Mediaboss Marketing

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman. And were joined by Naomi Klein, whos just written the book No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trumps Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need. Accompanying the book, Intercept just made a video, which were going to play an excerpt for you now.

NAOMI KLEIN: Shock.

MEGYN KELLY: Shocking.

STEPHEN COLBERT: I dont think I could sit down right now.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: You mean

WILLIE GEIST: Historic, astounding, shocking.

NAOMI KLEIN: Its a word thats come up a lot since November, for obvious reasons.

KELLYANNE CONWAY: Hes going to inject a shock to the system.

NAOMI KLEIN: Now, Ive spent a lot of time thinking about shock. Ten years ago, I published The Shock Doctrine, an investigation that spanned four decades, from Pinochets U.S.-backed coup in 1970s Chile to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. I noticed a brutal and recurring tactic by right-wing governments. After a shocking eventa war, a coup, a terrorist attack, market crash or natural disasterexploit the publics disorientation, suspend democracy, push through radical policies that enrich the 1 percent at the expense of the poor and middle class.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: This is a repeal and a replace of Obamacare.

GARY COHN: Were going to cut taxes and simplify the tax code.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord.

NAOMI KLEIN: Now, some people have said thats exactly what Trump has been trying to do. Is it true? Well, sort of. But in all likelihood, the worst is yet to come, and we better be ready. The administration is creating chaos, daily.

JUJU CHANG: Breaking news: Donald Trumps national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has resigned tonight.

ANDERSON COOPER: All of a sudden, the White House is concerned about James Comeys handling of Hillary Clintons email?

CBS NEWS ANCHOR: A Senate committee will question President Trumps son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner about his meeting with officials from a Russian bank.

NAOMI KLEIN: Now, of course many of the scandals are the result of the presidents ignorance and blunders, not some nefarious strategy. But theres also no doubt that some savvy people around Trump are using the daily shocks as cover to advance wildly pro-corporate policies that bear little resemblance to what Trump pledged on the campaign trail.

DONALD TRUMP: Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

MSNBC ANCHOR: The White House released its budget for 2018, and among the $4 trillion in cuts it proposes are billions upon billions of dollars slashed from both Medicaid and Social Security.

NAOMI KLEIN: And the worst part, this is likely just the warm-up. We need to focus on what this administration will do when it has a major external shock to exploit. Maybe it will be an economic crash like 2008, maybe a natural disaster like Sandy, or maybe it will be a horrific terrorist event like Manchester or Paris in 2015. Any one such crisis could redraw the political map overnight. And it could give Trump and his crew free rein to ram through their most extreme ideas.

But here is one thing Ive learned over two decades of reporting from dozens of crises around the world: These tactics can be resisted. And, for your convenience, Ive tried to boil it down to a five-step plan.

Step one: Know whats coming. What would happen if a horror like the one in Manchester took place on U.S. soil? Based on Trumps obvious fondness for authoritarianism, we can expect him to impose some sort of state of exception or emergency where the usual rules of democracy no longer apply. Protests and strikes that block roads and airports, like the ones that sprung up to resist the Muslim travel ban, would likely be declared a threat to national security. Protest organizers would be targeted under anti-terror legislation, with surveillance, arrests and imprisonment. With public signs of dissent suppressed, the truly toxic to-do list would quickly bubble up: bring in the feds to pacify the streets, muzzle investigative journalismyou know hes itching to.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You werent called. Sit down!

NAOMI KLEIN: The courts, who Trump would inevitably blame for the attacks, might well lose their courage. And the most lethal shock we need to prepare for: a push for a full-blown foreign war. And, no, it wont matter if the target has no connection to the attacks used to justify it.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Nothing.

NAOMI KLEIN: Preparing for all this is crucial. If we know what to expect, we wont be that shocked. Well just be pissed.

And thats important for step two: Get out of your home and defy the bans. When governments tell people to stay in their homes or show their patriotism by going shopping, they inevitably claim its for public safety, that protests and rallies could become targets for more attacks. What we know from other countries is that there is only one way to respond.

EURONEWS ANCHOR: Hundreds of Tunisians have been defying the curfew in the capital, Tunis.

NAOMI KLEIN: Disobey en masse. Thats what happened in Argentina in 2001. With the country in economic free fall, the president at the time declared a state of siege, giving himself the power to suspend the constitution.

FERNANDO DE LA RA: [translated] I declared a state of siege across the entire country.

NAOMI KLEIN: He told the public to stay in their houses. Heres what they did instead.

PROTESTER: Argentina!

NAOMI KLEIN: The president resigned that night. And eventually new elections were held.

Three years later, in Madrid, a horrifying series of coordinated attacks on trains killed more than 200 people. The prime minister, Jos Mara Aznar, falsely pointed the finger at Basque separatists and also used the attacks to justify his decision to send troops to Iraq. His rhetoric was classic shock doctrine: division, war, fearDaddy will protect you. This is how Spaniards responded.

PROTESTERS: [translated] Resignation! Resignation!

NAOMI KLEIN: They voted out Aznar a few days later. Many people said they did it because he reminded them of Franco, Spains former dictator.

