example, bernie sanders claims that his campaign was initially catalyzed because he doesn't see anyone Who's talking about progressive policy ideals? He ran because of the policy But you're putting platitudes first you're essentially burying the lead Which is something that a presidential candidate should not do so that to me was an embarrassing thing for a so-called Progressive to say but the thing is that pete buddha judge isn't progressive. It's not just that he isn't progressive enough for me It's that he's not progressive. He is a centrist And he even outflanks brock obama from the right sometimes because he stated that he was troubled by clemency for chelsea manning a hero who's a whistleblower that exposed the united states government's war crimes He continues to repraise on israel as their government massacres palestinians and carries out a literal modern day apartheid And after israel just murdered palestinian protesters recently He then praised them subsequently for their security arrangement as quote moving in clearide And he then chastised democrats that spoke out against israel's brutal response to peaceful protests So i don't think i would say someone who does that is very progressive I'd say the opposite Is true He's just another centrist democrat like a lot of other individuals in the field It's just that he's a lot more effective at coding his words in a way that makes it easier for progressives to digest And he sneaks in these more centrist ideals in between some bold policies like wanting to abolish the electoral college And having i think a pretty solid plan to pack the supreme court and depoliticize it to an extent But at the same time if you look at him to his core He's not progressive And i think this is highlighted in a recent article for current affairs by nathan robinson Where he basically read pete buddha judge's book and took him at his own word And realized this guy is not progressive at all Because as mayor of south bend, it's evident that he rarely converses with ordinary people and instead just surrounds himself with political Advisors and local elites He also seemed eager to eliminate jobs for example in his book He talks about getting rid of the job that trash collectors do and replacing them with mechanical arms on vehicles Not to mention the eviction rate in south bend indiana is three times higher than the national average There's enormous wealth disparities between whites and blacks homelessness and gentrification are giant issues in south bend that Pete buddha judge hasn't addressed appropriately and perhaps the most grotesque anecdote Nathan robinson writes about that he got from pete buddha judge's own book Was his plan to repair or demolish a thousand houses in south bend Within a thousand days in order to solve a problem that the city had with abundant Vacancies nathan writes make repairs or have your house flattened Wait, who were the people who were unable to make repairs? Were they by chance poor? Also, how do these houses become vacant in the first place where people evicted or foreclosed on? Look a little deeper into the coverage and you'll find that this was not simply a matter of efficient and responsive government But a plan to coerce those who possessed dilapidated houses into either spending money or having the houses cleared away For development community advocates in poor often african-american or hispanic neighborhoods began to complain that the city was being too aggressive in finding property owners Overcode enforcement the city leveled fines that added up to thousands of dollars in certain cases To pressure homeowners to make repairs or have their houses demolished buddha judges autobiography does not discuss the social implications of his plan He brags about his audacious goals and ambitious initiatives, but questions of justice and injustice are absent So just stop and think about that. This is how he chose to respond to an issue of there being too many Vacancies in south bend now throughout the book nathan notes that p Doesn't really talk about the issues in south bend The rampant homelessness, which is a crisis Poverty, wealth disparities. He doesn't talk about this instead he focuses on himself And additionally on top of that Mayor peat has been criticized for not tending to the homelessness crisis Especially last year when temperatures were extremely low and it was cruel to not act when there were people in your city Sleeping on the streets and there was also a scandal that led to calls for his impeachment After he fired south bend's black police chief for reportedly blackmailing five white police officers Because they were apparently caught on tape using racial slurs and robinson also talks about buddha judges apparent lack of moral judgment And explains that you know, even though peat buddha judge rightfully opposes the iraq and vietnam wars He only opposes them on the basis of them being impractical He doesn't oppose them based on them being immoral And throughout the course of his book nathan notes that there's this underlying lack of Moral clarity. There's this ambivalence towards the morality of certain political issues And being a former military intelligence officer You'd think that he'd have something to say about the u.s. Empire You'd think he'd speak out against it because you can see how for example a candidate like tulsi gabbard Frequently talks about her experience as a veteran Shaped her world view and that's why she's vehemently against the u.s. Empire. It's why she speaks out vociferously against the regime change wars But for whatever reason there's this moral ambivalence or possibly moral obliviousness That mayor peat buddha judge has now to be fair He did write about the moral outrage He felt when the governor of indiana mike pens at the time Signed a bill into law that let businesses discriminate against lgbtq americans He also talks about being morally outraged with donald trump's immigration policy But the problem is that overall He just seems to disregard moral issues or remains apathetic to them when There are things that should theoretically trouble someone who is a self proclaimed Progressive for example, he worked for the consulting firm McKinley, which is a morally reprehensible organization that works with dictatorial regimes around the world They pushed oxy con that worked with saudi arabia, which is a murderous regime And they also work with big pharma companies like purdue Which just rips off americans So i mean you think that buddha judge as a progressive as a so-called progressive would be speaking out about this But he just feigns ignorance when it comes to his former employers unethical actions now to be fair I don't want to convey to you that he's the worst candidate ever because i'm not saying that I don't think he's the worst candidate ever But i'm just simply saying that if we're looking at this claim that he is progressive both by himself and the mainstream media It just doesn't hold up to even the most minimal amount of scrutiny All you have to do is a quick google search and you'll learn that this guy is not progressive He's a centrist, but again, he's not the worst candidate He was previously criticized for using all lives matter in response to a question about black lives matter But I think that he had a relatively thoughtful response Um to explain why he used the term all lives matter What I did not understand at that time was that that phrase just early into mid especially 2015 was coming to be viewed as a sort of Counter-smoking to black lives matter And so the statement that seems very anodyne and something that that's kind of nobody could be against actually wound up being used to devalue What the black lives matter movement was telling us which is what we needed to hear because unfortunately It was not obvious to everybody that black lives were being valued the same And so that is the contribution of black lives matter And it's a reason why since learning about how that phrase was being used to push back on that activism I've stopped using it at that time. So I thought that was a pretty thoughtful response I don't know if he's just pretending to be ignorant again, but at least he demonstrated that You know the reason why we don't like when somebody responds To black lives matter with all lives matter is because they're trying to shut down the conversation I think that that you know, it's good that he noted that so in no way am I claiming that he is the worst of the Worst I think probably the worst 2020 democratic party presidential candidate is joe biden in the event. He enters the race, which it seems like he will but When it comes to this question of whether or not pete would a judge is progressive The answer is No, it's an unequivocal. No because he's not a progressive. That's just a fact He is nothing more than another elitist centrist Technocratic bullshitter who wants to lie his way into the white house by pretending to be more progressive than he actually is