tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56390593549451717622024-03-13T11:46:49.420-07:00Progressive America RisingNews and Views from the Left-Progressive Wing of the Coalition that elected Obama, formerly 'Progressives for Obama,' now pushing forward!Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.comBlogger536125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-30347198822034293472015-05-27T09:21:00.001-07:002015-05-27T09:28:18.777-07:00<br />
<h2 class="primary centered-primary">
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Are Powerful Voices for the Left</h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/bernie_sanders_and_elizabeth_warren_are_giving_liberals_a_voice_hillary/150526_Politics_BerniePres.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/bernie_sanders_and_elizabeth_warren_are_giving_liberals_a_voice_hillary/150526_Politics_BerniePres.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg" height="228" width="320" /></a></div>
<h1 class="primary centered-primary">
</h1>
<h3>
<i><b>Hillary Clinton may be the front-runner, but the tandem of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is offering liberals a powerful voice.</b></i></h3>
<br />
<i>Sen. Bernie Sanders waves to supporters as he arrives to kick off his presidential campaign on May 26, 2015, in Burlington, Vermont.Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>By Jamelle Bouie</b><br />
<i>LeftField at Slate.com</i><br />
<br />
Looking at the Democratic primary as a movie, a film critic might say that Sen. Bernie Sanders is a little “on-the-nose” as an antagonist to Hillary Clinton. He is her reverse. Where Hillary is well-known (and to many women, an icon), he is obscure. Where she embodies the establishment, he is on its outskirts, a self-identified “socialist” from the liberal enclave of Burlington, Vermont. Where she gives six-figure speeches, he is among the “poorest” members of the Senate with a net worth of roughly $460,000. She plans to run a $2 billion campaign; he hopes to raise $50 million.<br />
Jamelle Bouie Jamelle Bouie<br />
<br />
Jamelle Bouie is a Slate staff writer covering politics, policy, and race.<br />
<br />
And where Clinton is in the middle of the mainstream, Sanders has been an iconoclast for decades. As a House member, he co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, opposed both wars in Iraq, and voted against the Patriot Act. As a senator for Vermont since 2007, he’s criticized the bank bailouts, voted against Tim Geithner’s nomination for Treasury Secretary, and gave a nearly nine-hour speech against a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts.<br />
<br />
Now, as a candidate in the Democratic nomination race, he’s an advocate for the left wing of the party. “I am not running against Hillary Clinton,” he said in a recent interview with the Washington Post. Instead, he’s launching a crusade—against inequality, against Wall Street, and against the “billionaire class” that he claims dominates American politics. “Billionaire families are now able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the candidates of their choice,” he says on his campaign website. “These people own most of the economy. Now they want to own our government as well.”<br />
<br />
This is more than rhetoric. To Sanders, the economy isn’t just unequal, it’s rigged, with the richest Americans using their resources to tilt the board in their direction. “Ninety-nine percent of all new income generated today goes to the top 1 percent,” he said in a recent interview with CNBC’s John Harwood. “Top one-tenth of 1 percent owns as much as wealth as the bottom 90 percent.” To reverse this “massive transfer of wealth” from the middle class to the very top, Sanders wants high tax rates (“If my memory is correct, when radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent”) and substantial redistribution.<br />
<br />
This agenda, and Sanders’ diagnosis, has real appeal in the Democratic Party. Seventy-one percent of Democrats want high taxes to fund programs for the poor, and 37 percent blame tax and economic policies for the gap between the rich and everyone else. As for the senator himself? Of the non-Clinton candidates in the Democratic primary, he’s the most popular, holding more support than Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chafee combined. Then again, this is a bit like being the best featherweight boxer in a ring with Mike Tyson. You are going to lose, and it will be painful.<br />
<br />
Indeed, it’s hard to see how Sanders and his left-wing advocacy can pull Clinton to the left when, outside of debates, she can safely ignore his campaign.<br />
<br />
If Sanders is pushing at Clinton from inside the primary, than Warren is doing the same from the outside.<br />
<br />
The answer is twofold. First, Sanders is so distant from the Democratic establishment that he’s uninterested in traditional fundraising. This makes winning impossible, but it’s also an opportunity. Describing Clinton and others, Sanders told Harwood that “when you hustle money like that … you sit in restaurants where you’re spending … hundreds of dollars for dinner and so forth. That’s the world that you’re accustomed to, and that’s the worldview that you adopt. … I think that can isolate you—that type of wealth has the potential to isolate you from the reality of the world.”<br />
<br />
Sanders isn’t isolated and he hasn’t adopted that world. He’s not beholden to it. He doesn’t have to flatter the opinions of wealthy lawyers, profligate bankers, or powerful businesspeople. In turn, he’s free to raise the kinds of issues—on the economy, on campaign finance—that Clinton wouldn’t get from a more traditional candidate. Debates are often overrated, but don’t underestimate the power of an uncomfortable question.<br />
<br />
And second, Sanders isn’t the only left-wing Democrat with a pull on the presidential race. Far from running alone, he’s working in tandem with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who already influenced the race by denying—but until this year, never fully disavowing—a presidential run. If Sanders is pushing at Clinton from inside the primary, than Warren—a de facto party leader for the Democratic left with her own base of money and support—is doing the same from the outside. In particular, Warren is making the case against the present economy, in terms that echo Sanders (and vice versa). “When the top 10 percent gets 100 percent of the income growth over the course of a generation, then the America of opportunity is vanishing,” said Warren in a recent speech at a small celebration in honor of the 25th anniversary of the American Prospect, a left-leaning magazine. (Disclosure: I worked there for three years).<br />
<br />
Warren’s argument—shared by progressive leaders like New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and articulated in new work from groups like the Roosevelt Institute—is that the rules of our economy favor the wealthiest Americans and the most powerful corporations. In that environment, growth isn’t enough. To fix inequality, you need to rethink those rules and recalibrate them for broad distribution of economic prosperity. And in the meantime, you also need to stop any new rules that rig the game even further.<br />
<br />
For liberals, the test of the 2016 Democratic race is whether the left needs a strong candidate to pull the establishment to its side. Sanders and Warren are promising, but there’s no guarantee they can do the job. But then, that’s not the only gauge for success. So far, Clinton has been silent on the economy, focusing on issues like immigration and criminal justice reform where there’s broad consensus in the Democratic Party. For the likely nominee of the party, this is unacceptable.<br />
<br />
If they do anything, Sanders and Warren will challenge Clinton to give her full views on inequality and articulate a vision for the shape of the American economy. It will open up the conversation. And compared with a world where Clinton is tight-lipped on her commitments, that’s a win.<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-78320369649493227302015-05-25T05:38:00.001-07:002015-05-25T05:38:47.843-07:00Iowa Working Families Summit Advances Push for Progressive Agenda<p> <img height="300" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThKWp1h7P7qcuRjXYZ-MyM_f8K8Tw7HUR7mFzMiANSfwcL3YIxXw" width="415" /> </p> <p><strong>By Emily Foster <br /></strong><em>Campaign for America's Future </em></p> <p>May 25, 2015 - While well-heeled conservatives watched Republican presidential candidates make their pitches for support in an Iowa convention hall at the GOP’s Lincoln Dinner on May 16, grassroots progressives gathered in a much less lavish college auditorium to discuss pressing issues for America’s struggling middle class. </p> <p>The Iowa State Campus University in Ames, Iowa, was where people from more than 50 organizations (including co-sponsors of groups endorsing CAF’s Populism 2015 Platform) gathered for the Iowa Working Families Summit. The summit had a huge turnout of more than 600 people from all over the state. Their focus was on showing that progressive policies, such as investing in infrastructure, raising the minimum wage and strengthening labor unions, are the key path to American prosperity. </p> <p>Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America and vice president of the AFL-CIO, elaborated on the cohesive ideas shared at the conference by the participating groups, and said he has never seen a “better statewide effort” to advance ideas important to American workers. He also explained how important it was for the groups to “get out of the silos and into the streets.” </p> <p>“It’s not just about the choices of our candidates” Cohen said when asked about the impact of the conference on the 2016 elections. “It’s also about how we’re building our agenda for the middle class.” </p> <p>The keynote speaker – Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor (1993-1997) – noted that the U.S. economy has grown twice as large in the past 30 years, but wages for the middle class have gone “nowhere,” due to a political system that rewards the wealthiest Americans and corporations. </p> <p>Essentially, we have an economy “that’s rigged against the average working people.” </p> <p>Reich emphasized that Americans in the middle class need to “stand up together,” and rebuild the strength of the middle class through raising support for labor unions, education, and infrastructure. </p> <p>Sue Dinsdale, executive director of the Iowa Citizen Action Network, said her organization plans to build on the ideas considered at this past weekend’s summit. Throughout the upcoming election cycle, the organization plans to “take the summit on the road – take ideas out into communities and towns throughout Iowa, and to organize similar events.” </p> <a name='more'></a> <p></p> <p>Cohen said that there are “six smaller summit and conferences” planned throughout the state of Iowa during the upcoming election cycle. </p> <p>At the summit, organizations stood behind Reich and emphasized the critical role that individual voters can play in upcoming debates and campaigns. </p> <p>Reich emphasized that citizens must ask presidential candidates “very specific questions” on issues that affect the majority of Americans, including raising the minimum wage, strengthening labor unions, and keeping big money out of our political system. </p> <p>Dinsdale elaborated on individual voters’ – especially Iowans’ – roles and the necessity of “engaging with candidates.” </p> <p>“In Iowa, there’s a rare opportunity to meet with candidates one-on-one. It’s the perfect time to ask questions about raising the minimum wage, making work family friendly, and corporations paying their fair share of taxes,” she said. </p> <p>May 16’s Iowa Working Families Progressive and Populist stances on issues will bring security to our middle class. As more events with progressive agendas are planned, more candidates will have to face the ideas that matter to the majority of Americans. </p> <p>Summarized by Dinsdale, the summit exemplifies America’s “hunger for a progressive point of view.”</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-79512906393191288902015-05-19T09:22:00.001-07:002015-05-19T09:22:26.006-07:00Congressional Progressive Caucus Plays Hard-to-Get with Hillary Clinton<h4><em><img height="209" src="http://i0.wp.com/citycollegenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/keith-ellison.jpg?resize=800,400" width="404" /> </em></h4> <p><em>Keith Ellison (D-MN) of the Congressional Progressive Caucus</em></p> <h4><em>Many progressives are withholding endorsements in the hopes of pushing her left. </em></h4> <p><strong>By Lauren French <br /></strong><em>Politico </em></p> <p>May 19, 2015 - More than 30 members of the House Progressive Caucus still aren’t ready to back Hillary Clinton’s campaign, saying she has a ways to go to show she would champion their agenda as president. </p> <p>The resistance comes even as they acknowledge she’ll likely be the party’s nominee, and her campaign has mounted an early, aggressive courtship of lawmakers. </p> <p>“Ultimately, she simply needs to … not [be] a Republican for me to endorse her,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the 70-member House Progressive Caucus. “I will support the Democratic nominee, there is no question about that. The real question is: What is going to make me get excited? I want to hear her talking about the most pressing issue in America today, which is the concentration of wealth at the top.” </p> <p>Ellison and other House liberals hope that by holding out on a formal endorsement, they can nudge Clinton to the left, not only on income inequality but poverty, trade, criminal justice and college affordability — essentially, the Elizabeth Warren agenda. Progressive Caucus members have asked to meet with Clinton aides soon to discuss their policies. </p> <p>So far, there are close to three dozen House progressives who already have endorsed Clinton. But most House liberals want to see a stronger commitment to their platform. </p> <p>“I want her to declare a war on poverty,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. For Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus, it’s climate change and the role of government and trade. “Progressives are looking for definitive positions on the issues,” he said. </p> <p>Both have withheld their endorsements, at least for now. </p> <p>The resistance to her among liberals isn’t a direct threat to her campaign so much as another reminder of the wariness among the party base toward its presumed nominee. The lawmakers aren’t so disillusioned that they would get behind Martin O’Malley or Bernie Sanders. In the end, they’re all but sure to come around to Clinton, but like other activists on the left, they want her to earn it. </p> <p>Still, their lack of enthusiasm for Clinton has practical implications. If she fails to energize progressives, it could depress turnout and hurt Democrats’ chances of eating into the GOP’s 245-seat House majority — a major priority for the party in an election year that should favor Democrats. (Continued) </p> <a name='more'></a> <p> </p> <p>And as of now, progressives say they aren’t seeing enough from the Clinton campaign. </p> <p>The former secretary of state has, for example, refused to weigh in on the controversial battle over “fast-track” authority for trade deals — raising the suspicions of some progressives as Clinton was a key player in the Trans-Pacific Partnership currently being negotiated by the Obama administration. </p> <p>The fast-track bill is the procedural first step Obama needs to complete the largest trade agreement in American history and a large bloc of Democrats in the House and Senate has been working for months to defeat it. The Senate is set to vote on the bill this week, but the measure’s fate in the House is still uncertain. </p> <p>Clinton gave a tempered response on trade in April but has refused to answer questions from the media about her concerns or thoughts on the issue since. </p> <p>That, Grijalva said, is not acceptable for a candidate seeking favor with progressives. </p> <p>“That is critical,” he said. “The campaign and the secretary have to … tell us where they stand on it.” </p> <p>A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, Josh Schwerin, said Clinton appreciates the support she’s seen from the left. </p> <p>“Hillary Clinton appreciates the support of so many members of the Progressive Caucus and looks forward to continuing to work with them throughout the campaign,” Schwerin said. “She will build on the proposals she’s laid out on issues like criminal justice reform, immigration and helping everyday Americans get ahead and stay ahead.” </p> <p>And the campaign has signaled in recent weeks that Clinton is eyeing the populist base that helped elect President Barack Obama. Campaign manager Robby Mook excited liberals when he said on CNBC that voters are seeking out a candidate who is a “champion” for progressive issues like “debt-free college.” </p> <p>Clinton also gave a speech in April on the need to end “mass incarceration” that many progressives lauded. </p> <p>Still, there’s pressure on lawmakers’ in progressive districts to stay out of the endorsement game until later in the election. Grijalva, who represents the Tucson and Phoenix areas, said liberal voters in his state would question his judgment if he got out early in favor of Clinton. </p> <p>“I hear more about Sen. Warren than anybody else, people saying that she should be an alternative … but if there is any person being talked about Secretary Clinton sounding more like, it’s Elizabeth Warren,” he said. </p> <p>“If I were to endorse Hillary Clinton, if someone like Elizabeth Warren was in the race, there would be a lot of questions [from progressives.] A lot of questions,” Grijalva added. </p> <p>To be sure, many progressives have already endorsed Clinton. Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), a member of the Progressive Caucus, tweeted her endorsement in the days after Clinton announced. And Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said at the time of the announcement that he “can’t wait” to see her elected to the White House. </p> <p>But the majority of the Progressive Caucus isn’t ready to jump on board yet. And congressional sources say that while endorsements are inevitable for Clinton, progressives want to see her work to woo them first, especially when one of their own, Sanders, has jumped into the race. </p> <p>Even senior leaders in the Democratic Party haven’t given Clinton their formal nod. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who helped recruit then-Sen. Obama to challenge Clinton in 2008, was asked about the 2016 Democratic field during an interview earlier this month on MSNBC. </p> <p>“I have a few friends out there,” Reid said. But he didn’t offer an endorsement of Clinton and touted the benefits of a competitive primary. </p> <p>“Everybody — everybody knows I love the Clintons,” Reid said. “And I don’t need to say more.” </p> <p>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelsoi hasn’t formally endorsed Clinton, either. She said in January that Clinton would likely win the general election if nominated, even though the party isn’t “devoid of other voices.” </p> <p>“Well, your question was, do I believe she’s the presumed nominee and will she win if she runs,” Pelosi said at the time. “If the secretary runs, I believe that she will win and she will be one of the best-prepared people to enter the White House in a long time in terms of her experience and her knowledge.”</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-82445615929341399162015-05-09T03:04:00.001-07:002015-05-09T03:04:59.819-07:00How A Ragtag Group Of Lefties Mainlined Debt-Free College Into The Democratic Primary<h3><img height="236" src="http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/user/248603/student_debt_ap_img.jpg" width="351" /> </h3> <h4><strong><em>Could Progressive Change Campaign Committee help ignite the youth vote for Democrats? </em></strong></h4> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbloom.bg%2F1FTioAU&text=How%20A%20Ragtag%20Group%20Of%20Lefties%20Mainlined%20Debt-Free%20College%C2%A0Into%20The%20Democratic%20Primary&via=bpolitics"></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?p%5Burl%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fbloom.bg%2F1FTioAU&p%5Btitle%5D=How%20A%20Ragtag%20Group%20Of%20Lefties%20Mainlined%20Debt-Free%20College%C2%A0Into%20The%20Democratic%20Primary"></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?title=How%20A%20Ragtag%20Group%20Of%20Lefties%20Mainlined%20Debt-Free%20College%C2%A0Into%20The%20Democratic%20Primary&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbloom.bg%2F1FTioAU"></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?title=How%20A%20Ragtag%20Group%20Of%20Lefties%20Mainlined%20Debt-Free%20College%C2%A0Into%20The%20Democratic%20Primary&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbloom.bg%2F1FTioAU"></a><a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbloom.bg%2F1FTioAU"></a><a href="mailto:?body=How%20A%20Ragtag%20Group%20Of%20Lefties%20Mainlined%20Debt-Free%20College%C2%A0Into%20The%20Democratic%20Primary%0ABy%20Sahil%20Kapur%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fbloom.bg%2F1FTioAU%0ABloomberg%20Politics&subject=How%20A%20Ragtag%20Group%20Of%20Lefties%20Mainlined%20Debt-Free%20College%C2%A0Into%20The%20Democratic%20Primary"></a></p> <p><strong>By Sahil Kapur</strong></p> <p><em>Bloomberg Politics</em></p> <p>May 8, 2015 - A group of two dozen young activists working out of homes and coffee shops around the country has achieved something rather unusual: mainlining an idea into the upper echelons of the Democratic Party—including its top presidential contenders—in just four months.</p> <p>The phrase "debt-free college" was hardly present in the national political lexicon until the Progressive Change Campaign Committee launched a campaign in January to push Democrats to support the idea of federal assistance to help Americans graduate from college without debt.</p> <p>Why this idea? The group concluded that the abysmal Democratic turnout in 2014 was due to a lack of bold ideas in the national debate that excited progressives. So it did some polling and found not only strong support but that helping lower the cost of college was the number one issue that would have moved Democratic turnout, said PCCC spokesman TJ Helmstetter. It's easy to understand younger voters' interest: Outstanding student loan debt is currently $1.16 trillion and rising, <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/research/2015/rp150217.html">according</a> to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, averaging $<a href="http://time.com/money/3581803/average-student-loan-debt-2013/">28,400</a> per college graduate. </p> <blockquote> <p>"I'm hopeful that debt-free college is the next big idea." --Senator Chuck Schumer</p> </blockquote> <p>The PCCC partnered with the left-leaning think tank <a href="http://www.demos.org/">Demos </a>to write a <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.boldprogressives.org/images/National_Goal_of_Debt-Free_College_in_America-_A_Blueprint.pdf">white paper</a> on the idea, which featured three components: federal aid to states to lower tuition costs, federal need-based aid to students, and other patchwork reforms to cut costs such as putting textbooks online.</p> <p>Then the gears started turning.</p> <p>In March, the 70-member Congressional Progressive Caucus endorsed debt-free college education in its budget blueprint. On April 21, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader-in-waiting, cosponsored a <a href="http://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DebtFreeCollege.pdf">resolution embracing the idea</a> with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz and the House progressive leaders.</p> <p>"When it comes to making college affordable, I'm hopeful that debt-free college is the next big idea," Schumer said.</p> <p>The presidential hopefuls also jumped aboard. On April 13, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders came out for making four-year public colleges free of tuition. Ten days later former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley e-mailed supporters to say that Democrats' "ultimate goal should be simple: every student should be able to go to college debt-free." And this week Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's campaign manager touted the idea—down to the exact phrase. "What voters are looking for is someone to be a champion for everyday people. For young people, that's debt-free college," Robby Mook <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilAtWU_bPtU">said</a> Wednesday on CNBC.</p> <h4>Outdoing Obama</h4> <p>The plan is more sweeping than recent Democratic proposals. President Barack Obama in March <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/10/obama-student-aid-bill-of-rights-atlanta-georgia-tech/24694673/">signed</a> a "Student Aid Bill of Rights" to order federal agencies to explore ways to offer students more repayment options and help them better understand their loan plans. On the legislative end, he has proposed two years of free community college, at a cost of $60 billion to the government. Warren has pushed a bill to slash interest rates for undergraduates and post-graduates. Both have gone nowhere in Congress. (Continued)</p> <a name='more'></a> <p></p> <p>Exactly how to make college education debt-free might be challenging to work out. The average cost of attending public universities, including room and board, is nearly $19,000. The figure rises to more than $42,000 for private universities, according to the College Board. That's a lot of bills for Congress to cover.</p> <p>Regardless, the idea has currency in Democratic power centers. Congressional aides credit the PCCC—which was founded in 2009 and boasts a roughly million-member mailing list—with popularizing it.</p> <p>"The PCCC is able to activate a large group of people to rally around an idea," said Mike Casca, a spokesman for the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He credited the efforts of the congressional caucus co-chair, Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, and Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Representative Ellison and his colleagues introduced this resolution and the PCCC went to their folks and said 'This is great, you should get behind it.' There's a lot of grassroots power that Adam and the PCCC can bring to something like debt-free college."</p> <p>Green—whose organization usually lacks the ability to shape the Democratic debate the way its ideological counterparts like Club For Growth and Heritage Action often do with Republicans—took a victory lap.</p> <p>"In the 2014 elections, who was talking about a national goal of debt-free college?" he said. "Now, the Clinton campaign is talking about it on national TV."</p> <p><em>—John Hechinger and Janet Lorin contributed to this story.