Which brings us to step three: Know your history. Throughout U.S. history, national crises have been used to suspend constitutional protections and attack basic rights. After the Civil War, with the nation in crisis, the promise of 40 acres and a mule to freed slaves was promptly betrayed. In the midst of the pain and panic of the Great Depression, as many as 2 million people of Mexican descent were expelled from the United States. After the Pearl Harbor attacks, around 120,000 Japanese Americans were jailed in internment camps. If an attack on U.S. soil were perpetrated by people who were not white and Christian, we can be pretty damn sure that racists would have a field day. And the good folks of Manchester recently showed us how to respond to that.

PROTESTER: The people of Manchester dont stand with your xenophobia and racism!

NAOMI KLEIN: Something else we know from history, step four: Always follow the money. While everyone is focused on security and civil liberties, Trumps Cabinet of billionaires will try to quietly push through even more extreme measures to enrich themselves and their class, like dismantling Social Security or auctioning off major pieces of government for profit.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Today were proposing to take American air travel into the future.

NAOMI KLEIN: Its in those moments when fear and chaos are sucking up all the oxygen when we most have to ask: Whose interests are being served by the chaos? What is being slipped through while were distracted? Whos getting richer, and whos getting even poorer?

WENDELL PIERCE: When the floodwaters were still rising in New Orleans, one of the first official acts that the governor did was to fire all the teachers. Whats happening is a raid of the money set aside for public education to be given to private companies. It wasnt by happenstance. It was by design. You saw the political manipulations and taking advantage of the crisis.

NAOMI KLEIN: But if we learn from this history, we could actually make history, with step five: Advance a bold counterplan. At their best, all the previous steps can only slow down attempts to exploit crisis. If we actually want to defeat this tactic, opponents of the shock doctrine need to move quickly to put forward a credible alternate plan. It needs to get at the root of why these sorts of crises are hitting us with ever greater frequency. And that means we have to talk about militarism, climate change and deregulated markets. More than that, we need to advance and fight for different models, ones grounded in racial, economic and gender justice, ones that hold out the credible promise of a tangibly better and fairer life in the here and now and a safer planet for all of us in the long term.

AMY GOODMAN: That video, produced by The Intercept. Their senior correspondent, Naomi Klein, author of the new book, released this week, No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trumps Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need. Yes, a shock. Youre a specialist in analyzing what happens next, Naomi.

NAOMI KLEIN: Right. And, you know, the reason why I wrote this book very quickly, for meyou know, it usually takes me five years to write a book; I did this in less than five monthsis because I really wanted it to come out before any kind of major crisis hits the United States. I mean, lots of people out there see Trump himself as a crisis, and, you know, I would tend to agree, but what really has me scared is what this configuration of characters in the Trump administrationPence, Bannon, Betsy DeVos, Steve Mnuchin, all these Goldman Sachs alum who are in the Cabinethow they would respond to a large-scale crisis that they themselves are not creating. I mean, the chaos is chaos theyre generating themselves, either deliberately or out of incompetence and avarice, but what happens if theres a 2008-like financial crisis? What happens, you know, heaven forbid, if there is a Manchester-like attack in the United States?

The actions of this administration make these types of shocks more likely, not less, right? Theyre deregulating the banks, creating the conditions for another crash. They are antagonizing the world, particularly the Muslim world. You know, ISIS apparently called Trumps Muslim travel ban a "blessed ban," because it was so good for recruitment. They areyou know, they are making climate disasters more likely with everything theyre doing to deregulate industry, deregulate for polluters. You know, theres a lag time between that and when the climate shocks hit, but the truth is, weve already warmed the planet enough that no U.S. president can get through a year, let alone a term, without some sort of major climate-related disaster.

So, how does this group ofthis Cabinet of disaster capitalists, is what I call them, Amy, because there is such a track record of taking advantage of crisis, whether were looking at the Goldman Sachsformer Goldman Sachs executives and the way they profited from the subprime mortgage crisis to increase their own personal wealth, whether its Mike Pence and the central role he played when New Orleans was still underwater to come up with a corporate wish list to push through. So, you know, as disastrous as Trumps policies have been so far, theres actually long, toxic to-do lists, things that people around Trump and Trump himself have beenhave very openly said they would like to do, but they have actually not been able either to get through without a crisis or they havent even tried, right? Think about Trumps threats to bring back torture. Think about his threats to bring the feds into Chicago. Think about his threats not just to have a Muslim travel ban from specific countries, but not to let Muslims into the country, period.

So I think we do need to prepare for this. And what I tried to do with this video is create a little toolkit of, you know, what I have seen work in other countries, because I have been reporting on shocks and large-scale disasters and how societies respond now for a couple of decades, and Ive seen some amazing acts of resistance, you know?