</em></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-34363090013213993072015-05-04T05:06:00.001-07:002015-05-04T05:06:21.380-07:00Baltimore: Race, Class and Uprisings<p><em><img height="228" src="http://portside.org/sites/default/files/field/image/baltimore_uprising.jpg" width="398" /> </em></p> <p><em>A protester on a bicycle thrusts his fist in the air next to a line of police, in front of a burning CVS drug store, during clashes in Baltimore, Maryland April 27, 2015. This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address: http:/, Reuters</em></p> <p><strong>By Bill Fletcher Jr <br /></strong><em>TeleSUR via Portside </em></p> <p>April 30, 2015 - A broad united front for justice and power, in addition to protesting atrocities, is guided by a sense of hope and a vision of a new day. </p> <p>It is not enough for us on the Left to comment favorably on the right of oppressed to rebel, to validate the rage that took a very destructive form. Rather, we must support those that engaged in efforts to redirect the rage to preserve their communities as part of a larger movement for justice for Freddie Gray. </p> <p>A protester on a bicycle thrusts his fist in the air next to a line of police, in front of a burning CVS drug store, during clashes in Baltimore, Maryland April 27, 2015. This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address: http:/, Reuters, </p> <p>There was little about the Baltimore uprising following the funeral of the murdered Freddie Gray that surprised me. Tensions had been building ever since word broke that he had died after his spine was severed while in police custody. It was not just that this atrocity had taken place under the most suspicious of circumstances, but that the city government appeared nothing short of anemic in its response. </p> <p>It did not surprise me that Black youth took to the streets in rage or that there were opportunists within the mobs that took advantage of the strife in order to carry out thefts. It was a riot or uprising. It was not an insurrection and it had neither an ideology nor coherent leadership. </p> <p>What I found most noteworthy in recent events is something that received limited coverage: the fact that there were organized groupings of men and women who were actively working to redirect the anger of the youth away from the destruction of their neighborhoods. The Nation of Islam, for instance, deployed its members to walk the streets, speak with the youth, and attempt to dissuade them from violence. It was not alone. There were other groups, including gangs as well as ad hoc community groups that set out to both protest the police killing of Freddie Gray but also to try to convince the young rebels that there needed to be a different path. (Continued)</p> <a name='more'></a> <p></p> <p>Much of the political Left has paid little attention to this work. To some extent we glamorize rebellions, in part because we recognize the legitimacy of the rage, as is the case in circumstances like Ferguson, Missouri or, now, Baltimore, Maryland. Yet there is a danger inherent in our responses in that we too often ignore the contradictory nature of riots/uprisings. We, on the Left, correctly react against those who write off the rebels as alleged “thugs” and “criminals.” However, when we stop there we are missing some critical issues. </p> <p>Reacting with rage is very different from either self-defense or a planned insurrection (not that I am calling for the latter). In the 1960s, Black communities around the United States erupted in massive rebellions sparked by years of racist discrimination, police violence and a sense of the deprival of dignity on the part of the larger society. These uprisings were qualitatively different, however, than the “race riots” that took place in the early part of the 20th century (particularly 1917-1921), when African-American communities were the victims of pogroms carried out by racist mobs set on destruction. African Americans frequently resisted such attacks, often with arms. These “race riots” were matters of an attack by one group against an entire community which, as a result, utilized whatever means necessary in order to defend itself. </p> <p>An insurrection is aimed at either overthrowing an individual or regime and, in a best case scenario, bringing into existence a new system. It may start as a riot, but it gels into something very different, and that takes place when there is organization, leadership and vision. </p> <p>Riots or unfocused uprisings express anger, rage and sometimes despair. As Martin Luther King Jr. so well noted, they represent the voice of those who are not being heard. This is so clear when one looks at Baltimore. </p> <p>Baltimore is a classic example of a city that has been de-industrialized over the last forty years. This was a city with a thriving, and well-organized, working class that has witnessed nothing short of a large-scale devastation as industries relocated or shut-down entirely. As whites moved away into the suburbs, segregation came to be represented at a metropolitan level, i.e., a largely Black city surrounded by white suburbs. </p> <p>Yet the situation does not end with race. The de-industrialization of Baltimore has brought with it increased poverty. The ground zero of the recent rebellion is an area with an unemployment level of at least 30 percent and with an average income of $17,000 per year. Yet this poverty is something that one will not necessarily see on a visit to Baltimore because the renovation of the city has created zones of glitter, particularly around the harbor and the sports stadiums. You can go there as a tourist and have no sense that within a short distance you will witness the deadly results of reorganized, late 20th century capitalism. </p> <p>Those who have engaged in these rebellions live a life dramatically different from those who have escaped to the suburbs. Encounters with the police — Black and white police — do not endear them to the system, a system that presumes their guilt even before a crime has been committed. Thus, it should not have surprised anyone that violence would occur. If anything the surprise should have been that it did not occur earlier. </p> <p>The challenge for those of us on the political Left is to get beyond reporting on the acts of rage or, worse, glamorizing the violence. I think that it is worth paying attention to those, such as the Nation of Islam, that spent time in the streets speaking with the youth. It is worth paying attention to the community leaders — leaders with a small “l” I would note — who have followings but are often unacknowledged. In looking at these and other groups, what should emerge for us is a discussion about strategy and organization. </p> <p>People will lash out in fury when they feel that the situation is hopeless. In the absence of a clear vision or direction in which to channel one’s anger, any direction becomes the direction. Yet this is not what makes a political movement. The energy and direction of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, however, can be at the core of a new racial justice movement, one that actually can — and I would argue must — unite race, class and gender as part of a thrust for social transformation. </p> <p>Essential for us on the political Left, especially but not limited to the Black Left, is to engage in that discussion about strategy. Strategy is not planning out this or that demonstration but it involves thinking through the ‘hows’ of building a movement and the direction or objectives of such a movement. And strategy is irrelevant if it is not connected to the process of building or, in some cases, rebuilding organizations that are instruments of liberation. </p> <p>It is not enough for us, on the Left, to comment favorably on the right of oppressed and repressed people to rebel. It is not enough for us to validate the rage that took a very destructive form. Rather, we must support those, like the Nation of Islam, the gangs that engaged in a truce in order to redirect the rage, and the ad hoc organizations that wanted to preserve their communities, all of who are part of a larger movement for justice for Freddie Gray. These efforts need to be brought together as part of the building of a broad united front for justice and power, a movement that in addition to protesting atrocities is guided by a sense of hope and a vision of a new day. </p> <p><em>Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the host of The Global African on teleSUR English. He is a racial justice, labor and global justice writer and activist.  Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.</em></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-11465433394511518542015-04-30T05:46:00.001-07:002015-04-30T05:46:35.330-07:00Playing the Rightwing Populism Card<p align="left"><img height="373" src="http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/a1/da136460-dc9f-57a9-8187-c55e793d2281/520ba99d16699.preview-300.jpg" width="417" /> </p> <h3>Enter Scott Walker, Stage Right </h3> <p align="left"><strong>Thomas B. Edsall <br /></strong><em>Progressive America Rising via New York Times </em></p> <p align="left">April 29, 2015 - As Scott Walker has transformed himself from a three-time statewide winner in blue-leaning Wisconsin to a hard-right Republican primary candidate, he has jumped to the head of the pack in Iowa and New Hampshire. </p> <p align="left">Walker’s re-creation of his political identity is a test of whether a Republican presidential candidate can win on the basis of decisive margins among whites (while getting crushed among minority voters). </p> <p align="left">Walker hopes to stand apart from Jeb Bush, a former Florida governor, and Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, who are both taking a more centrist approach. Walker intends to stake out the right side of the Republican spectrum and trump competitors for this niche like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. </p> <p align="left">Even as he shifts to the right, however, Walker, a preternaturally careful candidate, is avoiding any explicit suggestion that he is the champion of disaffected white voters. Still, key policy positions — particularly his changing stance on immigration and his attacks on public sector unions — reveal a thoughtfully directed appeal. In 2011, Walker successfully sponsored legislation repealing most collective bargaining rights for government employees. Walker’s anti-union initiative has made him a folk hero to conservatives concerned about what they see as the expanding power of government. <br /></p> <p align="left">In a recent paper, “The Whiteness of Wisconsin’s Wages,” Dylan Bennett, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, and Hannah Walker, a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Washington, argue that “Governor Walker and his allies activated the racial animus of white workers.” </p> <p align="left">Bennett and Walker contend that gutting the power of public sector unions serves as a vehicle to disempower African-American workers, “for whom the public sector is the single most important source of employment.” </p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">According the authors, the purpose of the attacks on public employees is to suggest that “those who receive from the taxpayers are dependent and morally corrupt. The link to blackness is silent and efficient.” </p> <p align="left">The authors cite a number of letters to the editor published in newspapers during the controversy over Walker’s attack on Wisconsin public employee unions, including this one about striking city teachers: </p> <blockquote> <p align="left">    I am sick and tired of hearing how hard teachers work. Everybody I know works hard and they do it 12 months a year, have less benefits, pay for their benefits, do work for their job at home, work second jobs to make ends meet, have experienced pay cuts, layoffs at their companies and earn the same or less than a teacher when you figure the 12-month work schedule versus a teacher’s nine. </p> </blockquote> <p align="left">The racial makeup of public sector employees provides a key subtext to Walker’s political strategy. According to the Department of Labor, </p> <blockquote> <p align="left">    Black workers are more likely to be employed in the public sector than are either their white or Hispanic counterparts. In 2011, nearly 20 percent of employed Blacks worked for state, local, or federal government compared to 14.2 percent of Whites. </p> </blockquote> <p align="left">An April 2012 Marquette Law School poll of Wisconsin voters found that among whites, 42 percent held unfavorable views of public employee unions, while only 6 percent of blacks held similarly hostile views. Along similar lines, 76.8 percent of whites supported requirements that government workers contribute more to their pensions and health coverage, compared with 43.2 percent among blacks, </p> <p align="left">On the topic of immigration, Walker has not only moved from left to right, he has adopted an assertive American nationalism. </p> <p align="left">The No. 1 priority in shaping immigration policy, according to Walker, should be “the American worker and American wages.” Speaking to the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Summit on April 25, Walker declared: “We need to make sure we put American workers first in everything we do, from immigration to tax policy to regulatory reform.” </p> <p align="left">Walker’s right-populist themes now extend beyond his initial claim to represent taxpayers resistant to paying government employees high wages. His proposed Wisconsin budget for 2015-16 takes on both liberal academic elites and the government-dependent poor. </p> <p align="left">Walker calls for a $300 million cut in state support for the University of Wisconsin. His budget also requires drug testing of welfare, food stamp and unemployment recipients. </p> <p align="left">Seeking insight into Walker’s tactics, I emailed Sean Trende, a senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, who has argued that a political strategy calling for boosting white turnout — as opposed to trying to increase minority support — remains a viable Republican option, despite the growing number of minority voters. I wrote to Trende as follows: “My impression is that Scott Walker is developing a campaign based on the premise that an expanded white electorate can be the basis of victory in 2016. Your thoughts?” </p> <p align="left">Trende replied: </p> <blockquote> <p align="left">    To the extent that his comments and commitments in the primary ‘lock him in’ for the general election, I think it’s safe to say that your intuition here is correct.It makes the most sense for Walker to run with the strategy out of all the major contenders: He doesn’t have the geographic or demographic connections of a Rubio or a Bush (or a Cruz).His base is in the Upper Midwest, which is where a Republican has to win if he is going to lose places like Virginia and Nevada, and his working-class background might resonate more with these voters than some of the other candidates. </p> </blockquote> <p align="left">Ruy Teixeira, co-author with John Judis of the seminal book “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” responded to a similar query. Teixeira’s answer: </p> <blockquote> <p align="left">    Walker seems unconcerned that his approach to minority voters would likely maximize the probability these voters once again vote 80 percent Democratic. </p> </blockquote> <p align="left">Teixeira noted that Mitt Romney lost by four points </p> <blockquote> <p align="left">    even while getting 59 percent of the white vote. That means Walker would have to do substantially better than Romney among white voters to have a chance to win — perhaps hitting Reagan’s 1984 levels. </p> <p align="left">In 1984, Reagan won 64 percent of the white vote. <br />Continue reading the main story </p> <p align="left">Walker appears to be calculating that his recent shift on immigration is another means of boosting white support. </p> <p align="left">Just two years ago, Walker favored liberal immigration legislation. He told the Wausau Daily Herald, in a videotaped interview, </p> <p align="left">    If people want to come here and work hard in America, I don’t care whether they come from Mexico or Ireland or Germany or South Africa or anywhere else, I want ‘em here. </p> </blockquote> <p align="left">At that time, in response to a question from the Herald’s editorial board (“Can you envision a world where, with the right penalties and waiting periods and meet the requirements, where those people could get citizenship?”), Walker replied: “Sure. Yeah. I mean, I think it makes sense.” </p> <p align="left">On Feb. 16, however, Walker tried to back off from that pro-immigration stance, claiming in an interview with Brent Baier of Fox News that “the Wausau newspaper erroneously quoted me on that.” </p> <p align="left">Two weeks later, Walker acknowledged that he had indeed shifted from a liberal to a hard-line stance on immigration: “My view has changed. I’m flat out saying it,” he told Chris Wallace of Fox News on March 1. </p> <p align="left">The core of support for Walker’s unannounced presidential bid comes from the most conservative segment of the Republican electorate. A Feb. 25 Quinnipiac University poll of likely Republican caucus-goers in Iowa found that Walker had his strongest support – topping all competitors – among voters who described themselves as very conservative, as Tea Party sympathizers and as white, born-again evangelicals. These are the voting blocs most opposed to liberal immigration reform. </p> <p align="left">Walker took the lead in polls of Iowa voters after he spoke on Jan. 24 at the Iowa Freedom Summit, where he declared to strong applause: “Since I’ve been governor, we passed pro-life legislation and defunded Planned Parenthood.” </p> <p align="left">Walker’s shift on social and cultural issues has been more subtle than his attack on public employee unions or his altered stance on immigration. </p> <p align="left">Before winning re-election in 2014, Walker brushed aside questions about his positions on social issues, contending that voters cared more about the economy. Asked in 2013 about same-sex marriage, he replied: “I don’t talk about it at all. I don’t talk about anything but fiscal and economic issues in the state.” </p> <p align="left">Walker’s strategy to play down his views on social issues was put on display early in October. Emily’s List, the pro-Democratic abortion rights group, ran a television ad that declared “Scott Walker wants to make all abortions illegal, even in cases of rape and incest.” </p> <p align="left">Walker, determined to avoid characterization as an abortion hard-liner, immediately countered with an ad that implied that he actually considered abortion to be a matter to be decided by a woman and her doctor: </p> <blockquote> <p align="left">    Hi, I’m Scott Walker. I’m pro-life. But there’s no doubt in my mind the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy is an agonizing one. That’s why I support legislation to increase safety and to provide more information for a woman considering her options. The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor. Now, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Our priority is to protect the health and safety of all Wisconsin citizens. </p> </blockquote> <p align="left">This confrontation between Walker and Emily’s List took place on the public airways. Out of public view, however, Walker wrote a letter dated Sept. 5, to Wisconsin Family Action, an anti-abortion organization, pledging his fealty to the conservative social agenda, and noting that in his first term: </p> <blockquote> <p align="left">“We prohibited abortions from being covered by Wisconsin health plans in a health insurance exchange,” he told the group, adding “We also cut off state funding for abortion providers. He also pointed out that “I am defending the constitutional amendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman” and that “I support marriage between one man and one woman.” </p> </blockquote> <p align="left">The letter became public on Oct. 21, two weeks before the election, when anti-abortion Wisconsin Family Action gave Walker its endorsement. </p> <p align="left">Now, in his new persona, Walker has declared his opposition not only to same-sex marriage, but to abortion – including in the case of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. In a closed meeting in January with Iowa Republicans —reported on Feb. 23 by The New York Times — Walker declared his support for a “personhood amendment,” which defines life as beginning at conception, which would, in effect, prohibit all abortions and some methods of birth control. </p> <p align="left">Walker’s strategy is paying off. In Iowa he leads the field at 17.3 percent, compared with Bush, second with 12.8 percent. Cruz, perhaps the strongest competitor with Walker for the most conservative primary voters, is far behind at 4.8 percent </p> <p align="left">In New Hampshire, Walker, has an equally strong lead, 19.5 percent to Bush’s 15 percent. Cruz is at 10.5 percent. Of the three early states, Bush leads only in South Carolina, at 16 percent. Walker is just one point behind. </p> <p align="left">Polls at this stage are not reliable, but they suggest that Walker could be a credible candidate for the Republican nomination. The general election is a different matter. As Teixeira pointed out, Romney’s 59 percent of the white vote was inadequate, and topping that is a tall order. </p> <p align="left">One factor working in Walker’s favor is that from 2008 to 2014, white partisan allegiance shifted from rough parity between the parties to a substantial 9- or 10-point advantage for the Republican Party, according to both the Pew Research Center and Gallup. But these trends can be misleading: The Republican white advantage had reached these levels by 2012 and Obama still won, hands down. </p> <p align="left">If Walker continues to hold the lead in the early primary states, his candidacy will challenge the centrist predilections of the Republican establishment. </p> <p align="left">Party leaders, including Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee; Karl Rove; and many of the most loyal business supporters of the party have explicitly rejected the so called white strategy as a threat to the party’s future because it will drive African-Americans and Hispanics deeper into Democratic hands. </p> <p align="left">Walker has not tapped into the anti-corporate strain of populism. He is clearly seeking the support of such corporate advocates as the billionaire Koch brothers. </p> <p align="left">Insofar as Walker’s campaign sustains its early momentum, the party establishment will put increasing pressure on him to constrain any inclination he might have to threaten a powerful business community determined to maintain favorable tax, trade and regulatory policies. </p> <p align="left">Conservative populism, however, doesn’t just tap into anger at minorities and the so-called undeserving poor; it also taps into hostility toward corporate America, which has, for a sustained period of time, kept wages low while pocketing record profits.</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-7445970328440919872015-04-29T05:24:00.001-07:002015-04-29T05:24:54.480-07:00Why Baltimore Is Burning<p><img height="226" src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kabc/images/cms/681803_1280x720.jpg" width="396" /> </p> <p><strong>By Kevin Powell <br /></strong><em>BK Nation </em></p> <p>I am from the ghetto. The first 13 years of my life I grew up in the worst slums of Jersey City, New Jersey, my hometown. If you came of age in one of America’s poor inner cities like I did then you know that we are good, decent people: in spite of no money, no resources, little to no services, run down schools, landpersons who only came around to collect rent, and madness and mayhem everywhere, amongst each other, from abusive police officers, and from corrupt politicians and crooked preachers, we still made a way out of no way. We worked hard, we partied hard, we laughed hard, we barbequed hard, we drank hard, we smoked hard, and we praised God, hard. </p> <p>And we were segregated, hard, by a local power structure that did not want the ghetto to be seen nor heard from, and certainly not to bring its struggles out in plain sight for the world to see. </p> <p>Indeed my entire world was the block I lived on and maybe five or six blocks north south east west. A long-distance trip was going to Downtown Jersey City on the first of each month so our mothers—our Black and Latina mothers—could cash their welfare checks, buy groceries with their food stamps and, if we were lucky, we got to eat at Kentucky Fried Chicken or some other fast food restaurant on that special day. </p> <p>When I was about 15 I was badly beaten by a White police officer after me and a Puerto Rican kid had a typical boy fight on the bus. No guns, no knives, just our fists. The Puerto Rican kid, who had White skin to my Black skin, was escorted off the bus gingerly. I was thrown off the bus. Outraged, I said some things to the cop as I sat handcuffed in the back seat of a police car. He proceeded to smash me in the face with the full weight of his fist. Bloodied, terrified, broken in that moment, I would never again view most police officers as we had been taught as children: “Officer Friendly”— </p> <p>Being poor meant I only was able to go to college because of a full financial aid package to Rutgers University. I did not get on a plane until I was 24-years-old because of that poverty and also because I did not know that was something I could do. These many years later I have visited every single state in America, every city big and small, and every ghetto community you can name. They all look the same. </p> <p>Abandoned, burnt out buildings. Countless churches, funeral parlors, barber shops, beauty salons, check cashing places, furniture rental stores, fried chicken spots, and Chinese restaurants. Schools that look and feel more like prison holding cells for our youth than centers of learning. Playgrounds littered with broken glass, used condoms, and drug paraphernalia. Liquor stores here there everywhere. Corner stores that sell nothing but candy, cupcakes, potato chips, soda, every kind of beer you can name, loose cigarettes, rolling paper for marijuana, lottery tickets, and gum, lots and lots of gum. </p> <p>Then there are also the local organizations that claim to serve the people, Black and Latino people. Some mean well, and are doing their best with meager resources. Others only come around when it is time to raise money, to generate some votes for one political candidate or another, or if the police have tragically killed someone. (Continued)</p> <a name='more'></a> <p></p> <p>Like Rekiya Boyd in Chicago. Like Miriam Carey in Washington, D.C. Like Tanisha Anderson in Cleveland. Like Yvette Smith in Texas. Like Aiyana Stanley Jones in Detroit. Like Eric Garner in New York City. Like Oscar Grant in Oakland. Like Walter Scott in South Carolina. Like Freddie Gray in Baltimore…. </p> <p>Yes, we have the first Black president in the White House but it feels like open season on Black folks in America once more. 100 years ago this year the Hollywood image machine was given a huge boost by a racist and evil film called “Birth of A Nation,” a movie so calculating in the way it depicted Black people it set the tone, quite literally, for how we were portrayed and treated in every form of media for decades to come. 100 years ago it was common to see photos of African Americans, males especially, lynched, hung from trees, as the local good White folks visibly enjoyed their entertainment of playing hangman. </p> <p>100 years later “Birth of A Nation” has been replaced by a 24-hour news media cycle still obsessed with race, racism, racial strife, racial violence, but no solutions and no action steps whatsoever, just pure sensationalism and entertainment. 100 years later the lynching photos have been replaced by cellphones capturing video of Walter Scott running away from a police officer, like a slow-footed character in a video game, only to be shot in the back—pop! pop! pop! pop! pop! pop! pop! pop! </p> <p>Except all of this is mad real, Black people in America—the self-proclaimed greatest democracy on earth—are being shot here there everywhere, by the police, in broad daylight, with witnesses, sometimes on video. And with very few exceptions nothing is happening to the cops who pulled the triggers. No indictments. No convictions. No prison time. </p> <p>And every single instance one of these scenarios occurs, we are handed the same movie script: Person of color is shot and killed by local police. Local police immediately try to explain what happened, while placing most of the blame, without full investigation, on the person shot. Police officer or officers who fired shots are placed on paid “administrative leave.” Media finds any and everything they can to denigrate the character of the dead person, to somehow justify why she or he is dead. Marches, protests, rallies, speeches. Local police show up in military-styled “riot gear.” Tensions escalate. Folks are arrested, people are agitated or provoked; all hell breaks loose. The attention has shifted from the police killing an innocent person to the violence of “thugs,” “gangstas,” “looters.” The community is told to be nonviolent and peaceful, but no one ever tells the police they should also be nonviolent and peaceful. Whites in power and “respectable Black voices” call for calm, but these are the same folks who never talk about the horrific conditions in America’s ghettoes that make any ‘hood a time bomb just waiting for a match to ignite the fury born of oppression, marginalization, containment, and invisibility. These are the same people who’ve been spent little to no time with the poor. </p> <p>If you aren’t from the ghetto, if you have not spent significant time in the ghetto, then you would not understand the ghetto…. </p> <p>No matter. Big-time civil rights organizations, big-time civil rights spokespersons, and big-time church leaders are brought in to re-direct, control, and contain the energy from the people at the bottom. Started from the bottom now we here…. </p> <p>But they really cannot because the people have seen this movie a million times before. They know it is madness to be told to let justice take its course. They know it is madness to wait out a legal system that rarely if ever indicts and convicts these police officers who’ve shot and killed members of their community. They know it is madness to be told to stay cool, to be cool, when they have no healthy outlets for their trauma, their pain, their rage. They know it is madness to hear pundits and talking heads of every stripe on television and radio and via blogs analyze who they are, without actually knowing who they are. They know it is madness when middle class or professional Black folks speak the language of the power structure and condemn the people in the streets instead of the system that created the conditions for why the people are in the streets. They know it is madness that so-called progressive, liberal, human rights, or social justice people of any race or culture have remained mightily silent as these police shootings have been going down coast to coast. And they know it is madness that most of these big-time leaders and big-time media only come around when there is a social explosion. </p> <p>So they do explode, inside of themselves, and inside their communities. They would love to reach areas outside their ‘hoods but the local power structure blocks that from happening. So they destroy their own communities. I understand why. I am they and they are me. Any people with nothing to lose will destroy anything in their way. Like anything. Any people who feel as if their lives are not valued, like they are second-class citizens at best, will not be stopped until they’ve made their point. They, we, do not care if our communities have not rebounded from the last major American rebellions of the 1960s. We care that we have to live in squalor and misery and can be shot at any given moment by each other, or by the police, and no one seems to care. A rebellion, a riot, are pleas for help, for a plan, for a vision, for solutions, for action steps, for justice, for God, someone, anyone, to see our humanity, to do something. Condemning them is condemning ourselves. Labeling the Baltimore situation a riot because it is mostly people of color is racist given we do not call White folks behaving violently after major sporting events rioters or thugs or gangstas, and Lord knows some White folks have destroyed much property in America, too. It ain’t a democracy if White people can wild out and it is all good; but let people of color wild out and it becomes a state of emergency with the National Guard dropping in, armed and ready. </p> <p>Black lives matter, all lives matter, equally. I believe that, I believe deeply in peace and love and nonviolence. I believe in my heart that we’ve got to be human and compassionate and civil toward one another, as sisters and brothers, as one human race, as one human family. I believe that our communities and police forces everywhere have to sit down and talk and listen as equals, not as enemies, to figure out a way toward life and love, not toward death and hate; a way toward a shared community where we all feel safe and welcomed and human. </p> <p>Yes, I love people, all people. But I also believe in justice, for all people. And I know that what has been happening in America these past few years not remotely close to any form of justice, or equality. Imagine, if you will, White folks being shot and murdered by the police like this, what the reactions would be? Imagine if George Zimmerman had gone vigilante on a White youth with a hoodie in that gated Florida complex. Imagine White parents having to teach their children how to conduct themselves if ever confronted by the police. Imagine that Aiyana Stanley Jones was a little 7-year-old White girl instead of a little 7-year-old Black girl, shot by the police as she slept on a sofa with her grandmother, in a botched raid? It would be a national outrage. </p> <p>Baltimore is burning because America is burning with racism, with hate, with violence. Baltimore is burning because far too many of us are on the sidelines doing nothing to affect change, or have become numb as the abnormal has become normal. Baltimore is burning because very few of us are committed to real leadership, to a real agenda with consistent and real political, economic, and cultural strategies for those American communities most under siege, most vulnerable. Policing them to death is not the solution. Putting them in prison is not the solution. And, clearly, ignoring them is not the solution— </p> <p><em>Kevin Powell is a cofounder of BK Nation, a new national organization and blog website. He is also an activist, public speaker, and author or editor of 11 books. His 12th book, The Education of Kevin Powell: A Boy’s Journey into Manhood, will be published by Atria/Simon & Schuster in November 2015. You can email him, kevin@kevinpowell.net, or follow him on twitter, @kevin_powell </em></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-87259954079182219572015-04-26T05:36:00.001-07:002015-04-26T05:36:11.747-07:00Paul Krugman Demolishes the 'Zombie' Ideas That Have Eaten Republican Brains<p align="left"> <img height="258" src="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/EUZombies.jpg" width="391" /> </p> <p align="left"><strong>By Janet Allon <br /></strong><em><a href="http://progressivesforobama.net">Progressive America Rising</a> via AlterNet </em></p> <p align="left">April 24, 2015 - Paul Krugman has a little fun in his Friday column [3], using an extended zombie metaphor to express a rather serious point. The question the columnist seeks an answer to: why is it that Republicans and the right refuse to recognize the reality, evidence and facts that discredit their ideas? Must be something supernatural. Or more likely Koch and Adelson money. But more on that in a sec. </p> <p align="left">"Last week, a zombie went to New Hampshire and staked its claim to the Republican presidential nomination," Krugman begins. "Well, O.K., it was actually Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. But it’s pretty much the same thing." </p> <p align="left">Christie gave a speech [4] in New Hampshire once again positioning himself as a roll-up-your-shirtsleeves, tough fiscal conservative. But his ideas are largley, well, zombies. Things that are dead, but somehow refuse to acknowledge they are dead. Christie thought he was being so smart when he proposed that the minimum age for Social Secutiry and Medicare be raised to 69. Here is Krugman's explanation of the problem with that oh-so-brave idea. </p> <p align="left">    This whole line of argument should have died in 2007, when the Social Security Administration issued a report showing that almost all the rise in life expectancy [5] has taken place among the affluent. The bottom half of workers, who are precisely the Americans who rely on Social Security most, have seen their life expectancy at age 65 rise only a bit more than a year since the 1970s. Furthermore, while lawyers and politicians may consider working into their late 60s no hardship, things look somewhat different to ordinary workers, many of whom still have to perform manual labor. </p> <p align="left">    And while raising the retirement age would impose a great deal of hardship, it would save remarkably little money. In fact, a 2013 report from the Congressional Budget Office [6] found that raising the Medicare age would save almost no money at all. </p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">But did this evidence of it being a bad idea prevent other zombies, like Jeb Bush [7], from offering up the same thing? No it did not. "The zombie ideas have eaten his brain," Krugman explains. </p> <p align="left">There are other zombie ideas running around, like one of Krugman's favorites, the hysteria over the Affordable Care Act and how it was supposed to destroy the economy. </p> <p align="left">Ummm, no. </p> <p align="left">But as with movie zombies, no amount of arrows, bullets, or other deathblows makes the slightest dent in the discourse on the right. Voodoo economics is even back, says Krugman. That is the whole "supply-side" trickle down nonsense that tax cuts on the rich lifts all boats. </p> <p align="left">    In the real world, this doctrine has an unblemished record of failure. Despite confident right-wing predictions of doom, neither the Clinton tax increase of 1993 nor the Obama tax increase of 2013 killed the economy (far from it), while the “Bush boom” that followed the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 was unimpressive even before it ended in financial crisis. Kansas, whose governor promised a “real live experiment” that would prove supply-side doctrine right [8], has failed even to match the growth of neighboring states. </p> <p align="left">    In the world of Republican politics, however, voodoo’s grip has never been stronger. Would-be presidential candidates must audition in front of prominent supply-siders to prove their fealty to failed doctrine. Tax proposals like Marco Rubio’s would create a giant hole in the budget, then claim that this hole would be filled by a miraculous economic upsurge. Supply-side economics, it’s now clear, is the ultimate zombie: no amount of evidence or logic can kill it. </p> <p align="left">Time for an explanation for this apparent zombie apocalypse in the Republican Party. Reason number one, Krugman suggests, is that Republicans represent states where the threat from the right is more real than any threat from the left, so it costs them nothing to move to the right. And then there's the fact that Koch money and Sheldon Adelson money only go to those who perpetuate outright untruths about taxes, Obamacare, the environment, and on and on. <br />        [10] <br />Links: <br />[1] <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/janet-allon">http://www.alternet.org/authors/janet-allon</a> <br />[2] <a href="http://alternet.org">http://alternet.org</a> <br />[3] <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/paul-krugman-zombies-of-2016.html?hp&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;module=c-column-top-span-region&amp;region=c-column-top-span-region&amp;WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&amp;_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/paul-krugman-zombies-of-2016.html?hp&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;module=c-column-top-span-region&amp;region=c-column-top-span-region&amp;WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&amp;_r=0</a> <br />[4] <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/04/14/business/ap-us-gop-2016-christie-social-security.html">http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/04/14/business/ap-us-gop-2016-christie-social-security.html</a> <br />[5] <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html#wp108chart3">http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html#wp108chart3</a> <br />[6] <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44661">https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44661</a> <br />[7] <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/jeb-bush-social-security-retirement-age">http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/jeb-bush-social-security-retirement-age</a> <br />[8] <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-kansas-gov-brownbacks-reelection-race-is-case-study-in-republican-party-shift/2014/07/30/3192d86c-1420-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-kansas-gov-brownbacks-reelection-race-is-case-study-in-republican-party-shift/2014/07/30/3192d86c-1420-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html</a> <br />[9] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on Paul Krugman Demolishes the &#039;Zombie&#039; Ideas That Have Eaten Republican Brains <br />[10] <a href="http://www.alternet.org/">http://www.alternet.org/</a> <br />[11] <a href="http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B">http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B</a></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-7145161144077698732015-04-04T07:06:00.001-07:002015-04-04T07:06:26.411-07:00Guns, Settlers & Race<h3><img height="275" src="http://www.iveknownrivers.org/stories/vol_002/panthermania-2006-04-13/beeheadline.jpg" width="359" /> </h3> <p><em>Black Panthers made headlines.</em></p> <p><strong>By Bill Fletcher, Jr.</strong></p> <p><em>Z Communications Daily Commentary</em></p> <p>A front page story in the Washington Post struck me. [David A. Fahrenthold, “GOP field backs gun rights with both barrels,” March 29, 2015]  As one would expect, the potential candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are jumping all over themselves to show how ‘pro-gun’ they are.</p> <p>In the USA we have discussions about guns that pretend to be based in history, but actually miss certain key features. In so doing, the heart and soul of the gun debate is overlooked and the issue devolves into questions of morality and gun safety.</p> <p>The gun issue in the USA is related to history but not particularly to the 2nd Amendment (the supposed right to bear arms). The debate precedes the 2nd Amendment by more than a century and it revolves around settlers and race.</p> <p>The gun debate in the USA started in the 1600s and, while there were always matters of safety and hunting, the key question was actually one of who had the right and authority to possess weapons. The second question centered on why the centrality of weapon possession at all.</p> <p>The settlement of North America, and specifically the original thirteen colonies, was not a non-violent act.  It represented an invasion.  There immediately arose the question of the protection of the invaders, i.e., the colonists.  Thus, weapons, at all costs, had to be kept out of the hands of the indigenous population—the Native Americans or First Nations.  Severe penalties were created for any settler who sold or traded weapons to the Native Americans. This notoriety made its way into the popular media over the years with stories about so-called mavericks who supplied Native Americans with weaponry. During much of the colonial era, and into the 19th century, by the way, this form of activity was frequently associated in the minds of much of the white public with Irish dissidents who were in opposition to the British colonization of Ireland.</p> <p>Weaponry was also essential for handling an ‘internal’ problem within the emerging settler state:  indentured servants and slaves.  The 1600s was a period of regular uprisings carried out by indentured servants and slaves.  The indentured servant workforce was originally composed of Africans, Europeans and some Native Americans.  It was the turmoil during this period that drove the colonial ruling elite to identify the need to splinter the workforce in order to retain power.  In that context arose the modern usage of “race,” based largely upon the successful experience of the British in the occupation and suppression of the indigenous population in Ireland. (Continued)</p> <a name='more'></a> <p></p> <p>Over the course of the 1600s, indentured servitude evolved into indentured servitude for Europeans laborers and slavery-for-life for Africans.  In order to guarantee that the Africans and Europeans did not conspire together, there were major penalties for any sort of ‘cross-racial’ cooperation among the laboring peoples.  There was, additionally, the question of the gun.</p> <p>One of the chief distinctions between the condition of the European and that of the African was that Africans could not own or possess weapons.  Possessing weaponry was a ‘privilege’ of whiteness and with this privilege came an awesome responsibility:  serve in the mission to expand European settlements (and control) over North America; remove the Native Americans from their land; and ensure that Africans remained suppressed in slavery.</p> <p>Thus, no matter how poor a European might have been and no matter how badly they might have been treated by the Euro-Americans (white) ruling elite, at the end of the day the white poor and laboring classes grew to understand that they would not be as bad off as the Native American and African.  They also grew to understand that by putting on the racial uniform of “whiteness,” they could have a role in one of the most notorious expeditions in history, despite the fact that that uniform permanently imprisoned them in a humiliating and subordinate status.</p> <p>Gun ownership in the USA, then, was a defining feature of whiteness.  It, therefore, cannot be compared to gun ownership in most other parts of the world—with the exception of nation-states that started as settler colonies, e.g., South Africa.   It was a trophy suggesting that the owner was part of a ruling establishment, separate and apart from the various barbarian races.</p> <p>The settler origin of gun ownership and its relationship to the enslavement of Africans, helps one to understand the contradictory response among many whites to the possession of weapons by people of color.  In fact, it demonstrates that the gun controversy is not and has never been about the 2nd Amendment.</p> <p>The possession of weapons by people of color, whether Native Americans, Chicanos or African Americans, to name three groups, is not seen by many, if not most whites as a matter of “rights,” but instead as a source of fear.  When, in 1967, the Black Panther Party marched on the California state capital with unloaded shotguns, it sent shivers up the spines of many whites, perhaps bringing to mind the possible reemergence of Nat Turner.</p> <p>Compare that with the armed actions by white, right-wing populists in defense of Nevadan Cliven Bundy in his dispute with the Bureau of Land Management.  Bundy, charged by the BLM with violating grazing rights, was supported by armed volunteers in his confrontation with federal agents.  There is little doubt that had Bundy been of color and the armed supporters been of color, that there would have been more of a reenactment of the MOVE confrontation in Philadelphia or the attack on the American Indian Movement at Wounded Knee.  Yet, in the Bundy case, the appearance of armed, white, right-wing supporters was largely treated as a near legitimate exercise in both weapon’s possession and freedom of protest.</p> <p>The embrace of gun ownership and display by the Republican candidates and potential candidates for the Presidency is certainly an example of typical Republican <u></u><u></u>opportunism.  But it is actually more than that. It is a symbolic linkage with the largely unspoken theme that is central to US history and has existed as a white, right-wing apparition during the Obama administration: the USA is—or at least should be—a white republic.  The rest of us are guests; tolerated at best, despised at worst.</p> <p>And the guns?  Well, they are a reminder that a portion of the population has to be prepared to stand firm against the barbarians who are chipping away at the edifice.</p> <p><em>Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the host of The Global African on Telesur-English.  He is a racial justice, labor and global justice activist and writer.  Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and at <a href="http://send.zcomm.org/wf/click?upn=9PHos1J7-2FD2Lw6jereECeNLGs3ocss1O2kcgD4VkZGx1e5P-2Bz3G4-2FuROeN6JVoQbT9xKCqN3T1PGtyZ7mG3NIxYBCJVJACNcFia59TNS2-2Bk80NN-2FUlpl0juKtoyAeFdk1lvMlCbFAKGZDu4NPJtQUaKa8Yj-2FZYKNW1p98KMBxfkyvyRVEnADGVsOrnyzgzHop4fKHcsUetx1-2B8-2FJ1ZNqgA-3D-3D_W4yf-2Bqq4UATgCz9w1-2FYoZRoWclBgTnnbh91hziwEWfjysQTZxGrdKNlGGbuTaE9Ds2zVlOjW5iRQ-2BMA6LEeB8e6aXWdjtx81z7TlcyGzgzXUHtMLaCYGxKQ5CKgjQsTihLXIarE3YNnWz7NKdvuZfok-2FmxIQW8JEBYxkqy67oMnaOUoPYaimHyzncrYq83nTh-2FT-2FxlVXH2Wtx2ajJaFbMQ-3D-3D">www.billfletcherjr.com</a>.</em></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-3513149027827245042015-03-22T13:36:00.001-07:002015-03-22T13:36:26.641-07:00Year-Round, Locally Based Precinct Organizing Is Essential for Moving the Democratic Party (Or Any Other Group) Leftward<p align="left"><em><img height="268" src="http://www.trbimg.com/img-1352228331/turbine/chi-ilelect6-durbin-20121106/768" width="397" /> </em></p> <p align="left"><em>U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and his wife Loretta chat with precinct captain Joe Poelsterl</em></p> <p align="left"><em>"The most important job I ever had was Precinct Captain." —Harry S Truman </em></p> <p align="left"><strong>By Meteor Blades <br /></strong><em><a href="http://progressivesforobama.net">Progressive America Rising</a> via DailyKOS </em></p> <p align="left">March 22, 2015 - In the past few months, starting shortly before Christmas, the founder of this blog has several times made comments about future elections that make me grind my molars. </p> <p align="left">He has said Democrats likely will win the elections of 2016, but we will lose in 2018 because "our voters" turn out for presidential elections but not in the midterms. He has said we will be stuck in this conundrum until we figure out how to change the dynamic. </p> <p align="left">I hate this message. Because Markos is right. And making him wrong will require lots of what used to be called shoe leather and what my grandfather called "organizational calluses."  </p> <p align="left">We are stuck in a rinse-repeat cycle in which a relatively large percentage of Democratic and Democrat-leaning voters turn out in presidential election years followed by a steep fall-off in said voters every midterm year. Nobody needs persuading that this has massive and massively damaging consequences for the progressive agenda and the vast number of rank-and-file Americans who would benefit if that agenda were turned into policy. </p> <p align="left">It's true that the older, whiter, richer, more conservative, more male cohorts in America who turn out big in presidential years also don't vote in as high of percentages in midterm elections. But their fall-off is not as precipitous. This Republican advantage is added to (and helps make possible) other right-wing advantages. Two of those: the impact of gerrymandering, which is analyzed here here by Jeff Singer using a Daily Kos-developed metric premised on the "median district"; and the impact of a move away from split-ticket voting, analyzed here by Steve Singiser. </p> <p align="left">These aren't the only advantages for a Republican Party that has become increasingly right wing. For instance, young people when they do vote, are more likely to choose candidates who campaign for liberal rather than conservative policies. But young people are the least likely age cohort to be contacted to vote. </p> <p align="left">As we know all too well, chief among the right wing's advantages is the deluge of money—much of it now delivered from secret sources, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. While it's not, of course, going to be true in every contest, overall the Democrats will never be able to outspend the Republicans. Plenty of examples show that money—even well-spent money—doesn't always win a race. But it confers a big edge. So, to win more races, we need to engage in an asymmetric electoral approach. In blue states and red ones. </p> <p align="left">Don't get me wrong. There is no silver bullet. Good candidates at every level of government for every office are a must. And we definitely have too few of those. Good policy ideas are crucial. We've got them, but it's hard to get some elected Democrats to support them. Those are problems to be solved. </p> <p align="left">But year-round, locally based organizing in each of the nation's 176,000 precincts is a crucial element for the future success of the Democratic Party. Not the party as we now know it, but one that is more progressive and more willing than it has been to fight vigorously for the economic, social, and environmental interests of the working classes that make up the vast majority of Americans. (Continued)</p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left">We can't wait for the party to make needed changes from the top. We've already seen what it has done with the 50-state strategy. We have to make changes from the bottom.</p> <p align="left"> <br />Alone, this locally based precinct organizing won’t do the job. But without it we’ll remain hamstrung. By locally based, I mean face-to-face, door-to-door, shoestring-funded, volunteer-driven, local organizing in every voting precinct in the nation by people who actually live in or close by those precincts. People who know the neighborhood because it’s home. I want us to leverage this local organizing into a simple goal: closing the gap between how many Democrats vote in midterm and presidential elections by 10 percent in 2018 and 50 percent in 2022. </p> <p align="left">Before continuing, a personal note. </p> <p align="left">I first convinced someone to register to vote in Mississippi in 1964, three-and-a-half years before I could vote. She didn’t want to register. She was scared. And she had reason to be. Jim Crow had a tight grasp on voting rolls in those days and myriad means of keeping certain people off them. … Not just discouraging words. A beating or a murder could be the price for any black person daring to get uppity about their constitutional right to vote. I was born in the South, but I got educated in a new way that summer. </p> <p align="left">As a consequence of that experience and others that followed, I’ve been engaged in political work ever since. Not just election politics but also street politics, resistance politics, disrupter politics that have involved everything from petitioning and protests to prison. Many people disdain resistance politics. They can be messy. And they can be diverted into bad directions either by the authoritarians of the surveillance state or by bad resistance leaders. But I have no doubt we will always need these in-your-face politics to achieve many of our aims. Just as our progressive predecessors have done on a wide range of issues. </p> <p align="left">From the nation's founding, these disrupters have confronted the powers-that-be from outside the organized political system. Whether union organizers or feminist advocates, they started out always with tiny minorities, with most Americans—especially most Americans in political office—opposed to their views. Like the abolitionists, some resisters broke the law—in this instance the pernicious Fugitive Slave Act that made every "law-abiding citizen" an accomplice to evil by requiring them to assist in treating human beings as runaway property that had to be retrieved for owners who had a legally enshrined right to whip or castrate or kill that property. </p> <p align="left">From the Pullman Strike to the Stonewall Riots, nothing big has been changed before some form of street politics got the ball rolling. </p> <p align="left">But the great reforms have also required the passage of confirming legislation, statutory or constitutional. Which has meant convincing incumbents or electing challengers who are already convinced that a reform is the right thing—or at least the necessary thing—to do if they expect to remain in office.  </p> <p align="left">Progressives have a laundry list of political changes we'd like to see enacted and many of us are directly engaged at various levels in being disruptive of the powers-that-be standing in the way of those changes. We are pushing. </p> <p align="left">But ultimately disruption cannot reach its objectives without improving our turnouts at the polls, particularly the midterms, so that we can put candidates who agree with us into office, from the local school board all the way to Washington. Without this, the speed with which progressive governmental policies can be implemented will be glacial at best. Working to put good candidates in office doesn't mean abandoning street politics. </p> <p align="left">We can't wait for a demographic shift to save us. Indeed, without better local organizing, the coming demographic shift will not amount to enough to make the needed political shift. </p> <p align="left">Which Democrats or Dem-leaning Independents are most likely to vote in presidential elections but not in the midterms? It’s the same everywhere: Young people. Poor people. In most places, people of color. Single women. And people on the edge. </p> <p align="left">Getting them to vote requires giving them the advice and encouragement and backing they need to organize themselves. It also means giving them good reasons to vote and running candidates with their interests at heart, candidates from their own neighborhoods. Candidates for school boards and city councils and state legislatures, some of whom emerge from among the ranks of the precinct organizer. (But that's a subject for another essay.) <br />Isn't the Democratic Party already doing precinct organizing? Isn't Organizing for America and other groups, ad hoc and permanent, running expensive get-out-the-vote efforts? </p> <p align="left">Yes. In some places. In others, barely or not at all. And not just in red areas. In fact, Democrats are poorly organized or not organized at all at the precinct level in many blue and purple areas. This is myopic and it's costing us. </p> <p align="left">Let me give you a firsthand example. </p> <p align="left">In 2003, I was still living in a blue area of modest homes and apartments in northeast Los Angeles. Aided by a bogus energy crisis engineered by corporate gaming of state regulations, an effort arose to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, who was less than a year into his second term after 16 years of Republican governorships. Five of us precinct captains contacted the county Democratic headquarters repeatedly to volunteer our services. After several phone calls produced no marching orders, two of us visited the office in person. Still nothing. No assistance, no advice, no literature, not even a "good luck." </p> <p align="left">We didn't shrug. We organized on our own. Each of us assigned ourselves four additional precincts to the one we already served as a precinct captain. Twenty-five precincts altogether, moderately to profoundly blue. </p> <p align="left">Right away, we found that only nine of them had precinct captains. So we quickly recruited some ad hoc ones, most of whom later became official. And we recruited volunteers to go door-to-door talking to their neighbors. It was an effort that suffered from the speed with which we had to move. But when the recall vote was counted, every one of those 25 contiguous precincts showed an increase in Democratic voter turnout over the 1998 election. About 5 percent overall. Nowhere close to enough to save Davis' bacon, of course. </p> <p align="left">We expanded for 2004. Twenty-five "sister" precincts were organized. It was the same story: fewer than half had Democratic precinct captains when we began. We recruited enough to fill the vacant slots. We recruited volunteers. We went door-to-door to every Democratic and independent household twice. We listened as much as we talked. We got people registered who hadn't been. We passed out literature for the presidential race and for down-ballot races and created literature of our own. We raised money with block parties. </p> <p align="left">After each canvass, the precinct captains debriefed their volunteers and we five debriefed the captains. Data about each visit was logged by computer. Not as sophisticated as what OFA and other groups have developed, but serviceable. We increased the turnout of Democratic voters about 15 percent over the previous election in those 50 precincts. </p> <p align="left">Come 2005, we added 51 more precincts—this time many of them fairly red—and followed the same pattern. That year there was no election, but we canvassed twice anyway. And in 2006, we went door to door three times. Again we boosted Democratic turnout although the wave effect that year made the results better than they would surely have been without it. In 2010, despite a steep drop-off nationally and statewide in Democratic turnout, our 101 precincts averaged about a 20 percent rise over the baseline year of 1998 and a slightly higher percentage over the 2006 Democratic turnout. When I left Los Angeles in early 2012, all those precincts had captains, a wealth of data about voter habits and a tested procedure that worked. </p> <p align="left">There are useful tools we didn't deploy, particularly social media and phone banking. That wasn't because we think these aren't valuable. We just collectively felt door-to-door, face-to-face contact from a neighbor is more effective than a Facebook poke or a phone call from someone they don't know who lives in Ohio and can't pronounce their name right. Over those five elections, we got to know people in our precincts and they got to know us. </p> <p align="left">In some precincts, districts, and entire states, this kind of organizing will obviously not be as effective as we were in Southern California. But even in places where Republicans regularly produce victories with 60 percent or more of the vote or where the margin is so lopsided, no Democrats even run for office, gains can be made. Increasing Democratic turnout in a congressional and legislative contest by 10 extra voters per precinct may not win the district, but it can boost a statewide candidate—say attorney general or secretary of state or even a senator caught in a tight race—into office. A few victories like that, or just an improvement in margins of defeat, can energize Democratic voters next time around. And, as even the most impatient of us knows, winning is about sticking at it for the long haul. </p> <p align="left">One Virginian is definitely in it for that.</p> <p align="left"> <br />W. Ferguson Reid, shown on the left side of this election poster, was the first African American elected to the General Assembly in the 20th Century. A medical doctor and community leader in Richmond, Reid was one of the founders of the Crusade for Voters, organized in 1955 and one of the most formidable political organizations in the state. It lobbied for voter registration among African Americans, conducted get-out-the-vote drives, and enabled Reid to win a seat in the House of Delegates in 1967 on his second try. </p> <p align="left">Even though you've probably never heard of him, Ferguson Reid, now 90, has been called a civil rights icon. He certainly is. You can read about him here. In honor of his legacy, the “90 for 90” project was launched. The plan is to register at least 90 voters in each of Virginia’s 2,550 precincts. Wills Dahl reports: </p> <blockquote> <p align="left">    A glance at the electoral map reveals what a game-changer this could be. If the “90 for 90” project can register the 250,000 new voters it intends to—or even achieve half of that—it could lock out Republicans from the Electoral College for good. </p> </blockquote> <p align="left">Call that optimistic if you like. But it's a worthy goal. And it will have down-ballot consequences as well. Such a campaign in the 8,300 precincts of Texas would produce 750,000 new voters, in California's 24,000 precincts, 2.2 million new voters. </p> <p align="left">But there are scores to hundreds of already registered citizens who we know vote—in presidential years. Getting a large fraction of them to also show up for the midterms could make a even bigger difference than registering all those new voters. We should, of course, do both. </p> <p align="left">To repeat, there is no silver bullet. Precinct organizing by itself won’t win elections. But in too many places we are without it, or the organizing is ineptly done or given no encouragement or assistance from the local or state party. The resulting election outcomes are awful. Consequently, so are the policy outcomes. </p> <p align="left">There is value in having outsiders parachute in for the final months or weeks of a crucial campaign. National organizations have the resources, the technology and well-honed techniques to boost turnouts. But when the election is over, those organizations leave, taking  their resources, and often, the local data they've collected with them. Moreover, they can only organize in a limited number of places. </p> <p align="left">To reiterate, needed are local volunteers doing local precinct organizing year-round: Collecting data, spurring greater participation, keeping good records, training replacements. </p> <p align="left">It all sounds so simple when said like that, doesn’t it? </p> <p align="left">The truth? </p> <p align="left">It takes time people could be doing something else. Time they could be spending with family or reading a book or tending a garden. Time, energy, and the ability to take rejection with a smile and defeats with renewed determination. Not everybody has the psychological makeup to make door-to-door political visits. But even the shyest person can contribute to precinct organizing by doing other needed tasks. </p> <p align="left">If your area already has an active Democratic organization at the precinct level, join it. If it has one but the leaders are lazy or incompetent, figure how to boot them out and replace them. If there is no organization at all, get one going. The payoff may be in the next election or a decade from now. But it's a crucial aspect of a progressive future.</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-57356380562783228422015-03-19T07:00:00.001-07:002015-03-19T07:00:38.866-07:00The Christian Right Still dominates the GOP -- Is There Any End in Sight?<p align="left"> <img height="293" src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4d936ba1ccd1d56d33710000-480/tea-party.jpg" width="389" /> </p> <p align="left"><strong>By Amanda Marcotte <br /></strong><em><a href="http://progressivesforobama.net">Progressive America Rising</a> via AlterNet </em></p> <p align="left">March 18, 2015 - In a recent interview on Fox, Christian right writer [3] James Robison went off on a rant about how Christian conservatives need to take over the government: “There are only 500 of you,” Robison said of Congress. “We can get rid of the whole bunch in one smooth swoop and we can really reroute the whole ship!” </p> <p align="left">He added that this takeover would cause "demons to shudder" and the "gates of hell to tremble," but what was really delusional about it was the idea that Congress is somehow devoid of Christians. In reality, 92% of Congress people identify [4] as Christian. More to the point, nearly every Republican, regardless of their sincerity in saying so, aligns with conservative Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, an affiliation reflected in their policy preferences. (One solitary Republican is Jewish.) The Christian right might not own all 535 members of Congress, but with Republicans in the majority, the Christian right is also in the majority. </p> <p align="left">And yet, as New York Times writer Jason Horowitz explained in a recent profile piece about evangelical organizer David Lane, Lane feels quite similarly: “For Mr. Lane, a onetime Bible salesman and self-described former “wild man,” connecting the pastors with two likely presidential candidates was more than a good day’s work. It was part of what he sees as his mission, which is to make evangelical Christians a decisive power in the Republican Party.” </p> <p align="left">Say what, said any reader who has cracked a newspaper, the New York Times or otherwise, in the past four decades. Making the Republican Party beholden to the Christian right is like making the sky blue or making cats stubborn. Can you really make something be what it already is? </p> <p align="left">That the evangelical right already controls the GOP shouldn’t really be in dispute. Not only do the Republicans do exactly as the Christian right tells them on every social issue, such as reproductive rights or gay rights, but Republicans also pay fealty to the Christian right by targeting Muslim countries with their hawkish posturing or using [5] Christian language to rationalize slashing the social safety net. If you were trying to come up with a quick-and-dirty description of the Republican Party, “coalition of corporate and patriarchal religious interests” would be it. (Continued) </p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">A common claim is that the Republicans just use the Christian right as foot soldiers but screw them over when they get into office. As nice as that would be if it were true, the legislative record shows the opposite. Legal abortion is all but wiped out in many red states, the Supreme Court is stacked with Republican appointees who give the religious right nearly anything they want, and all gains that gay people have made have been resisted at every turn by Republicans. </p> <p align="left">Obviously, Horowitz wasn’t saying he agreed with his subject Lane, but that’s just how Lane sees himself. But while Lane is clearly delusional about his religion’s relationship to the Republican Party, Horowitz’s article keyed into something that really is changing about the interwoven, codependent nature of the GOP and the Christian right: No longer can “larger-than-life leaders” like Pat Roberston or Jerry Falwell “activate evangelical voters simply by anointing a candidate.” Instead, organizers live in a “decentralized landscape.” </p> <p align="left">But being more disparate and disorganized than they were in the past doesn’t mean they are any less powerful. If anything, one reason it's hard for the religious right to anoint “their” candidate is that the field istoo crowded. In 2012 and now, it seems, in 2016, there are a bevy of potential Republican candidates holding themselves out as the pious Christian candidates: Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker are all playing the “vote for me is a vote for Jesus” card. Even Rand Paul, who is positioning himself more as a libertarian candidate, makes sure to check all the Christian right boxes, railing against legal abortion and doing the rounds [6] with radical Christian right organizations like the Family Research Council. </p> <p align="left">There’s no greater measure of power than being able to force every would-be candidate to toe your line to have any hope of getting the party nomination for president. So why are Christian right leaders like Lane talking as if they have to fight to take over the party? Part of it is just posturing: Using the threat of exerting even more pressure to keep potential candidates, who are already owned outright, from even entertaining the idea of bucking the Christian right party line. But part of it may be a very real fear that, while they own the GOP now, they may not be able to hang onto them forever. </p> <p align="left">It all goes back to the fact that politics is a numbers game. Christian conservatives are a minority, but they have a disproportionate amount of power because their people are conformist and obedient, which means they are easy to both convince to vote and to get them to vote how you want them to. But there comes a point where even a very vocal and politically engaged minority doesn’t have the numbers to control elections. It seems that the Christian right, while not there yet, has a very real reason to fear that the numbers of people they can command to the polls are slipping, enough so that the Republican Party, if they want to stay viable as a national party, is going to have to start appealing to other groups to get votes--which, in turn, might mean turning down the Bible-thumping, the gay-hating, and the attacks on women’s rights. </p> <p align="left">That concern was openly voiced by Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers in January, when Republicans were preparing some anti-abortion bills to pander to the religious right. While toeing the Christian right line and saying all the right things about hating legal abortion, Ellmers hedged [7], saying that perhaps the Bible-thumping should be de-emphasized a bit, saying, “The first vote we take, or the second vote, or the fifth vote, shouldn't be on an issue where we know that millennials—social issues just aren't as important.” </p> <p align="left">Christian conservative leaders would like the GOP to believe that there would be a stampede of voters to the polls if Republicans just doubled down on the Christian right stuff. Horowitz reports that Lane believes conservative Christains “have been disheartened by the repeated failure of socially conservative candidates, and by a party that has softened its opposition to same-sex marriage.” </p> <p align="left">It’s possible, but the likelier explanation is the Christian right can’t command the numbers it used to because it just doesn’t have the numbers it used to have. As I chronicled [8] last week for AlterNet, white Christian America, of which the Christian right is merely a subset, is losing its numbers. White Christians are now a minority in 19 states and it’s trend that is only picking up steam. A huge reason for this change is simply that white Christians are leaving the faith in droves. Both liberal and conservative churches are seeing their pews emptying out, of course, but the trend affects the Christian right as a political entity just as much as a spiritual one. Nor are they going to be able to restore their ranks by turning to people of color. After all, they’re not just asking voters to vote for conservative policies on reproductive rights or gay rights, but also on stripping the social safety net and becoming more hawkish on foreign policy. That’s an agenda most voters of color have long rejected and there’s no reason to think that’s going to change any time soon. </p> <p align="left">Right now, the Christian right absolutely controls the Republican Party, as a simple perusal of the field of potential GOP presidential nominees shows. But there will come a time---not this election, but maybe as soon as 2020--where the Christian posturing and the intolerant attitudes about religious diversity, reproductive rights and gay rights starts to turn off enough voters that the Republicans will either have to start shaking off the Christian right’s death grip on their party or start really losing a lot of elections. It’s not surprising that people like David Lane fear for the Christian right’s power, but, for the rest of us, the sooner this happens, the better. </p> <p align="left"><em>Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon [9]. She is the author of "It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments [ </em></p> <p align="left">Links: <br />[1] <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/amanda-marcotte">http://www.alternet.org/authors/amanda-marcotte</a> <br />[2] <a href="http://alternet.org">http://alternet.org</a> <br />[3] <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/james-robison-when-conservative-christians-take-control-government-oh-demons-shudder">http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/james-robison-when-conservative-christians-take-control-government-oh-demons-shudder</a> <br />[4] <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/congress-religious-affiliation_n_6417074.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/congress-religious-affiliation_n_6417074.html</a> <br />[5] <a href="http://www.alternet.org/belief/9-ways-christian-zealots-ruin-america">http://www.alternet.org/belief/9-ways-christian-zealots-ruin-america</a> <br />[6] <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/christian-conservatives-to-meet-cruz-and-rand-paul/">http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/christian-conservatives-to-meet-cruz-and-rand-paul/</a> <br />[7] <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/republican-split-on-next-week-s-anti-abortion-bill-vote-20150116?ref=t.co&amp;mrefid=walkingheader">http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/republican-split-on-next-week-s-anti-abortion-bill-vote-20150116?ref=t.co&amp;mrefid=walkingheader</a> <br />[8] <a href="http://www.alternet.org/belief/white-christian-america-decline-why-young-people-are-sick-conservative-religion">http://www.alternet.org/belief/white-christian-america-decline-why-young-people-are-sick-conservative-religion</a> <br />[9] <a href="http://pandagon.blogsome.com">http://pandagon.blogsome.com</a> <br />[10] <a href="http://www.powells.com/partner/32513/biblio/9781580052269">http://www.powells.com/partner/32513/biblio/9781580052269</a> <br />[11] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on The Christian Right Still dominates the GOP -- Is There Any End in Sight? <br />[12] <a href="http://www.alternet.org/">http://www.alternet.org/</a> <br />[13] <a href="http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B">http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B</a></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-88585547101268141722015-03-06T07:29:00.001-08:002015-03-06T07:29:58.580-08:00The Racialization of Murder<p><strong><img height="218" src="http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2015/2/11/e1bb8d4656c04448b78098a835378f40_18.jpg" width="384" /> </strong></p> <p><strong>By Bill Fletcher, Jr.</strong></p> <p><em>Z Communications Daily Commentary</em></p> <p>I remain very disturbed by the entire set of circumstances surrounding the murder of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina this past February. I cannot seem to shake not only the horror but the anger that has arisen within me in the aftermath of the murder.</p> <p>It is not simply the brutality of the killings, though that is enough to unsettle anyone. After all, the three students were, in effect, executed with bullets to their heads. What particularly unsettles me has been the manner in which much of the mainstream media (a) initially ignored the murders, and later (b) sought to find a way to explain the murders away as anything but the hate crimes that they were.</p> <p>The response in the mainstream media and political circles to the killings should not have come as a surprise. It was only an ‘uprising’ on Twitter that compelled the mainstream media to pay attention to the murders in the first place.</p> <p>Yet what is worth examining is the manner in which the mainstream media and political circles were willing to treat the killings as terrible but unusual. This includes, by the way, the baffling response of the White House whereby they initially refused to issue any specific comment.</p> <p>Only a few short days later, however, shootings in Copenhagen resulted in an almost instantaneous response by the media as soon as the shooter was identified as carrying out the attacks for political/religious reasons and, of course, was a Muslim. In Chapel Hill, however, we were offered an alternative explanation for the killings focusing on an alleged fight around a parking space. A parking space? Despite evidence offered that the students had earlier been made to feel very uncomfortable by the alleged murderer, the mainstream media proceeded to treat the parking space explanation as if it has any genuine credibility.</p> <p>There is a consistent pattern in the manner in which racial murder is handled by the mainstream white media and political circles. Although the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 was not exclusively aimed against people of color, what remains fascinating is that the initial assumption was that it was a terrorist attack by a Muslim. When, however, it was discovered that this was a home-grown white, right-wing terrorist attack, the entire discourse on the attack changed.  The mainstream white media became interested in the motivations of the terrorist—Timothy McVeigh—and desperately attempted to seek an explanation as to how and why he would have conducted such an attack. Rather than focusing on the horror of the attack, or the fact that there is a well-organized and well-armed white, right-wing populist movement in the USA, attention was paid to Timothy McVeigh in almost psychological terms.  There is no comparable example when a military or terrorist action has been carried out by a person of color or a Muslim.</p> <p>There is also something else that does not happen:  there is no generalization whenever there is a terrorist action carried out by a white right-winger. There were no vast and extensive conclusions about white men as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing, nor where there any questions about Christians.  In fact, I have no memory of Christian religious leaders being asked to distance themselves from McVeigh, his actions, or the paramilitary political right-wing.  In almost every case, when terrorism is conducted by white right-wingers, mainstream media and political circles do all that they can in order to isolate the experience; to treat it as if it were exceptional rather than part of a larger pattern.</p> <p>The killing of the three Muslim students in Chapel Hill is, in fact, part of a larger pattern. We see it in the demagogic attacks on mosque construction; we see it in racial profiling; we see it in harassment and killings; and, yes, we have seen it in the aftermath of killings. In fact, one of the scariest aspects of the Chapel Hill murders were some of the responses on the web where individuals <em>supported</em> the murders, and in some cases, called for more.</p> <p>And now the Chapel Hill murders seem all but forgotten. It is as if they happened, not a few weeks ago, but more like a few years ago. There has been no further discussion and comment. The White House finally spoke out on the killings, calling them brutal, but was not prepared to address them as hate crimes.</p> <p>The racialization of murder, which is what we have seen in the case of Chapel Hill, can only take place when the subjected population—in this case Muslims and non-Muslim Arabs—are seen as an indistinguishable mass of scary outsiders.  Their experiences are not legitimate, as far as the mainstream is concerned. It is less a question of whether the ‘Other’—in this case Muslims and non-Muslim Arabs—are considered or thought to be inferior.  It is more, according to the neo-racism with which we live, that this population is unacceptable in that it cannot be absorbed. They are not accepted as “white” but are, in effect, <em>de facto</em> enemy aliens, irrespective of their point of origin.</p> <p>In this environment there must be responses and not simply the shaking of our heads and hands. First, those who tweeted must be applauded.  Utilizing social media to carry out an ‘uprising’ is proving, time and again, an effective means to contribute to the reshaping of the news. This must be expanded.</p> <p>Second, progressive opinion-makers in every major media market need to be identified to respond in the mainstream and alternative media in cases such as the Chapel Hill murders. We need letters to the editor, op-eds, call-ins, TV interviews, etc., by progressive opinion-makers on these issues. In doing this, it is critical to reshape the story and, among other things, that means introducing <em>history</em> into our narratives. People in the USA are almost allergic to history…until they are exposed to a genuine, historical analysis. Progressives must put incidents, such as the Chapel Hill murders, in an historical context. We should also identify the manner in which the handling of such incidents contrasts with media and political coverage of actions carried out by ‘suspect populations.’</p> <p>A third response, particular to the circumstances in Chapel Hill, is that we must develop campaigns that identify such murders as the hate crimes and lynchings that they are. That means more than statements to the media, whether mainstream or social. It means actions that are taken to demand that the authorities prosecute such incidents expeditiously and energetically. We need no repeats of the travesty demonstrated in the case of the Ferguson grand jury whereby the prosecutor, for all intents and purposes, adopted a position of agnosticism.</p> <p>Nothing will bring back Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salhausband, Deah Shaddy Barakat, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha. Nothing will ease the pain, sorrow and frustration of their families and friends. It is through, however, a struggle around the racialization of murder that we have the opportunity to change not only the manner in which crimes are addressed, but the fact that certain types of crimes are implicitly tolerated by the larger society. You see, after all, the crime only happened to “them”…</p> <p><em>Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the host of </em><em>The Global African</em><em> on Telesur-English. He is a racial justice, labor and global justice writer and activist.  Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and at </em><a href="http://send.zcomm.org/wf/click?upn=9PHos1J7-2FD2Lw6jereECeNLGs3ocss1O2kcgD4VkZGx1e5P-2Bz3G4-2FuROeN6JVoQbT9xKCqN3T1PGtyZ7mG3NI4zEuNg0XJ3k1WWbH0E1FzajOFbNfpyext9u0Gd8cwLmquY6iDqiv3-2FCpZwJDzYq7iFBezuFqylIOs8ZibSoZLJ7iQ7YAE1mzU-2BubJvlfztqXCyAsHB-2BALJn-2BCAf65t9ZA-3D-3D_W4yf-2Bqq4UATgCz9w1-2FYoZRoWclBgTnnbh91hziwEWfjIwr1NLwZdKJbOiimK6VRmTDe-2FwWS2hFwvR66loqn3-2FnORHVfUw56SIDNF-2Fg5xNG75Lkd0ZT9-2BnQ-2BrjO5AR95fXtQygzCxoyQtrUsMiguzyY6tokdMQ2SBdXRXHCpm1pw3k7FgwSEcK1LxSnaEE3Hn9RQRw8wAi5ul9nOHmKNRwQ-3D-3D"><em>www.billfletcherjr.com</em></a><em>. </em></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-28319724897297402112015-02-24T05:28:00.001-08:002015-02-24T05:28:27.015-08:00'People Are Really Getting Angry': How Bernie Sanders Just Electrified Iowa — And What It Means for 2016<p align="left"><img height="263" src="http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/qctimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/70/4709b05c-a8e8-58a0-8984-016d1bf666e3/5490995c3b70a.preview-620.jpg" width="390" /> </p> <h4 align="left"><em>At an under-the-radar town hall in Des Moines, Sanders had the crowd begging for more. Here's why it matters </em></h4> <p align="left"><strong>By Robert Leonard <br /></strong><em><a href="http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com">Progressive America Rising</a> via Salon.com </em></p> <p align="left">Feb 24, 2015 - DES MOINES — Bernie Sanders has neckties older than most of his audience at last Friday’s Drake University Town Hall in Des Moines. Yet the age differential didn’t matter. His college-age audience loved him. Organized by Drake progressive students, Sanders and his audience seemed to have a near telepathic connection. His issues are their issues, and if anything, they are more pissed off than he is. </p> <p align="left">Several Drake students set the stage for Sanders in brief topical introductions, laying waste to money in politics, Citizens United specifically, the reality and dangers of climate change, the importance of pay equity for women, immigration reform, and the crushing burden of the cost of college and debt. Then Bernie nailed it, touching on all of these topics and more. </p> <p align="left">Unlike the speeches at the recent Republican Iowa Freedom Summit, Sanders was long on ideas, and short on chest-thumping, fiery rhetoric. He also didn’t have an audience mostly old enough to vote when Ronald Reagan was running for president. </p> <p align="left">At first it was unclear who the bigger enemy of the people were to Sanders — the Kardashians or the Koch brothers.  The Kardashians, or rather our public fascination with them, represents America’s apathy. Sanders was clear that nothing progressive can happen until people start paying attention.  Sanders told his audience that Americans are getting screwed, and that we had better pay attention and get off our asses. </p> <p align="left">According to Sanders, our government is bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, and we are living in an oligarchy. He illustrated the point by reminding us of the recent announcement that the Kochs plan to spend $900 million on the next presidential election, when Obama and Romney each spent approximately $1 billion in 2012.  He feels that soon, they will have more power than either the Democratic or Republican parties, just because of their wealth and the leverage the 5-4 Supreme Court Citizens United decision gave them and other billionaires. </p> <p align="left">The question and answer session took an interesting turn when a stocky young man with the voice of a broadcasting major asked Sanders, “Will you run for president in 2016?” </p> <p align="left">If he had asked, “Are you going to run…” Sanders might have responded differently. “I don’t know yet,” would have been a good answer. But since he was asked, “Will you run…” Sanders apparently heard it as a request for him to run.  </p> <p align="left">“That’s a good question that you’ve asked,” Sanders said.  “Let me throw it back to you… do you think there is the support in this country?” To which the young man replied, “ I think I do. I do. I think there is the support out there … people are really getting angry about this income inequality, climate change…we’re tired of it.”  (Continued)</p> <div align="left"><a name='more'></a></div> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">Hands continued to be raised, and Sanders pushed the question with each of them. Is the support out there for a progressive candidate? One man said, “I think people are ready for a champion…if you are a champion for our issues, people will follow you.” One woman had driven four hours to see Sanders, and assured him the support is there. One by one all agreed that they would support a progressive candidate. </p> <p align="left">Interestingly, Sanders hadn’t asked if they would support him specifically; his question related to a progressive candidate in general. Will Iowa support a progressive candidate? The crowd says yes. </p> <p align="left">My own assessment is a slightly more guarded yes. Currently a purple state, Iowa has deep progressive roots. Not many states match its history on civil rights. Early in our history we granted assistance to those fleeing slavery, enacted some of the nation’s earliest civil rights laws and were one of the first states that allowed unmarried women to own property. In addition, the University of Iowa was the first state university in the nation to open its degree programs to women, and Iowa was the first state in the nation to elect a woman to a public office, and allow women to belong to the bar association. More recently, Iowa was among the first states to allow gay marriage. </p> <p align="left">And of course, Barack Obama — seemingly more progressive as a candidate than he turned out to be as president — won the Iowa caucuses in 2008. </p> <p align="left">Iowa’s early settlers focused on education, and as a result, we have a higher education system that provides a great starting point for any progressive candidate. Iowa has three state universities, and few, if any, other states have as many private colleges per capita. Drake is one of them, and there are 24 others. Sanders is doing it right. His visits over the past few days have included Iowa City, the home of the University of Iowa, and Story County, the home of Iowa State University, as well as Drake. </p> <p align="left">Sanders is making the case for change, saying that while most Republicans are working to increase tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations, they deny the role humans play in climate change, and are working to cut Social Security, medicare, Pell grants and nutrition programs. His audience knows this — they share his perspective that the Republican Party and billionaires are destroying our country. </p> <p align="left">There was an energy in the room that constituted a shared vision, and a mission to bring about change. While it was clear that Sanders wants a progressive president, it was equally clear that he is reluctant to seek the nomination. I have no doubt that everyone who spoke at the Republican Iowa Freedom Summit wanted to be president. I think Sanders would be happy if someone else took on the progressive mantle, and led the fight for change. </p> <p align="left">Sanders spoke of the enormousness of the task to take on big money and bad ideas. </p> <p align="left">He stressed that real change only comes with struggle. He said, 30 years ago, sitting in this room, no one could have imagined an African-American president. Likewise, 30 or 40 years ago no one could have imagined so many women in Congress, in law, the armed services, or medicine. Even 10 years ago, he said, no one could have possibly imagined gay marriage in conservative states. He made his point clear that while we still have a long way to go with respect to race and gender relations, America has made great strides. </p> <p align="left">However, Sanders added, there is one place where we have not gained — but lost — ground: the economic struggle. He says we need to bridge that income gap, where working families can earn a decent living, where healthcare is a right, where students can afford an education no matter how much money their parents have, and where we don’t have people living on the street. </p> <p align="left">Bernie Sanders is not only a reluctant candidate, but an unlikely one. The self-described democratic socialist may drive other candidates to the left, and that may be his goal. I suspect that should he choose to run, however, that no matter the inherent value of his ideas, he will be tarred with the “socialist” brush by his opposition somewhere during the campaign. The problem here is that the Tea Party pejorative “socialist” will be used and interpreted by an American public who hates “socialism,” without even knowing what the word means. </p> <p align="left">The question is whether Iowa, for all its proud progressive tradition, will give a candidate like Sanders a real look in the 2016 caucuses. His town hall on Friday was a positive start. </p> <p align="left">Robert Leonard covered the 2008 and 2012 Iowa caucuses for KNIA/KRLS Radio in Knoxville and Pella, Iowa. He is an anthropologist, and author of “Yellow Cab.” </p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-23883710578473474892015-02-17T08:09:00.001-08:002015-02-17T08:09:15.962-08:00Why the Country Needs a Populist Challenger in the Democratic Primaries<p><img height="226" src="http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/02/09/2015-dem-bench-composite_custom-778fed9ea8560cf3f7c0a1fe2dbcab30366d0d2b-s1100-c15.jpg" width="398" /> </p> <p><strong>By Robert Borosage <br /></strong><em>Campaign for America's Future </em></p> <p>Feb. 17, 2010 - Polls show Democrats want a contest, not a coronation, for their presidential nomination. The press yearns for a primary contest, if only to have something to cover. A raft of reasons are floated for why a challenge would be useful, most of them spurious. </p> <p>Hillary Clinton doesn’t need a contest to get her campaign shipshape. She’s already been central to three presidential campaigns, as underdog, incumbent and, disastrously, overwhelming favorite. She has every high-priced operative in the party. If she doesn’t know how to put together campaign by now, an upstart challenger won’t help. </p> <p>Some suggest a challenger could move Hillary to the left, as if Hillary Inc. were a bloated ocean liner needing a plucky tugboat to put it on the right path. But the Clintons are adept at running more populist than they govern. Hillary found her populist pitch in 2008 when it was too late to save her. She’s knee deep in pollsters and speechwriters. She won’t need a challenger to teach her the lines. </p> <p>There are two compelling reasons for a challenge in the Democratic primaries: We need a big debate about the direction of the country, and a growing populist movement would benefit from a populist challenge to Hillary. </p> <p><strong>The Divide </strong></p> <p>This isn’t conventional wisdom. Matt Yglesias argues that Clinton is the prohibitive favorite for the nomination not because of experience, name recognition or the Clinton money machine but because no large ideological divisions separate Democrats. New Dems have embraced the social liberalism they once dreaded. Foreign policy differences are minimal. All Democrats sing from President Obama’s populist songbook. All favor raising the minimum wage, pay equity, investment in infrastructure, bank regulation. </p> <p>New York Sen. Charles Schumer agrees that the “differences among Democrats are small compared to the chasm on the Republican side.” Democrats, he argues, are united on “fundamental issues,” like the minimum wage, pay equity, paying for college. </p> <p>In fact, there is a deep divide between the party establishment and the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. All affirm, finally, that this economy works only for the few and not the many. But after that, the differences are immense. </p> <p>The center of the party – which Hillary occupies – argues that our extreme inequality just happened, sort of like the weather. Globalization and technology did it. Republican trickle-down economics made it worse. We can fix it with sensible reforms packaged as “middle-out economics.” We’ll give everyone a “fair shot,” as the president puts it, echoing Bill Clinton, “with everyone playing by the same set of rules.” </p> <p>The Democratic wing of the party understands, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren has put it, that extreme inequality is the result of the “rules being rigged” by the few to favor the few. The deck is stacked. Playing by the same set of rules doesn’t change the outcome if the rules are rigged. The core structures of our politics and our economy have to be changed to get a clean deal. (Continued)</p> <a name='more'></a> <p>On fundamental issues, all Democrats stand in sharp contrast with Republicans, but they divide dramatically among themselves. Consider: </p> <p>Globalization. Republicans basically defend current global trade and tax policies, seeking mostly to find new ways to reduce corporate taxation. Obama, and most likely Clinton, support more corporate trade deals and would move to a territorial system that exempts corporations from paying taxes on money earned abroad. For the populist wing, the global trade and tax strategies have been catastrophic, running up record deficits, shipping jobs abroad, and lowering wages at home. The president’s call for “fast track trade authority” will spark a furious debate, pitching the broad base of the party against Obama, Republicans and the Wall Street wing. </p> <p>Incomes Policy. Republicans oppose every measure to lift wages for working people, except tax credits, which provide a backdoor subsidy to low-road employers like Walmart. All Democrats favor strong reforms for low-wage workers – minimum wage, pay equity, paid sick and vacation days, revised overtime and more. But Democrats divide on empowering those in the middle or curbing the avarice at the top. While sporadically expressing support for unions and the right of workers to organize, both Obama and Bill Clinton were essentially AWOL when it came to pushing for reforms. Populists understand that strong unions are vital if the rewards of growth are to be widely shared. They also argue that reform of our perverse CEO compensation policies – which give CEOs multimillion-dollar incentives to loot their own companies – is critical to insuring workers share in the profits and productivity they help to generate. </p> <p>Shared Security. Republicans want to privatize, voucherize and/or cut our already threadbare safety net. Obama and Hillary would defend Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, although both flirt with a grand bargain that would result in cuts. Populists believe that Social Security should be expanded, not cut, to meet what will be a growing retirement crisis. And argue for extending Medicare to all, and finally guarantee all Americans affordable health care. </p> <p>Wall Street and Financialization. Republicans have already begun to whittle away at the bank reforms, and argue that deregulation is vital to growth. Obama and Hillary pledge to defend the current reforms. But the big banks are bigger and more concentrated than ever. Populists argue that too big to fail means that they are too big to exist, and would break them up. Populists urge a financial speculation tax to curb the Wall Street casino. And want bankers, not just banks, held accountable for their crimes. </p> <p>Tax and Invest. Republicans want lower taxes on the rich and corporations and more cuts in programs for the vulnerable. Obama supports modest increases in taxes on the rich and “revenue neutral” tax reform for corporations. Populists want the rich and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. That means income from wealth should be taxed at the same rates as the income from work, higher tax rates on the very wealthy, estate taxes that will curb the growth of dynastic wealth, and corporate tax reform that raises revenue and closes loopholes. </p> <p>Republican budgets would basically shutter the domestic capacity of government – but so would Obama’s projections. Populists – as detailed in the budgets offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus – would expand dramatically public investments in everything from rebuilding America, a fair start for every child, and world-class public education from pre-K through college or advanced training. </p> <p>Climate and the Green Industrial Revolution. Republicans remain wedded to drill, baby, drill. Obama and Hillary espouse an “all of the above” energy policy, with Obama making significant strides in expanding renewables. Populists want the US to adopt a manufacturing strategy that will aim explicitly to capture the lead in the green industrial revolution that is already sweeping the world. </p> <p>Global Security. Republicans, with few exceptions, have become a war party, supporting US more intervention in conflicts across the globe. Obama has sought to avoid doing “stupid sh#t,” even while sustaining a war on terror that extends into 120 countries at last count. Hillary wants purposefully to run to Obama’s right. Both would increase military spending. Populists argue that America can’t police the world and is exhausting itself trying to do so. We want the empire of bases dismantled, our allies to bear a fair share of the burden, Pentagon waste and abuse curbed, a smaller military used only as a last resort. Hillary’s bellicosity – from Iraq to Libya to Syria and Ukraine – will drain our future. </p> <p>Corruption. Republicans rail against crony capitalism, while defending Big Oil subsidies, big money in politics, and erecting obstacles to voting. Obama and Hillary oppose the Republican reaction, but are skilled practitioners in big money politics. Populists want to clean out the stables, close the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, curb the role of big money, and expand democracy. </p> <p>The differences with Republicans are apparent. But so too the divide among Democrats. The center offers attractive reforms, but would do little to alter the ways the rules are rigged. The space for a populist challenger is apparent. </p> <p><strong>The Emerging Movement </strong></p> <p>Occupy Wall Street forced inequality onto the national agenda. The post-Ferguson #BlackLivesMatter demonstrations bring the institutionalized racism of our criminal justice system to national attention. Movements have transformed Americans on civil rights, women’s right, the environment, gay rights and more. </p> <p>But the education and engagement of Americans on an economy that does not work for them has only just begun. </p> <p>Our elections do not feature serious issue debates. The mainstream media highlight the horse race and polls, even early, when they are at best meaningless indications of name recognition. The candidates adopt poll tested stump speeches and canned answers designed to appeal to what they believe their listeners want. The debate formats preclude any extended argument. </p> <p>But a populist challenger in the Democratic primaries can reach out to, engage and help educate a new generation of activists. He or she could use public debates to expose fundamental differences to a broader audience. Most Americans pay little attention to politics amid the daily struggle to stay afloat. Presidential campaigns – beginning with primaries – attract more attention. And importantly, activists get involved, get inspired or turned off. </p> <p>A strong populist challenger would fuel a rising movement on the left of the Democratic Party. Sen. Elizabeth Warren would take gender out of the equation, and pose a stark contrast to the Wall Street wing of the party. Sen. Bernie Sanders would provide a stentorian voice, defining the divide in direction and priorities that the country must choose. Former Sen. Jim Webb could issue a patriotic indictment of our failed global policies. Their arguments would reach citizens who are struggling to make sense out of a world that seems out of kilter, and a politics that seems more and more dominated by big money and entrenched interests. </p> <p>This is fertile ground that needs tilling. A primary challenge won’t on its own build a movement, but it can surely help fertilize one.</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-3582642278595710122015-02-16T11:51:00.001-08:002015-02-16T11:51:24.777-08:00Moral Mondays’ Barber Says America’s Political System Suffers From a ‘Heart Problem’<p><img height="244" src="http://www.theroot.com/content/dam/theroot/uploads/2015/2/15/hkonj_crowd.jpg.CROP.rtstoryvar-large.jpg" width="391" /> </p> <h4><em>Saturday’s Moral Mondays march once again brought a multicultural crowd of thousands to Raleigh, N.C., protesting budget cuts and voting restrictions enacted by the state’s Republican Legislature. </em></h4> <p>Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards and NAACP National President Cornell Brooks (far right) listen to the North Carolina NAACP’s the Rev. Dr. William Barber speak at the Moral Mondays march in downtown Raleigh, N.C., Feb. 14, 2015. </p> <p><strong>By David Swerdlick <br /></strong><em>The Root </em></p> <p>Raleigh, N.C., Saturday, Feb. 14: An African-American Muslim imam, Oliver Muhammad, offered the call to prayer; members of black Greek-letter fraternities served as event marshals; and as marchers in North Carolina’s Moral Monday movement began their walk across downtown Raleigh, the state’s capital, Chapel Hill Town Council member Maria Teresa Palmer announced—in Spanish—that “interpreters will be available at the intersection of Hargett and Fayetteville.” </p> <p>It’s that kind of come-one, come-all event. And even though this year’s ninth annual march wasn’t as big as last year’s—one that The Nation’s Ari Berman reported as “the largest civil rights rally in the South since the Selma to Montgomery march in 1965”—organizers again brought together a diverse coalition of activists on a chilly Valentine’s Day to protest what movement leader and state NAACP President the Rev. Dr. William Barber II described as the state’s—and the nation’s—“heart problem.” </p> <p><img style="display: inline; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px" height="148" src="http://www.theroot.com/content/dam/theroot/articles/culture/2015/02/moral_mondays_america_has_a_heart_problem/img_1395.jpg.CROP.rtstory-large.jpg" width="263" align="right" />And while the Moral Mondays movement is left-leaning, Barber told supporters that he wanted them to be political “defibrillators” because “we find we’ve got, not a left problem or a right problem or a conservative problem or a liberal problem. We’ve got a heart problem. When money and greed and political hubris and pride and ego and beating your opponent become more important than working together to uplift humanity, we’ve got a heart problem.” </p> <p>For the movement, the stakes haven’t changed. </p> <p>Barber called on legislators to “fund Medicaid expansion, raise the minimum wage, index it with inflation—put it on the ballot and let the people vote,” as well as “restore cuts to public education,” reject “the attacks on women’s health and environmental protection, repeal the death penalty, reform the criminal-justice system,” enact “fair immigration reform, and respect the constitutional rights of all humanity, regardless of race, creed, color and sexuality.” (Continued)</p> <a name='more'></a> <p>At a press briefing, he emphasized that his organization would wait to see if state lawmakers take action on this slate of issues in the early part of 2015—and, along with the Advancement Project, would continue to pursue litigation to challenge the rollback of early voting and same-day voter registration. If there’s no action, Barber vowed, peaceful protests would continue throughout North Carolina during the summer, as they have for the last two years. </p> <p>Sixteen-year-old Jasrae Brooks from Charlotte, N.C., said that her group Raise Up for 15 was at the march because “we can’t survive on $7.25 an hour working at these fast-food restaurants, you know, we’ve got bills to pay,” adding that “we just need to raise up to $15 so it can be a little bit better out here.” </p> <p>As the Associated Press reports, though, state “lawmakers have refused to expand Medicaid to cover more of the working poor, a series of election law changes remain on the books and the minimum wage remains at $7.25 per hour.” And last year’s movement activism didn’t dislodge Republican control of the General Assembly or stop former North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis from winning election to the U.S. Senate. </p> <p>But the march was a timely balm for a community reeling from last week’s shooting of three young Muslim Americans in Chapel Hill, N.C., with Farris Barakat, the brother of one of the slain students, Deah Barakat, speaking side by side with Pierre Lacy, the brother of slain Bladenboro, N.C., teenager Lennon Lacy, and telling the crowd at the start of the march, “We have to work to bring peace and justice to this earth.” </p> <p>That sentiment was echoed by Lynn Heritage of Wilmington, N.C.’s Grandmothers for Peace, who said, “We came because wanted to be a presence,” and to stand with those “talking about justice for all and equality for all, particularly with what happened just a few days ago in Chapel Hill.” </p> <p>Among others joining Barber were NAACP National President Cornell Brooks, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards, who told The Root that she was there “because this movement for moral authority in North Carolina is a fight for all of us.” </p> <p>And in contrast with other movements around the country that have seen tensions develop between younger #BlackLivesMatter protesters and the old-guard civil rights establishment, old and young blended together for the Moral Mondays event, with Barber and other senior leaders marching in line behind younger activists, and the platform program starting with a video that featured students speaking out on their issues. </p> <p>Summing up the day’s events, the NAACP’s Brooks said that he doesn’t consider Moral Mondays to be a local movement; rather, the issues that these protesters are fighting for go “to the very heart of our values as a nation.” </p> <p><em>David Swerdlick is an associate editor at The Root. Follow him on Twitter.</em></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-90948555290875772092015-02-10T13:57:00.001-08:002015-02-10T13:57:54.624-08:00If Voting Means Little, Why Is the Right Working So Hard to Suppress It?<p align="left"><img height="266" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/25/National-Politics/Images/451218720.jpg&w=1484" width="392" /> </p> <h3>Selma and Shelby: The Fight for the New South </h3> <p align="left"><strong>BY JESSE JACKSON <br /></strong><em>Progressive America Rising</em></p> <p align="left">Feb 10, 2015 - What time is it?  It’s important to be clear.  Is it mid-day and our labors still have hours to go?  Or is it evening, our work done, and we can rest our weary heads?  What time is it for the New South?  Is it time to celebrate Selma, Alabama – and the triumph of the Voting Rights Act?  Or is it time to mourn Shelby, Alabama – and the radical backlash against voting rights? </p> <p align="left">Fifty years after Selma’s Bloody Sunday that led directly to the passage of the Voting Rights Act, many will gather to celebrate that victory.  But we should understand that our work is not done. With the Shelby decision of the Supreme Court, the struggle for equal rights must go on. </p> <p align="left">Too often, we remember the triumph and ignore the backlash.  In 1870, the 15th Amendment, codified in in the blood of the Civil War, was ratified to give African Americans the right to vote.  It declared that the right to vote shall not be denied “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.” </p> <p align="left">But the triumph was immediately challenged by the backlash.  Across the South, states controlled the structure and laws of voting.  They immediately set up seemingly neutral barriers to voting – poll taxes, literacy tests and more – that were used to disenfranchise black voters.  The reconstruction of the South was ended as the Supreme Court ratified legal apartheid, and segregation was brutally enforced. </p> <p align="left">It took nearly a century, a mighty civil rights movement, Bloody Sunday and other sacrifices, to pass the Voting Rights Act that gave the Justice Department the right to pre-screen any changes to voting laws in states with a history of discrimination, and ban those that would have a discriminatory effect, even if they looked neutral on their face. </p> <p align="left">Two years ago, however, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the five conservative judges on the Supreme Court effectively gutted preclearance laws, arguing in essence that there as a new South that had moved beyond racism. </p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">The decision had barely been announced when a virtual blizzard of laws designed to suppress the vote were introduced in states across the country – gerrymandering, stacking and packing voting districts with black voters, voter ID laws, curtailing voting days, eliminating evening voting, ending same-day registration, making polling places remote or inadequate, forcing voters to wait hours to vote and more.  Across the nation, more African Americans are in jail today than were in slavery at any one time.  The second reconstruction of the South is being rolled back. </p> <p align="left">The Brennan Center at the New York University reported, that “of the 11 states with highest African American turnout in 2008, seven have new restrictions in place.  Of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth…, nine passed laws making it harder to vote.  And nearly two-thirds of the districts previously covered by preclearance under the Voting Rights Act have enacted new restrictions since 2010. </p> <p align="left">The gang of five Justices got it wrong.  With Republicans the party of white sanctuary in the South, racial animus combines with partisan interest to drive a relentless backlash against the voting rights of people of color. </p> <p align="left">So the celebration of Selma and the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act should turn a harsh spotlight on the Shelby decision that struck down the heart of that law, and ushered in a new assault on voting rights.   Selma marks a great victory, but our work is not done.  Much more is needed for this nation to fulfill its promise of “liberty and justice for all.”  </p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-79387538191823690872015-02-03T04:57:00.001-08:002015-02-03T04:58:13.608-08:00Will ISIS Debate Get Us ‘War Without Limits?’<div align="left">
<img src="http://truthalerts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Twenty-six-Things-About-the-Islamic-State-ISIL-that-Obama-Does-Not-Want-You-to-Know-About.jpg" height="235" width="381" /> </div>
<div align="left">
<b>By Tom Hayden</b></div>
<div align="left">
<i>Progressive America Rising</i></div>
<div align="left">
The Republican Congress is expected to take up an authorization bill for the war against ISIS even though the U.S. bombing and ground escalation campaign has been underway for months. </div>
<div align="left">
The specter of the Islamic State has silenced Congressional criticism and marginalized anti-war voices on the outside. The looming question is whether an open-ended authorization will extend the War on Terror for years to come. </div>
<div align="left">
The most critical issues are these: </div>
<div align="left">
First, whether an authorization will include a <u>narrow</u> or a <u>broad</u> definition of the "enemy". Will it be ISIS in Iraq and Syria or ISIS and associated groups? The broader definition, similar to "Al Qaeda and associated groups" in the 2002 authorization, will allow US military action in<u> any</u> region where Islamic State loyalists raise a flag, like northern Egypt. Even the narrower definition is ambiguous, since the "Islamic State" is a category based on shifting loyalties among battlefield factions. A new authorization for a global war on terrorism therefore may be in the making. </div>
<div align="left">
Second, whether the president's <u>prohibition on US ground troops will prevent another Americanized war.</u> Obama already has sent hundreds of advisers and at least 1,500 new US ground troops. All reports indicate that Baghdad's armed forces are incapable of fighting on their own, even with American bombing, with the exception of some Kurdish units and sectarian Shiite militias. Obama's military advisers and Republican senators are urging the deployment of ground troops. </div>
<div align="left">
Third, whether the authorization will be for <u>18 months before another Congressional debate or extend for three or four years, into the next presidency. Secretary Kerry and Rep. Adam Schiff both are </u>proposing a three-year extension, which would contain serious Congressional debate until 2017. That would continue the war as onecarried out by the executive branch and CIA except for annual debates on appropriations. </div>
<div align="left">
Fourth, whether the authorization will include mandatory <u>independent reports</u> on metrics of progress, casualties [including civilian casualties] and costs in US tax dollars. History indicates that such reports are useful if done by an independent inspector general with specialists in budgeting and wartime civilian casualties. </div>
<div align="left">
The most important test will be whether a majority votes to bloc US ground troops, or whether the gates of hell will be left open. </div>
<div align="left">
Rep. Barbara Lee is attempting to inject limiting amendments and non-military alternatives into the floor debate. On her left, many peace advocates want a vote opposing the use of US military force altogether. On her right are the McCains and Grahams who blame Obama for withdrawing UStroops in the first place. The unknowns include presidential aspirants of both parties. </div>
<div align="left">
Lee argues that her Dec. 16 bill intends to "ensure that the U.S. pursues a comprehensive diplomatic, political, economic, and regionally-ledstrategy to degrade and dismantle ISIL, including working through the U.N. The bill would also repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) to ensure that they are not relied on for authority in lieu of an ISIL-specific AUMF passed by Congress. Lastly, the bill would require a report from the Administration on its comprehensive strategy to degrade and dismantle ISIL and information on human rights vetting for partner elements the U.S. is supporting in Iraq and Syria."</div>
<div align="left">
According to Lee's legislative director Diala Jadallah, "The underlying point is to ensure that the non-military solutions to the crisis in Iraq and Syria are included in any debate on the war. Right now, no one is talking about that, and all other legislative proposals are simply putting limits on a possible AUMF rather than trying to end the war through diplomatic, humanitarian, and political means. We are not prescribing a [new] AUMF."</div>
<div align="left">
The Congressional vote also will define a core peace bloc willing to stand firm during a moment when the winds of escalation are </div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-68347031970666090222015-01-27T15:53:00.001-08:002015-01-27T15:53:31.243-08:00Greece Proves Populist Movements Can Fight And Win<p align="left"><img height="240" src="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2lmRXlv10zmtT4oGQuM1Gwr5pR7PkUcLKZ5aIvB4ztGCqUoMj" width="386" /> </p> <p align="left"><strong>By Terrance Heath <br /></strong><em>Campaign for America's Future </em></p> <p align="left">Jan 27, 2015 - After five years of protests, demonstrations and strikes, Greek citizens voted to throw off five years of crushing austerity. Their victory has emboldened populist parties across Europe, and should inspire Americans to resist austerity here at home. </p> <p align="left">The victory of Greece’s leftist anti-austerity Syriza party, and Alexis Tsipiras’ ascension to prime minister ushers in a government that will push back against the austerity measures devised by the troika of Greece’s international creditors and the International Monetary Fund, and accepted by the country’s economic elite, after the crash of Greece’s economy in 2009. </p> <p align="left">Greece’s new leaders left little doubt about their intentions as they celebrated victory. </p> <blockquote> <p align="left">    Alexis_Tsipras“Greece leaves behind the austerity that ruined it, at least behind the fear, leaves behind five years of humiliation, and grease moves forward with optimism and hope and dignity.” <br />    ~ Alexis Tsipiras, Greece’s new prime minister </p> <p align="left">    “We are going to destroy the basis upon which they have built, for decade after decade, a system, about a network that viciously sucks the of energy and economic power from everybody else in society. ” <br />    ~ Yanis Varoukis, Greece’s new prime minister, on Greece’s oligarchy. </p> </blockquote> <p align="left">The International Monetary Fund assumed the Greek government could impose austerity without significant impact on economic growth and unemployment. In fact, the IMF assumed Greece’s economy would grow as a result of the 2010 aid package, for which the troika and the IMF demanded austerity measures. The results were disastrous. </p> <ul> <li> <div align="left">    Greece’s economy shrunk by 25 percent, and wages dropped about the same amount.</div> </li> <li> <div align="left">    Along with shrinking the economy, austerity increased Greece’s national debt.</div> </li> <li> <div align="left">    Unemployment has reached depression levels. Overall unemployment is at 28 percent. Youth unemployment stands at 60 percent — even after the government lowered the minimum wage for youth by 32 percent, to encourage job creation. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="left">Wealthy Greeks got off scot-free. Cocooned in suburbs, austerity cuts didn’t touch them until mid–2013, when the government ruled that wealthy Greeks were no longer entitled to free police bodyguards. Since 2009, businessmen and journalists threatened by anarchist groups received personal police protection. </p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">The burden of austerity cuts fell mostly upon middle- and working-class Greeks. Three million Greeks are living on or below the poverty line. Nearly every family has suffered. Many have survived by queuing up at soup kitchens, and scavenging rubbish bins for food. </p> <p align="left">Austerity devastated the health of Greece’s economy and its people. The national health budget was cut by 40 percent. As a result, 35,000 doctors, nurses, and other health workers lost their jobs. Hospitals lack basic supplies and enough staff. Infant mortality went up by 40 percent. Stillbirths are up 21 percent, as a result of cuts to prenatal service. HIV infections rose more than 200 percent due to increased IV drug use and cuts to needle exchange programs. </p> <p align="left">Austerity drove some Greeks from desperation to despair. Suicide deaths in Greece increased 45 percent between 2007 and 2011, driven mostly by a rise in suicides among men. According to one analysis, every one percent fall in government spending led to a 0.43 percent increase in suicides among men. Men between the ages of 45 and 89 face the highest suicide risk, because they are most likely to have their salaries and pensions cut. </p> <p align="left">Since the financial crisis, conservatives have warned Americans that we’re in danger of becoming Greece, unless we submit to the austerity Greeks are rising up against. Unlike Greece, America has only experienced what Paul Krugman calls “de facto austerity,” due to Republicans in Congress blocking any measures that might help the economy. Sequestration was another taste of the kind of austerity conservatives want to impose. </p> <p align="left">The new Republican Congress will almost certainly try to subject Americans to the kind of austerity that Greeks have suffered. House Budget Committee chair Tom Price has already proposed measures that would cut the federal workforce by over 400,000, leading to the loss of even more jobs — mostly in the private sector — supported by the economic activity of federal employees. Price’s proposed “reforms” to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are really cuts that would devastate those programs and the Americans who depend upon them. </p> <p align="left">The fight against austerity in Greece has only just begun. Greece’s creditors will insist on more punishing austerity. In the next two years, the fight here at home will intensify. Syriza’s victory reminds us that progressive, populist, people-powered movements can win — if they just keep fighting.</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-88482437522768168072015-01-26T04:44:00.001-08:002015-01-26T04:44:45.198-08:00Uphill Fight: Taking on Finance Capital in Congress<p align="left"><img height="268" src="http://www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/sanders-alexander-1.jpg?cdn=no" width="381" /> </p> <h3><strong>How Bernie Sanders, In New Role, Could Make Wall Streeters Very, Very Unhappy </strong></h3> <p align="left"><strong>By Ari Rabin-Havt <br /></strong><em><a href="http://progressivesforobama.net">Progressive America Rising</a> via American Prospect </em></p> <p align="left">Jan 26, 2015 - Big banks now have to contend with an old enemy in a new position of power. </p> <p align="left">Bernie Sanders, the United States senator from Vermont, plans on using his new position as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee to take on too-big-to-fail financial institutions by advocating for their dissolution. Though a registered independent, Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, allowing him to assume the ranking member role representing the minority party. <br />Sanders knows how to draw the media spotlight when advocating for a cause. </p> <p align="left">While normally the domain of the Senate Banking Committee, the oversight of Wall Street, Sanders and his staff believe, is a critical budgetary issue. Democrats need to directly challenge Wall Street’s power, they assert, by boldly reframing the argument against the consolidation of financial institutions in terms of its cost to the national coffers. Though the term “ranking member” might not ordinarily have the barons of finance quaking in their custom-made oxfords, Sanders knows how to draw the media spotlight when advocating for a cause. </p> <p align="left">“Being the ranking member of the budget committee gives Senator Sanders the opportunity to say, look, people on food stamps didn’t cause the economic crisis, people that lost their jobs weren’t responsible for the economic crisis that we faced,” explained Warren Gunnels, director of the committee’s minority staff, during an interview in his office. “Average ordinary Americans weren’t responsible for the financial crisis we had.” </p> <p align="left"><strong>While centrist Democrats have expressed displeasure with progressives' forceful defense of regulations included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Sanders plans on pushing the boundaries of the debate in the other direction. This potentially puts Sanders, who is seriously considering a run for the White House, in a head-on conflict with Hillary Clinton, Wall Street’s favorite presidential candidate. </strong></p> <p align="left">As media types muse over Sanders’s prospective presidential campaign, the focus of the minority Budget Committee staff, hard at work in a corner suite on the sixth floor of the Dirksen Senate office building, is elsewhere. Such a run by the senator would no doubt shine a light on the mission he’s set before his committee staff, but the work in this office has no connection to that effort. </p> <p align="left">Packed boxes are stacked almost randomly as the staff focuses on more important matters—unpacking would be just a temporary process, anyway. Republicans, having won the Senate in the midterms, will take over the office in a few months after the rush of budget season subsides. </p> <p align="left">Warren Gunnels’s office has a sweeping view of the Capitol dome, but for most of the hour I spent speaking with him about Sanders’s plans for the upcoming Congress, the blinds remain closed. </p> <p align="left">Gunnels has worked for Sanders in a variety of capacities since 1999, journeying with the Vermonter from his House staff to his Senate staff, when Sanders won the office in 2006, and now to the Budget Committee. There Sanders has recruited a hard-charging group that is by far the most progressive of any committee on Capitol Hill. Instead of sulking in the Democrats’ new minority status, Sanders is preparing to use his staff to advocate aggressively on behalf of a progressive agenda. </p> <p align="left">Even late on a Friday afternoon, with the senator back in Vermont, there is a sense of hustle in the office, with several meetings taking place around desks. </p> <p align="left">Gunnels put the blame for our economic collapse squarely on Wall Street. “The people responsible for the financial crisis were the CEOs in charge of the largest financial institutions in this country,” he said. “That nearly drove the economy off a cliff. We are still paying for that today.” (Continued)</p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">One way to make sure the nation doesn’t approach that cliff again anytime soon is to reverse the consolidation of the big banks, Gunnels said. </p> <p align="left">“If we are serious about making sure the deficit doesn’t get out of hand, if we are concerned about protecting the homes [and] life savings [of Americans] and making sure that banks provide more affordable lending in the productive economy—and aren’t allowed to make risky bets using taxpayer money and the federally insured bank deposits of the American people,” Gunnels explained, “then we have to break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions so that they can’t put us into a situation like we found ourselves in 2008.” </p> <p align="left">Sanders, by reframing the financial crisis in budgetary terms, and using his platform as ranking member, opens up a new front in the debate over Wall Street, removing its oversight from the purely regulatory space. The argument over Wall Street’s proper role in the economy now becomes one about dollars and sense. <br />How much revenue was lost by the federal government due to the 2008 financial crisis? </p> <p align="left">How much revenue was lost by the federal government due to the 2008 financial crisis? Sanders wants that question asked when Congress considers rolling back Dodd-Frank or discusses future reforms. </p> <p align="left">As part of that effort, Sanders and Gunnells hired Matt Stoller, a pioneering blogger and online organizer who served twice in the office of Representative Alan Grayson of Florida, where he worked on financial services issues, including the congressman’s audit-the-Fed legislation, and investigating foreclosure fraud. </p> <p align="left">Were Washington’s conventional wisdom your only guide, it would be easy to dismiss Bernie Sanders as a gadfly. But the Vermont progressive’s bipartisan track record of success challenges that notion. </p> <p align="left">In the last Congress, as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, he teamed with John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to pass much-needed reforms to the scandal-wracked Veterans Administration. In two years marred by partisan recriminations and fighting, the Sanders-McCain bill passed the Senate 93-3 and was signed into law by the president. In crafting this legislation, Roll Call's Humberto Sanchez wrote that Sanders “bridge[d] Washington’s toxic partisan divide” calling it “one of the most significant deals in years." </p> <p align="left">The role of ranking member of the Budget Committee is one that can drastically change based on the personality and politics of the senator holding the position. Patty Murray, who left the Budget Committee to become ranking member of the Health Education Labor and Pension Committee, used her former position as committee chair (when the Democrats held the majority) to lead the negotiations with Paul Ryan that ushered in the end of sequestration. </p> <p align="left">Paul Ryan, as Republican chief of the House Budget Committee, used his position as a platform to push conservative policies on entitlements and taxes in the media. </p> <p align="left">Sanders is planning to fight for an aggressive and progressive agenda. Using the bully pulpit of his status as ranking member, he will push for a multipart agenda that, in addition to Wall Street reform, includes proposals for reducing unemployment, raising wages and thereby reducing income and wealth inequality, and expanding Social Security. </p> <p align="left">Before the new Congress officially began, Sanders announced that he will introduce a $1 trillion infrastructure bill “to rebuild crumbling roads and bridges and invest in other infrastructure modernization projects.” </p> <p align="left">The plan, according to Budget Committee minority staff, would “put 13 million Americans to work.” </p> <p align="left">Sanders’s focus on the unemployed reaches beyond simply lowering the conventional unemployment rate, termed U3 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Instead the mandate assigned to his Budget Committee staff is to focus on the category known as U6 unemployment, which includes discouraged job-seekers who have given up actively looking for work, as well as workers who would like employment but haven’t searched for a job recently, and part-time workers who would like full-time roles. Current U6 unemployment sits at 11.2 percent; while significantly lower than its recession peak of 17.1 percent, it remains uncomfortably high. Sanders also would like a greater focus put on joblessness among African Americans and young people, groups that suffer much higher rates of unemployment than the general public. <br />Sanders will also use his platform to look at the budgetary impact of certain trade treaties, most prominently the Trans Pacific Partnership </p> <p align="left">Sanders will also use his platform to look at the budgetary impact of certain trade treaties, most prominently the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). </p> <p align="left">To protect existing jobs, committee staff tells me that Sanders plans to examine the budgetary impacts of past trade deals to help make the case against the Trans Pacific Partnership and the granting of “fast track” authority to the president for such deals—authority that limits Congress's role in ratifying trade deals to a simple up-or-down vote, with no amendments, under severe time constraints. The senator's opposition to trade deals puts him out of step with the White House—which is aggressively lobbying for the fast-track authority that would clear the way for ratification of the Trans Pacific Partnership—but in sync with Minority Leader Harry Reid. </p> <p align="left">Reid, who calls Sanders “a passionate and tireless fighter for middle-class Americans,” has been a decades-long opponent of nearly every trade treaty that has come up for a vote in the Senate. (Disclosure: I served on the staff and as a consultant to Senator Reid from 2004-2008.) </p> <p align="left">The passage of free trade bills is one of the few issues where the White House is in direct agreement with Republican leaders in both chambers. Historically, the Senate is friendly to such treaties, making Sanders’s and Reid’s fight against TPP an uphill battle. But Sanders’s novel use of the Budget Committee provides a new battleground. </p> <p align="left">If there’s one indication of the radical new direction in which Sanders plans to take the Budget Committee, consider the most eye-popping minority staff hire so far. As his committee staff’s chief economist, Sanders chose Stephanie Kelton, a leading proponent of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). It was Kelton who coined the term “deficit owl,”—in contrast to “deficit hawks” and “deficit doves”—to describe those, like her, who “don’t concede we need to balance [the budget] at all,” according to the Washington Post’s Dylan Matthews. </p> <p align="left">Matthews writes that “owls” such as Kelton and the University of Texas’s James K.Galbraith “see government spending that leads to deficits as integral to economic growth, even in good times.” </p> <p align="left">The MMT has existed far outside the Overton window of fiscal policies pushed by either party. Galbraith described being “laughed at” by “hundreds” of “economists” during a panel at the White House in April of 2000 for his assertion that the surplus then run by the government posed a danger. </p> <p align="left">Reporters suggest the hiring of Kelton by Sanders was a move towards this school of economics. </p> <p align="left">Not so according to Sanders’s staff. Sanders does believe that deficits matter, they insist. When I raised MMT on two separate occasions, Sanders aides chafed at the notion, proclaiming their boss, far from an “owl,” is a “deficit hawk.” <br />Sanders, according to staff members, has a long history of taking stands against deficits—but in distinctly progressive terms. </p> <p align="left">Sanders, according to staff members, has a long history of taking stands against deficits—but in distinctly progressive terms. They cite rising deficits as part of the reasoning behind his opposition to the war in Iraq, his votes against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, and his opposition to Medicare prescription drug coverage because the legislation did not allow program officials to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices. </p> <p align="left">But Sanders is not opposed to running deficits for spending that could produce future gains, such as new and rebuilt infrastructure, or to pull the nation out of economic downturns. This position is one articulated even by leaders of centrist Democratic institutions. </p> <p align="left">One strategic question that faces Sanders is whether to introduce his own budget. While no decision has been made yet, the Senate’s processes make it far less of a strategic imperative for the minority party to produce one than it is in the House of Representatives. There, during floor debate, amendments are restricted by the Rules Committee to whole budgets typically presented by different factions in the chamber—the Progressive Caucus, the Black Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, and others. </p> <p align="left">On the floor of the Senate, the budget process is open; hundreds of amendments submitted on their own merits, culminating in what’s known as a “voto-rama” that brings members of the chamber to the floor into the wee hours of the morning. </p> <p align="left">This provides Sanders or, in fact, any member of the Senate, the opportunity to introduce a slew of progressive amendments covering any pertinent issue. While some, on issues such as funding for infrastructure, might be added to a final bill by unanimous consent, others could create politically toxic votes for Republicans in blue states. </p> <p align="left">In many ways the Budget Committee is the ideal platform for Bernie Sanders, allowing him to use the implied power of the ranking member position to take a leadership role on a host of issues. For progressives this means having a Democratic committee chief willing to increase the volume of their voices by pushing the boundaries of acceptable policy debate in their direction. </p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-80587527926116835202015-01-04T06:30:00.001-08:002015-01-04T06:30:43.906-08:00States’ Minimum Wages Rise, Helping Millions of Workers<p align="left"><img height="284" src="http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/01/01/business/jpWAGE/jpWAGE-articleLarge.jpg" width="396" /> </p> <p align="left"><em>Fast-food and health care workers, and supporters, demonstrated in Los Angeles on Dec. 4 in a nationwide rally for higher pay. <br />Robyn Beck / Agence France-Presse — Getty Images </em></p> <p align="left"><strong>By RACHEL ABRAMS <br /></strong><em><a href="http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com">Progressive America Rising</a> via New York Times </em></p> <p align="left">Dec 31, 2014 - For some low-wage workers, everyday tasks like spending money for bus fare to get to and from work also involve deciding which bill to pay or delay, or what to give up. </p> <p align="left">Rita Diaz, 26, who works two low-wage jobs, sometimes walks the three miles home from her job serving chicken at a Popeye’s fast-food restaurant in Roslindale, Mass., when she doesn’t have money for all of her expenses. Her plight is one of many highlighted by labor advocates who have been pushing for higher minimum wage levels. </p> <p align="left">In January, with an increase in the minimum wage in Massachusetts taking effect — raising hourly pay to $9 from $8 an hour — Ms. Diaz envisions being able to walk less and ride more. </p> <p align="left">“I need to make a decision to buy clothes, or pay the rent or pay my cellphone bill,” she said. “Now I’ve got to do that decision, but I’m going to have more money for me, too. A little bit of money for me.” </p> <p align="left">By Thursday, minimum wage increases will go into effect in 20 states, including Massachusetts, as well as in the District of Columbia. A few other states will enact a pay bump later in the year. </p> <p align="left">All told, 29 states will exceed the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour at the beginning of January, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. </p> <p align="left">The initial changes will enhance minimum pay by as little as a few pennies to as much as $1.25 an hour, affecting about 3.1 million employees, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. </p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">“That’s going to be unnoticeable, really,” Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, said of some of the smaller changes, like the extra 12 cents an hour in Florida and 15 cents an hour in Missouri. “If you’re talking about an increase of a buck or two bucks, then maybe there’s some kind of noticeable effect.” </p> <p align="left">Nine states are increasing their minimum wage levels through automatic adjustments for cost-of-living expenses and other economic factors. Increases in the other states occurred through legislative or ballot changes. Over all, the new laws will cover about 60 percent of the nation’s work force, according to the Economic Policy Institute. </p> <p align="left">“If you’re only making 15 or 16 thousand dollars year, an extra two grand is quite a bit of money,” said David Cooper, an economic analyst at the institute. </p> <p align="left">The smaller of the automatic increases in nine states will raise wages for about 4 to 7 percent of the lowest-paid workers, according to the institute, while the bigger increases will affect more. Nearly one-fifth of all wage earners in Minnesota will see a bump in pay when the wage floor jumps by $1 later in the year. </p> <p align="left">About 3.3 million people earn the federal minimum wage or less, according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. </p> <p align="left">As the wealth gap between the rich and poor has expanded, the battle over wages for some of America’s lowest-paid workers has intensified. </p> <p align="left">The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2007. President Obama has proposed raising it to $10.10 an hour, but that effort has stalled in Congress. </p> <p align="left">Despite the popularity of minimum wage increases in many states, including those dominated by Republicans, and favorable attitudes toward higher minimum pay expressed in many public opinion polls, the federal proposals are unlikely to gain much traction in 2015, especially now that Republicans control the House and the Senate. </p> <p align="left">The White House says 28 million workers would be affected if the president’s increase were passed into law. </p> <p align="left">In the last year, as they faced considerable obstacles at the federal level, some labor advocates worked to put measures on the ballot in various states while other measures passed through state legislatures. In November, four states — Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota — passed initiatives to increase the minimum wage. A few big cities have also raised the minimum. </p> <p align="left">“I think this issue is not going away until action is taken at the federal level, just because the federal minimum wage is so low compared to where it was historically and what it takes people to get by,” Mr. Cooper, the Economic Policy Institute analyst, said. </p> <p align="left">Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage in 1968 would equal about $10 today, he said. </p> <p align="left">Last year, half of the people who received charitable food assistance in the United States, from places like soup kitchens, came from households where at least one person worked, said Jeffrey Buchanan, senior domestic policy adviser at Oxfam America. Mr. Buchanan said that most of those people earned a low or minimum wage. </p> <p align="left">Business associations have traditionally opposed efforts to raise workers’ pay, saying that employers will be forced to cut jobs and hours. </p> <p align="left">“The likeliest scenario won’t be layoffs, it’ll be employers on a broad scale finding ways to avoid creating new jobs,” said Jack Mozloom, a spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business, a trade group. “They simply won’t replace workers who leave or they’ll find ways to automate in order to avoid hiring new people. The jobs will disappear quickly.” </p> <p align="left">Mr. Burtless, the Brookings economist, contended that new higher wages would “more than offset” the loss of earnings associated with a drop in employment. The new rules will give workers an extra $1.6 billion next year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. </p> <p align="left">A spokeswoman for Walmart, the nation’s largest employer, said the company could “absorb the costs” of the changes, which she said would not affect its prices or staffing. </p> <p align="left">A spokeswoman for Target, another top employer, said in an email that she was “not aware of any plans” to raise prices or cut staff. </p> <p align="left">Come Thursday, at $9.47, Washington State will offer the highest statewide minimum wage, followed by Oregon at $9.25. </p> <p align="left">Some states have also staggered their minimum wage increases. Massachusetts, where Ms. Diaz works, will raise it to $11 by 2017. </p> <p align="left">“It’s not going to be a lot, but it’s going to be more than $8 an hour,” she said of the January increase. “It’s going to be more food.”</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-69672163274708582072014-12-29T14:34:00.001-08:002014-12-29T14:34:40.232-08:00Black Lives Matter Must Move Beyond Protests — Or Risk Losing the Fight for Racial Justice<h3 align="left"><img height="229" src="http://media3.policymic.com/NjQ1YjhhZjMzYyMvX01vWXZvakNHcGJvZUc0WEg3ZXFjUHFMcFlBPS8yMzV4MjozNDI1eDIwMTQvODQweDUzMC9maWx0ZXJzOnF1YWxpdHkoNzApL2h0dHA6Ly9zMy5hbWF6b25hd3MuY29tL3BvbGljeW1pYy1pbWFnZXMvbXdxdG15YXM2amJibnB6cW5nYWlpdnh0bDV3Y3d1dHpud2JmOHFvdHYydzJ2YmRnZGI0YmQ3ZXN2NnVrNHpuNi5qcGc=.jpg" width="357" /> </h3> <p align="left"><strong>By </strong><a href="http://mic.com/profiles/177870/zeeshan-aleem"><strong>Zeeshan Aleem</strong></a></p> <p align="left"><em>Mic.com</em></p> <p align="left">Witness the rupture. </p> <p align="left">Once the worry of minorities and leftists, the ease with which a white man with a badge can end the life of a black person is finally on America's mind. The realization that police practices can be brutish and unfair to black men has become a matter of serious concern for many whites, bourgeois liberals and some conservatives — <a href="http://mic.com/articles/105922/even-george-w-bush-says-the-eric-garner-decision-is-hard-to-understand">apparently even George W. Bush</a>. Law enforcement is undergoing a crisis of legitimacy.</p> <p align="left">But the window of opportunity for the racially equalized institutional changes, which we desperately need, is wider than it's been <a href="http://mic.com/articles/106934/americans-haven-t-been-this-concerned-about-racism-in-more-than-20-years">in decades</a>. The recent non-indictments for police killings in Ferguson, Missouri, and Staten Island, New York, have reignited awareness of the systemic nature of racial discrimination. Riot, protest and media pressure has made the White House anxious and piqued the interest of a generally useless Congress. Some <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/12/congressman-proposesalteringgrandjuryprocess.html">modest</a> <a href="http://mic.com/articles/105450/obama-wants-75-million-to-outfit-50-000-police-officers-with-body-cameras">reform</a> is in the works.</p> <p align="left">But all of this is fragile. When there is a long enough pause in the rate at which black men are killed by the police, the cameras will point elsewhere. If there is any hope of reaping lasting change from this moment, it must take shape in the form of something more durable than rage.</p> <p align="left">"Black Lives Matter" is the closest thing we have to a unified rallying cry for this movement. It's a slogan, <a href="http://blacklivesmatter.com/">a website</a> and a <a href="http://mic.com/articles/105002/15-black-lives-matter-tweets-everyone-needs-to-see">Twitter hashtag</a>, which <a href="http://grist.org/politics/stopping-a-bart-train-in-michael-browns-name/">first surfaced in 2012</a> in response to vigilante George Zimmerman's acquittal after he killed unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin. At this point, the phrase has become shorthand for the various streams of resistance to police brutality across the country.</p> <p align="left">The Black Lives Matter movement resembles Occupy Wall Street in 2011, which is cause for both celebration and concern: Both establish a polarizing antagonist — police, bankers — who serves as an entry point for structural critique (systemic racism and politico-economic inequality, respectively). Both have given birth to and mobilized highly decentralized, politically diverse and fairly spontaneous protest movements. Both operate amid contentious politics and feed off friction — or the threat of it — with the state. And just as Occupy mostly dissolved during its first winter, so too could Black Lives Matter.  </p> <p align="left">So now the movement must evolve. Here are three ideas for those interested in carrying on with campaigns under the umbrella of Black Lives Matter:</p> <p align="left"><b>Public protest is a tactic, not a strategy:</b> Protesting is vital, but it's not a substitute for the organization, discipline and grit needed for long-term change. Groups small and large need to organize locally and coordinate nationally on specific programs with short- and long-term goals. Resources for political, economic, legal and cultural advocacy need to be pooled and employed strategically. Campaigns for reform — whether assigning special prosecutors for police homicide trials, disarming public servants or closing the white-black wealth gap — must be focused. Local community efforts should be paired with efforts engaging the federal political process.</p> <p align="left">Past efforts with similar agendas provide useful case studies. One example worth considering is the rise of the Black Panther Party in response to police brutality in the late 1960s through the early '70s. Typically depicted as armed separatists, the Black Panthers were antiracist and committed to building interracial coalitions. Their most divisive position, advocacy of armed self-defense, was only one relatively short-lived element of their complex political program. Soon after they developed a nationwide following, they focused on community programs providing free services to neighborhoods; their most popular nationwide initiative was the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Breakfast_for_Children">Free Breakfast for Children Program</a>. The Panthers' other communitarian programs — which included free clothing, medical care, transportation, housing cooperatives and much more — highlighted the shortcomings of the state and economy, while empowering ordinary citizens to conceptualize and participate in an alternative political economy.</p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <blockquote> <p align="left">Successful political movements have always focused on liberation.</p> </blockquote> <p align="left">The Black Panthers began as a response to the police, but quickly evolved into a broader vision of how people of color can find dignity and autonomy in a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/barack-obama-ferguson-and-the-evidence-of-things-unsaid/383212/">congenitally racist</a> country; they knew that oppression by the police was inextricable from oppression in economic and political life. While their practice of armed resistance was ineffective in the long-term, and is certainly not something that should be embraced today, their holistic view of change merits study. Their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-Point_Program">10-point program</a> connected their concern with self-defense to a broader agenda of wholesale social change, and it intended to capture political and economic gains that the Civil Rights movement had failed to target or secure. </p> <p align="left">While it's tragic that today's grievances bear such a strong resemblance to those of the '60s, it bodes well that today's conversation has been similarly panoramic in its discussion of racial injustice and the actions that will be needed to address it.  </p> <p align="left"><b>Use civil disobedience to generate attention:</b> During the Civil Rights era, activists gained legitimacy not just by expressing discontent publicly, but also by actively defying unjust laws. Protests and die-ins are valuable, but they do not have the same ability to captivate as the sacrificial spectacle of nonviolent refusal. A willingness to endure arrest is a powerful asset, and it's something that white allies can bring to the table in a big way. Recall Occupy's explosive growth in popularity and media attention when police overreacted to occupations with mass arrests and pepper spray. Today, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/st-louis-protests.html?_r=0">peaceful resistance</a> to the institutions that are behind today's crisis can take many forms, but it will need to go beyond permitted marches.</p> <p align="left"><b>Words matter: </b>Lastly, it's worth contemplating the limitations of the slogan "Black Lives Matter." It's a defensive plea that affirms its own unreality in the criminal justice system. While its vagueness allows it to cast a wide net as a brand, it's also unambitious; "Black Lives Matter" sounds like a cry for general validation rather than a non-negotiable demand for freedom from discrimination. "Hands up, don't shoot" is another popular slogan at protests these days, and it also suffers from defensive posturing. </p> <p align="left">Framing matters. As political scientist Corey Robin <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/159748/reclaiming-politics-freedom">has explained</a>, modern liberals' defensive language on everything from taxes to foreign policy often reinforces the conservative paradigm they take issue with, while successful political movements have always focused on liberation:</p> <blockquote> <p align="left">From Emerson and Douglass to Reagan and Goldwater, freedom has been the keyword of American politics. Every successful movement — abolition, feminism, civil rights, the New Deal — has claimed it. A freewheeling mix of elements — the willful assertion and reinvention of the self, the breaking of traditional bonds and constraints, the toppling of old orders and creation of new forms — freedom in the American vein combines what political theorists call negative liberty (the absence of external interference) and positive liberty (the ability to act). Where theorists dwell on these distinctions as incommensurable values, statesmen and activists unite them in a vision of emancipation that identifies freedom with the act of knocking down or hurtling past barriers.</p> </blockquote> <p align="left">There is no simple answer to this problem — one that afflicts the left as a whole — but the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Power">language of Black Power</a> could provide a useful toolkit for Black Lives Matter.</p> <p align="left">As we enter 2015, let us resolve to stay the course in working toward more inclusive notions of freedom. The fire must keep burning, but it's also going to have to burn slowly.</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-21194643121799512992014-12-10T05:58:00.001-08:002014-12-10T05:58:56.479-08:00John Kerry Said What? Welcome to Year 10 of the Long War<p align="left"><img height="270" src="http://static.squarespace.com/static/52d7a677e4b0bd82f3828b71/52d8df43e4b09614df3915e7/52ddc63de4b0438563402f1a/1390265922720/20__MG_8555.jpg" width="400" /> </p> <p align="left"><strong>By Tom Hayden</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>Progressive America Rising via TomHayden.com </em></p> <p align="left">Dec. 9, 2014 - Secretary of State John Kerry seems to be engaging in some double speak this week. (Photo: AP, December 2014)Secretary of State John Kerry today called for a congressional authorization of the New War before he didn't. </p> <p align="left">Instead Kerry proposed the appearance of an authorization before stripping the idea of real public and congressional accountability. Members of Congress should look carefully at this insult to their constitutional role. </p> <p align="left">First, Kerry said it was "crystal clear" that the President wants no US troops in combat operations on the ground, but that Congress should not, "preemptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief to react to changing circumstances."</p> <p align="left">Second, Kerry said he doesn't want an open-ended timeline for war but that the authorization should run for three years or longer, safely after the 2016 elections.</p> <p align="left">Third, Kerry promised no wider war beyond Iraq and Syria, but doesn't want any constraint on US going after ISIS militarily in other nations. </p> <p align="left"><strong>HOW THIS HAPPENED</strong></p> <p align="left">This is nothing but an attempt to avoid an embarrassing battlefield defeat during the next two years before handing over the mission of derailing ISIS to the next president. At the same time, it will limit the ability of Congress to question the policy once they have signed on. This is how escalation works. </p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">It's true that the president left a vacuum in Iraq when he withdrew American troops in December 2011. But it's equally true that he funded and permitted the Iraq vacuum to be filled with repressive sectarian Shiite militias and army units occupying Sunni-majority communities, which created the conditions for the ISIS offensive on behalf of persecuted Sunnis. It wasn't necessary for Obama and the Pentagon to leave American troops behind. What was necessary was to leave a fully non-sectarian regime and army behind, which they failed to do. The steps that have been taken since - forcing out al-Maliki, attempts at patching up sectarian differences - are insufficient to undo the damage that threatens to dissolve Iraq into sectarian war. </p> <p align="left">Second, the administration's vacillation on the Syrian civil war created a vast vacuum for ISIS to rise against the Assad regime, creating a cross-border zone of Sunni insurgency against two hostile regimes. </p> <p align="left">"Defeating" ISIS may be possible, but another ISIS will rise again as long as these conditions remain. ISIS, after all, arose as a breakaway from Al Qaeda, which rose in Iraq in response to the American invasion.   </p> <p align="left">A key lesson of Vietnam is that American officials and their local allies can suffer a catastrophic crash landing while trying to save reputations for conflicts that were unnecessary in the first place. The American peace movement and peace voters in general can take credit for blocking even greater escalations, but can do little to stop the true believers who cannot admit their failures. </p> <p align="left">The same brutal lesson lies ahead in Afghanistan, where Obama has agreed to maintain a few thousand American troops for an additional year. That's to keep the Humpty-Dumpty known as the Afghan "government" from going the way of Iraq and collapsing entirely before the end of the Obama era. </p> <p align="left">The serious hawks never wanted to leave Iraq and Afghanistan anyway, not after US troops were deployed. They are adherents to the Long War Doctrine (2005), which projects a fifty-to-eighty year war against Islamic fundamentalists over many battlefronts. Welcome to Year Ten. </p> <p align="left">Article originally appeared on tomhayden.com (http://tomhayden.com/). </p> <p align="left">See website for complete article licensing information.</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-32205882903334818562014-12-09T12:53:00.001-08:002014-12-09T12:53:56.535-08:00Can the Left Launch Its Own Tea Party?<p align="left"><img height="211" alt="" src="http://images.politico.com/global/2014/12/08/141208_scher_warren_ap.jpg" width="387" /></p> <h4 align="left"><em>After the midterm debacle, liberal insurgents say it’s time to upend the Democratic Party.</em></h4> <p align="left"><strong>By BILL SCHER</strong></p> <p align="left"><em><a href="http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com">Progressive America Rising</a> via Politico</em></p> <p align="left">Dec 08, 2014 - Even as they publicly condemn Tea Party Republicans as hostage-taking legislative thugs, the truth is that some Democrats are quietly jealous of them. Think of it: The Tea Party gang gets to intimidate party leaders, threaten legislation, block nominees, shut down the government and default on the debt if they don’t get their way. They cause major trouble.</p> <p align="left">Boy, does that sound good.</p> <p align="left">The extreme right has power, and that’s something the left hasn’t had much of for a long time. But in the aftermath of the party’s disastrous midterm performance, it’s very possible that the Democratic Party leadership will be facing its own Tea Party-style insurgency from the other side of the spectrum. “You’re going to get a fight within the Democratic Party. There is a substantial disagreement coming up,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, an outspoken Congressional Progressive Caucus member, recently told the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/democratic-rifts-surface-in-wake-of-midterm-election-defeat-1417131017"><em>Wall Street Journal</em></a>.</p> <p align="left">The only question is, how serious a fight will it be? Will it be a polite spat that results in what has happened most often before—the fast marginalization of the left, with the best elements of the various critiques being stitched together by a centrist Hillary Clinton, or whoever is the nominee in 2016? Or are the populists ready to stage their own grass-roots rebellion, setting their sights on eradicating all corporate influence from the Democrats and undermining any attempt by President Barack Obama to compromise with Republicans by any means necessary?</p> <p align="left">Progressive activists such as the feisty Progressive Change Campaign Committee would love to be able to instill some of their own intraparty fear, sharpen their populist pitchforks and prod Democratic leaders leftward. And there is reason to believe this could be their moment.</p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">The rebels offer a message about the chronic unfairness of the system so potent that even the Koch brothers aren’t above poaching it (a recent ad from the Kochs’ political arm <a href="http://www.iagreetosee.com/portfolio/koch-brothers-landrieu-private">chastised newly deposed Sen. Mary Landrieu for flying in private jets</a>, even though the brothers have a few of their own). The new liberal insurgency is savvy enough to stress issues that poll well and relate to the economic anxieties gripping the electorate, such as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/social-security-benefits-poll_n_4305258.html">increasing Social Security benefits</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/banks-poll_n_2994123.html">shrinking the size of Wall Street</a>, instead of chasing stale leftist pipe dreams like nationalizing the health insurance industry. And they have the good fortune of going up against rivals unable to match the intensity of their focus, with a sitting president managing a never-ending list of crises, a 2016 Democratic front-runner who is congenitally cautious, and an incoming Republican majority distracted with figuring out how to keep a government open.</p> <p align="left">With progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s ascension to the Senate Democratic leadership, momentum would appear to be with the populists, and they will likely have multiple opportunities in the next Congress to plant their flag. Already Warren—who <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-elizabeth-warren-fantasy-109037.html">often refrains</a> from personal attacks against leaders of the Democratic establishment—is turning <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/elizabeth-warren-antonio-weiss-treasury-undersecretary-112889.html">opposition to Obama’s Treasury undersecretary nomination of Wall Street investment banker Antonio Weiss</a> into a populist rallying cry.</p> <p align="left">And despite the recent jousting between the White House and the Republican leadership (not to mention the White House and the Senate Democratic leadership), there are several policy matters on the horizon where the interests of Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could converge. But since most areas of potential compromise will likely fail to unify the Republican caucus, congressional Democrats will have leverage to shape deals, or sabotage them.</p> <p align="left">Another potential flashpoint for populists is a budget deal. Any bill passed this month to keep the government open will only run as long as the end of the fiscal year in September, if not earlier. (Also of note, last year’s debt ceiling suspension is up in three months.) At some point in 2015, Obama and the Republican majority are going to have to reach agreements on spending levels if government agencies are to stay open. With <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4232">discretionary social spending already cut by 15 percent</a> since Republicans took over the House in 2011, any additional cuts will be hard for Democrats to swallow. If Obama chooses to trade additional cuts to win something else, congressional Democrats could opt to play their own shutdown card.</p> <p align="left">Also on tap is surveillance reform, an issue that animates liberals as much as civil libertarians of the Tea Party. If no bill is passed by June 1, the PATRIOT Act sections that provide the legal basis for the controversial metadata collection program and the “roving” wiretap program will expire. As libertarian-minded Republicans have already balked at the mild NSA reform that passed the House (but failed to clear the Senate) earlier this year, Democratic votes will likely be needed, and could be withheld.</p> <p align="left">***</p> <p align="left"><strong>If a Tea Party of the left rises,</strong> it will be something that we haven’t experienced on the national scene for a long time. Ever since Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the center in the early 1990s, and certainly through much of the Obama era, most elected Democrats were reluctant to play hardball.</p> <p align="left">For example, in March 2010 the Congressional Progressive Caucus chose not to follow through on its 2009 threat to vote against any health care bill that didn’t give consumers the choice of a government-run health insurance plan, supporting an Affordable Care Act that saved private insurers from competing with the federal government. Immediately after the 2010 midterms, the House Democratic caucus initially supported a <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/house-democrats-vote-reject-obamagop-tax-deal/">nonbinding resolution declaring opposition to Obama’s deal</a> with the Republicans to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi still put it on the floor, and a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-17/house-votes-to-debate-obama-s-858-billion-tax-cut-deal-with-republicans.html">majority of her caucus voted for it.</a></p> <p align="left">By 2011, with Obama now trying to work with a Republican majority in the House, Democratic willingness to buck the president increased, yet was still limited. House Democrats split evenly over the bipartisan deal that swapped spending cuts for a higher federal debt limit. But few Democrats were serious about risking a debt default; <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/162461/house-passes-obamas-debt-deal-even-most-dems-reject-it">the 95 “no” votes surely</a> would have been fewer if passage wasn’t already assured. And the split did not cause a deeper rift and did not hamper Obama’s 2012 reelection bid.</p> <p align="left">However, once Obama’s days on the ballot were over, and Democratic fates were no longer intertwined with his, populists began to feel out opportunities to more openly oppose any presidential rightward leanings. Warren led a pressure campaign to prevent Obama from nominating Larry Summers to the Federal Reserve. Immigration advocates antagonized Obama as “deporter-in-chief” instead of taking Obama’s advice and training their fire on obstructionist Republicans.</p> <p align="left">Still, Democrats stopped short of a scorched-earth, Tea Party-style insurgency. Some progressives wanted Democrats to thwart the December 2013 post-shutdown budget deal over its <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/192849-dems-threaten-budget-deal">exclusion of long-term unemployment benefits</a>, in effect threatening their own shutdown. But in the end, only 32 House Democrats broke ranks. And despite their unease over the president’s offer to swap higher tax revenues for reducing Social Security benefits by rejiggering the cost-of-living formula, <a href="http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_ss_grayson/#fullletter">only 40 Democratic House members signed a pledge</a> to vote against any such deal.</p> <p align="left">Moreover, there were no Tea Party-style populist primary challenges of incumbent Democrats of any significance in 2014, prompting <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/06/13-primaries-project-are-the-democrats-on-xanax-shapiro">Brookings Institution’s Walter Shapiro</a> to declare, “the Democrats appear to have swapped their rambunctious heritage for a hefty dose of Xanax.”</p> <p align="left">The same could be said for Democrats’ approach to the November election. They did not embrace the proud <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/02/remarks-president-economy-northwestern-university">Obama message</a> bragging on how the gross domestic product, private-sector job creation and corporate profits all have grown during the past six years. After crediting the Democrats’ “new foundation” of public “investments,” health care reforms and Wall Street “rules,” Obama contended we should build on his record of activist government to tackle the remaining problem of stagnant wages. Nor did Democrats go all-in on the combative <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-elizabeth-warren-fantasy-109037.html">Warren message</a> that eschewed praise of the incrementally improved system, bypassing the Obama record to excoriate a fundamentally broken system: <a href="http://youtu.be/q75c51uaFbU">“The game is rigged.”</a></p> <p align="left">Democrats by and large passed on any pointed, overarching vision and instead ran on a “populist lite” platform of higher minimum wages, equal pay, birth control access, lower student-loan rates and closing corporate tax loopholes, with some paeans to bipartisanship and fiscal restraint thrown in the mix.</p> <p align="left">But now, since no single big-picture approach was fully tested in 2014, Democrats of all stripes are free to insist their preferred narrative lights the path to a successful 2016 and beyond. The race to define the Democratic Party of the future is on.</p> <p align="left">There will be several testing points along the way. Beyond those issues with hard deadlines in 2015 is the higher-hanging fruit of corporate tax reform. Obama and Republican leaders expressed interest in finding common ground after the midterms—with Obama linking the issue to a priority nearer to his heart, job-creating infrastructure spending. There are several factors that suggest such a grand bargain could happen. Bipartisan legislation already exists that would set up a public-private infrastructure loan fund with money collected from corporate profits now stashed in offshore bank accounts, via “repatriation” of the cash with a one-time discount tax rate. The concept has been backed by strange bedfellows such as former President Clinton and Sen. Rand Paul.</p> <p align="left">But there is a reason this deal wasn’t struck already. Any corporate tax reform acceptable to Obama involves offsetting the cost of lower rates by closing loopholes, sparking a <a href="http://prospect.org/article/how-badly-do-republicans-want-tax-reform-maybe-not-badly">myriad of fights between corporations</a> that has yet to be resolved. And Warren’s populists see the president’s supposed “repatriation” gambit—if corporations bring back money from overseas, they’ll get tax breaks—as a perfect example of how “the game is rigged.” Progressives see it as a <a href="http://ourfuture.org/20141107/coming-up-repatriation-a-huge-huge-tax-giveaway-to-big-corporations">giant handout to corporations leavened only by the few crumbs of infrastructure</a> they will reportedly be obligated to invest in. Even if Obama, Boehner and McConnell could pull off this deal, a Democratic Tea Party could partner with Republicans and scotch Obama’s hope to add to his legacy a literal concrete achievement.</p> <p align="left">In the populists’ wildest dreams, Democrats would band together with Republicans steamed at Obama’s executive actions to derail legislation giving the president “fast-track” trade negotiation authority. The bill would allow trade agreements signed by Obama to be submitted to Congress without any opportunity for amendments or filibusters. Trade proponents see fast-track as a critical precursor to securing economically beneficial regional agreements with Asia and Europe, whereas Warren sees another case of how the game is rigged to serve <a href="http://www.alternet.org/activism/progressive-values-are-americas-values-sen-elizabeth-warren-tells-netroots-nation-keynote?paging=off%C2%A4t_page=1#bookmarkhttp://www.alternet.org/activism/progressive-values-are-americas-values-sen-elizabeth-warren-tells-netroots-nation-keynote?paging=off%C2%A4t_page=1">“Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters [and] outsourcers.”</a></p> <p align="left">However, for Democrats to have leverage on trade, Republicans have to be divided. To date, Republican support for Obama’s trade deals has been strong, with near unanimous support for the South Korea, Panama and Colombia agreements. This month, <a href="http://kevinbrady.house.gov/kevin-brady-in-the-news/cq-obama-immigration-actions-seen-complicating-trade-efforts/">Republican leaders have been striving to keep the executive action controversy separate</a> from their fast-track push, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—which significantly funded the Republican midterm victories—will be lobbying their clients heavily. Republicans would have to snub their own patrons for a Democratic Tea Party to stymie Obama’s trade agenda.</p> <p align="left">While trade may be too big a reach, the other issues appear to give the populists strong opportunities to make their mark. But with opportunities come risks.</p> <p align="left"><a href="http://populistmajority.org/">Populists can make the case that the public is with them</a> on reining in Wall Street, demanding corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and opposing unfair trade deals. But last year Tea Party Republicans thought they could win a shutdown showdown because polls showed opposition to Obamacare. They were wrong. Republicans suffered major public opinion damage for instigating the shutdown and were forced to cave in the subsequent budget agreement.</p> <p align="left">Furthermore, the Democratic base is far more open to compromise than the Republican base. In a <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/12/little-enthusiasm-familiar-divisions-after-the-gops-big-midterm-victory/">post-election Pew poll,</a> only 32 percent of Republican voters wanted the new Congress to work with Obama. But 52 percent of Democratic voters wanted Obama to work with the incoming Republican majority. Democrats are more inclined to see compromise itself as a public good, a fealty to the cult of bipartisanship that drives progressive activists nuts. If Democratic base voters get squeamish over reflexively oppositional tactics, the attempt to launch a progressive populist uprising could fizzle.</p> <p align="left">The lesson is: There are limits to how much confrontation the public will tolerate, a fact of political life that Tea Party Republicans still have difficulty accepting—<a href="http://prospect.org/article/how-republicans-are-learning-love-shutdown">witness the conservative rationalizations</a> that the shutdown helped Republicans win the midterms, leaving out the fact that Republicans prudently refused an opportunity to shut it down again one month prior to Election Day. Fighting on principle can earn respect, but putting gamesmanship ahead of governing will not.</p> <p align="left">If copying the Tea Party handbook is fraught with danger, where does that leave the Warrens and the Nadlers? One alternative to maximum congressional confrontation is maximum public communication. Selling the populist worldview and winning the argument in the court of public opinion is more important than fighting each and every legislative skirmish to the bitterest of ends. If a Democratic Tea Party is going to improve upon the Republican version, more strategic thinking will have to be applied regarding what battles to pick and when it’s time to stand down.</p> <p align="left"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-democrats-family-feud-is-counterproductive/2014/11/28/a3cf06d0-7695-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html">The <em>Washington Post’s</em> Dana Milbank</a> recently recoiled at the recent friction within Democratic ranks. Noting the difficulties the Republican majority will have resolving its fissures, he argued, “Democrats should be exploiting those, not rehashing old fights [and] thwarting themselves.” But Milbank ignores the fact that tussles between populists and centrists inside the Democratic big tent have proven constructive, leading to compromises that form the heart of Obama’s liberal legacy: the Recovery Act, Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank bank reform. Tension over proposed centrist reforms that the populists helped stall, such as with Social Security and trade, have yet to tear the party apart.</p> <p align="left">One of the oddities of the past six years is that the Democrats have carried the burden of managing the broader ideological spectrum within their rank and file, yet Republicans are the ones who have suffered the most from intraparty warfare. The greater acceptance among Democratic base voters for compromise and diversity of opinion are the poles that have kept up their tent.</p> <p align="left">That acceptance will give the populists plenty of running room when seeking to win the debate with voters but will also constrain them from employing the most confrontational tactics inside Congress. Populists need not muzzle their vision or surrender their votes, but neither do they need to read <em>Green Eggs and Ham</em> on the Senate floor to move the Democratic Party in their preferred direction.</p> <p align="left"><i>Bill Scher is the senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ” along with the Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis.</i></p> <p align="left">Read more: <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/left-tea-party-113399.html#ixzz3LR5VSH8C">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/left-tea-party-113399.html#ixzz3LR5VSH8C</a></p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-40105510672575138752014-12-01T06:38:00.001-08:002014-12-01T06:38:19.933-08:00Is The Democratic Party Relevant Anymore?<h4 align="left"> </h4> <p align="left"><img height="259" src="http://media.hamptonroads.com/images/news/2006/06jun/webb440x289.jpg" width="390" /> </p> <p align="left"><em>Former Senator Jim Webb on the Campaign Trail</em></p> <p align="left"><strong><em>(Or more background for <a href="www.pdacommunity.org/blog/2903-strategic-thinking-on-the-us-six-party-system">Carl Davidson’s ‘Six Party System’</a> Thesis)</em></strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>By Dave Johnson</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>Progressive America Rising via OurFuture.org</em></p> <p align="left">Nov 30, 2014 - Many Democrats examining what happened in the 2014 midterms are asking “what did the voters want?” But the right question is why did only 36.4 percent of potential voters bother to register and vote? Obviously Democrats did not give those voters a good enough reason to take the trouble. Is the Democratic Party relevant anymore?</p> <p align="left"><strong>“New Coke” Democrats</strong></p> <p align="left">In 1985 Coca-Cola was the market leader, but Pepsi was gaining market share. Coca-Cola’s executives panicked and reformulated its flavor to taste like the more-sugary Pepsi. But Pepsi drinkers already drank Pepsi and Coca-Cola drinkers were left with no brand that they liked. If this sounds like an analogy to the Democratic Party consultants who keep urging Democratic candidates and politicians to be more like Republicans, that’s because it is.</p> <p align="left">Democrats were considered the majority party from the time of Roosevelt’s New Deal until the 1980s. All they had to do to win was to get a high enough voter turnout. Democratic operations were more about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) than giving people reasons to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans. They just assumed most people agreed with them – because most people agreed with them. But that time has passed.</p> <p align="left">In the 1970s corporations and conservatives <a href="http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/">launched a major marketing push</a>, establishing a network of PR “think tanks” that pushed a neoliberal economic line. Since the mid-1970s Americans have been subjected to a constant drumbeat through all purchasable and infiltratable information channels – even a whole TV network that blasts out right-wing propaganda 24/7/12/365 – all constantly repeating a professionally-crafted propaganda narrative that conservatives and their values are good and “liberals” and their values are bad.</p> <p align="left">Instead of responding and countering this, most Democratic candidates and officeholders instead tried moving to where their pollsters perceived the pubic to be on an imagined political spectrum. Conservatives pushed the public right, no one responded to the propaganda, Democrats chased the inevitable result. In this environment the country’s politics could only shift rightward – and voters who did not want to vote for “Pepsi-like” candidates to the right of them stopped turning out.</p> <p align="left">So corporate, neo-liberal policies came to dominate our economy. “Free trade”, anti-union, monopolistic anti-democracy policies have killed wage growth and government programs for regular, working people and regular, working people have responded by turning away from the party that was supposed to be watching out for them. </p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"></p> <p align="left">Dave Dayen sums this up at The Fiscal Times, in “<a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2014/11/14/So-So-Society-Democrats-Have-Forgotten-What-Made-Them-Great">The So-So Society: Democrats Have Forgotten What Made Them Great</a>.” (Click through to see his list of potential solutions Democrats could offer.)</p> <blockquote> <p align="left">This is not the Democratic Party of your great-grandfather’s New Deal or your grandfather’s Great Society. The takeover of the party by more business-friendly interests — which ironically (or perhaps not) dates back to right around 1973, when wages decoupled from productivity — necessarily impoverishes the imagination around issues of economic security and prosperity.</p> </blockquote> <p align="left">William Greider drives it home at The Nation, in “<a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/190385/how-democratic-party-lost-its-soul">How the Democratic Party Lost Its Soul: The trouble started when the party abandoned its working-class base.</a>“</p> <blockquote> <p align="left">Instead of addressing this reality and proposing remedies, the Democrats ran on a cowardly, uninspiring platform: the Republicans are worse than we are. Undoubtedly, that’s true—but so what? The president and his party have no credible solutions to offer. To get serious about inequality and the deteriorating middle class, Democrats would have to undo a lot of the damage their own party has done to the economy over the past thirty years.</p> </blockquote> <p align="left">As Democrats embraced neoliberal “market solution” arguments and moved away from representing the interests of working-class and middle-class voters, many of those voters had nowhere left to turn and simply stopped voting.</p> <p align="left"><strong>Is Jim Webb The Answer?</strong></p> <p align="left">In “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/opinion/who-will-save-the-democratic-party-from-itself.html?_r=0">Who Will Save the Democratic Party From Itself?</a>” Thomas Edsall examines Jim Webb’s prospects as a challenger to Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential nomination based on his use of economic arguments rather than “identity” arguments that try to get women, and minorities to vote for them. Edsall examines whether Webb can win “a crucial but alienated segment of the electorate,” which is “voters convinced that Wall Street owns both parties, voters tired of politicians submitting to partisan orthodoxy and voters seeking to replace “identity group” politics with a restored middle- and working-class agenda.” </p> <p align="left">Edsall turns to four observers to examine this. </p> <p align="left">Joel Kotkin, presidential fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University, argues “that the Democratic Party has been taken over by what he calls “gentry liberals,” an elite that has undermined the historic purpose of the Democratic Party. … Most Democratic politicians and strategists, according to Kotkin, “just have no feel at all — as Harry Truman and Bill Clinton did, for example — for the aspirations of the middle class. This is why they are losing them, and deservedly so.”</p> <p align="left">Next Edsall brings in Morris Fiorina, a political scientist at Stanford, who is “similarly critical of the ‘upscale capture’ of the Democratic Party.” Fiorina says Democrats took care of Wall Street and wrote to Edsall that, “The result is building disappointment, resentment, and rage in the public, which results in the 2010 debacle.”</p> <p align="left">MSNBC’s Krystal Marie Ball says of Webb, “He is rough. He is authentic. He cares about issues. He speaks plainly. He doesn’t try to oversmile, for example, he just is exactly who he is. And there’s something very compelling about that, and it is a stark contrast from the very carefully packaged and branded Clinton image.”</p> <p align="left">Finally, columnist Al Hunt says Webb “could be Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare” but “seems an improbable candidate” because he “has few relationships within the Democratic Party, and has no serious fund-raising network.”</p> <p align="left">Edsall then compares exit polls from Webb’s 2006 Virginia senate run to all House Democrats nationwide the same year. He says “The results of this comparison do not support the portrayal of Webb as a candidate equipped to win over key white constituencies.” Other Democrats did better with white voters, so Webb might not be the answer to getting past identity politics.</p> <p align="left"><strong>Identity (Sex and Race) vs. Class (Economic) Campaign Arguments</strong></p> <p align="left">Maybe the answer lies more in what Democrats offer rather than who. Writing, “Let’s forget Webb for a moment and take the question a step further,” Edsall looks at the bigger picture of whether Democrats can use economic arguments to challenge the party’s current strategy of “identity group, rather than class-based, mobilization, on the assumption that turning out single women, the young, and racial and ethnic minorities is more effective than an uphill struggle to revive support in the recalcitrant white middle and working class.”</p> <p align="left">Currently the Republican Party appeals largely to older, while males in or reflecting the politics of the Confederacy states – the Fox News demographic. Those older white voters are who primarily turned out to vote in 2014. </p> <p align="left">It is said that “the map” favors Democrats in 2016 and demographics favor them from that point on. While the country’s demographics are changing and that demographic is fading, Republicans have shown they are able to adapt. This year they did not field candidates who publicly showed themselves to be crazy Tea Party wingnuts, at least during their campaigns. And Republicans showed themselves able to use economic arguments that pretended to reflect the concerns of regular people. </p> <p align="left">The larger problem is that the voters Democrats are depending on, who Edsall calls the “have-nots” – are not bothering to come out and vote. Like Dayen and Greider above (and most others looking at the 2014 results), Edsall says this is because Democrats do not offer regular people reasons to be optimistic that they can improve things. This is a bad omen for the future of the party:</p> <blockquote> <p align="left">The Democrats’ lack of credibility on economic issues will hobble, if not extinguish, the party’s prospects. Unless the Democrats develop a coherent, comprehensive strategy for the have-nots, it won’t matter whether the party’s nominee is Clinton, Webb or anyone else.</p> </blockquote> <p align="left"><strong>New Party Needed?</strong></p> <p align="left">A majority of people can’t stand the Republican party’s policies, its divisiveness and nastiness, its racism and the way it is absolutely and completely owned and operated by the 1 percent – particularly oil companies and Wall Street. Poll after poll shows the public favoring the positions that <em>used to be</em> ascribed to Democrats, including taxing the rich and corporations to provide good schools, infrastructure, services and benefits to regular working and middle-class Americans (see <a href="http://populistmajority.org/">PopulistMajority.org</a>). </p> <p align="left">But in the last election Democratic candidates continued to follow the “New Coke” strategy and “<a href="http://ourfuture.org/20141106/distancing-from-dem-policies-causes-dems-to-lose">distanced themselves</a>” from progressive policies and their own president! The result is many people no longer bother to show up and vote. Almost 64 percent of potential voters just stayed home. </p> <p align="left">Has the Democratic Party lost its meaning and purpose? Is the Democratic Party relevant? A new party that shows up on the scene and offers solutions that benefit working-class and middle-class voters would immediately gain a following. But it wouldn’t have any money.</p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639059354945171762.post-88602751567945374102014-11-29T12:12:00.001-08:002014-11-29T12:12:21.512-08:00Progressive Caucus to the GOP: Potential Extension Of Tax Cuts Leaves Out Middle Class, Hurts Climate<h3><a href="http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/krwg/files/201411/sidebyside.png"><img alt="" src="http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/krwg/files/styles/card_280/public/201411/sidebyside.png" /> </a></h3> <p><strong>By Congressional Progressive Caucus</strong></p> <p>  WASHINGTON, DC – Representatives Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), released the following statement in response to a reported agreement in Congress on extending certain tax breaks.</p> <p>The provisions that are included in the deal, such as permanent extension of tax breaks for corporate research and continued fossil fuel subsidies, will add nearly $450 billion to our budget deficit while providing little relief to the middle class and phasing out renewable energy credits.</p> <p>“The tax extension package will once again be a boon for corporate profits while largely leaving out middle-class and low-income families who are struggling just to get by. If we can find hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to make corporate tax breaks permanent, we should be able to help those struggling to find work. We should be making permanent those tax breaks that help working families without adding restrictions that exclude children in need.  This deal is a permanent step backwards for those who think we have a system that is rigged in favor of the wealthy.” </p> <div class="blogger-post-footer">http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com is the left and progressive pole in a wider pro-Obama movement. We're working for his victory, but we have our own independent views. We like Green Jobs, Out Now and Single Payer Health Care.</div>Carl Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00215874972566616424noreply@blogger.com0