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about those. We saw some images of them here.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah. So, one of the things I think we could really count on Trump to do, particularly if there is any kind of terrorism-related shockand lets be clear: There have been terrorism events, white supremacist terrorism, in the United States during the Trump era, but of course he doesnt treat those as a crisis. So, an event that they decided was a large-scale crisis, we already know from the way Trump responded to the London Bridge attackshe immediately said, "This is why we need to bring back my travel ban." After the Manchester attacks, he immediately said, "This is about immigrants flooding across our borders." In fact, the person responsible for those attacks was born in the U.K. It doesnt matter. You know, we know this from 9/11, that the waythese crises are used as opportunities to push through policies that actually have very little to do with getting at root causes, and, in many cases, exacerbatemost notably, the invasion of Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, but it was just that sheer opportunism.

So, you know, what Ive seen is, I think, in all likelihood, they would declare a state of emergency, some sort of state of exception, where theyre able to ban protests, like the protests we saw, the very inspiring protests in the face of the Muslim travel ban. They would say, "No, you cant block a road. You cant block an airport. This isyou could be a target of terrorism yourself. Stay in your homes."

So, you know, I give a few examples, like Argentina in 2001, when, as the president was declaring a state of siege and telling people to stay in their homes, people described not being able to hear him because the sound from the streets was so loud, the roar of pots and pans, and neighbors flooding out of their homes and going to the Plaza de Mayo and refusing this state of siege, wasthat they drowned him out. They literally couldnt hear him. So other people left their houses. And, you know, in that moment, thats the moment to resist. You know, that is the moment to just not accept it. And its really a question of strength in numbers, because if it is only the kind of hardcore activists that are out on the streets, its really easy to crush small protests. Its harder to do it when it is hundreds of thousands of people. So I wanted to share some of these stories of societies that have just said, "We will not let you do it." Right?

I was in France, as were you, Amy, a week after the horrific terrorist attacks in 2015. We were there for the Paris climate summit. A week before, 200 people had been killed in Paris in coordinated attacks. The French government, under Franois Hollande, a Socialist governmentSocialist in name only, but, you know, a left governmentdeclared a state of emergency and banned political gatherings of more than five people. You know, if that can happen in France under a Socialist government, in a country with a very deep history of disruptive strikes, what do we expect Trump and Bannon and Pence to do at the earliest opportunity? So, I think its important to strategize.

Its important to know the history in the United States. You know, in all these countries, the examples I giveArgentina, why did they flood out of their houses? You ask people. They said, "It reminded us of the beginning of the dictatorship in 1976. Thats how it started. They told us that we werent safe and that it was going to be a temporary state of emergency. And it ended up turning into a dictatorship." So they saw the early signs, and they said, "No, not again. Nunca ms." Right? You know, we talked to Americans about this. They say, "Well, we dont have that history." Really? What about the Japanese internment, you know? What about, as youve written, Amy, what about what happened to MexicanMexican Americans in the United States during the Great Depression and during that crisis and the mass deportations? There is this history in many communities, and those communities keep that history alive. You know, during Hurricane Katrina, so many African Americans talked about the history of how crises had been used to further oppress black people in this country. But these stories are offloaded into those communities, who hold them and keep that history alive. It isnt nationally metabolized, right? And so we have to share these stories. And I do think there is a memory now of what happened after September 11th and the rights that were lost and the ways in which peoples grief was exploited by men in power who said, "Trust me." Dont make that mistake again.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the connection to war? I mean, you have what happened in Manchester, the horror there. You have the continued deaths in Yemen, the U.S.-backed Saudi bombing. Now the U.S. has expanded both in Somalia and in the Philippines with U.S. forces.

NAOMI KLEIN: Mm-hmm, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: You have this horrific attack that took place in Kabul, where over 150 Afghans died. It hardly got any attention. But the rage that must be brewing at the grassroots when they dont get any media attention from the West?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, right, right. You know, people are being erased, you know, and this is a very, very old story. No, theyre already expanding the battlefields, escalating on multiple, multiple fronts. And, you know, this is the most dangerous, most lethal way that shocking events are exploited, peoples fear exploited.

And, you know, lets remember that this administration will have various motivations for changing the subject away from their domestic scandals. And Trump has never gotten better media coverage than in the wake of thehis Syrian missile strike, you know, called "beautiful" by Brian Williams. And itsyou know, suddenly, he was presidentialright?ordering cruise missiles over delicious chocolate cake at Mar-a-Lago. So, you know, we have to be very, very vigilant about this.

And, you know, the U.S. has had a strong antiwar movement in the past, but that antiwar movement hasnt been in the streets in the same way. And, you know, I think that thisthese resistance movements are going to have to get ready for that kind of a shock, because once the wars begin, you know, its very hard to stop them.

Another example, I think, of shock resistance, we just saw in the U.K. during Jeremy Corbynsduring Jeremy Corbyns campaign, where Theresa May was exploiting the Manchester attacks, the London Bridge attacks, to say, "We are going to, you know, have to get rid of your online privacy. You know, we need backdoors into all of your communication apps. We may need to suspend human rights law." And Jeremy Corbyn was talking about root causes, the failure of the war-on-terror paradigm and how this is leading to an increase in these types of attacks. And, you know, I think that a lot of people decided that that made more sense after these many years, like not to double down and give up rights in these moments, but to try to understand why this is happening and to do something about it.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, Theresa May lost her Conservative majority in the Parliament. On Saudi Arabia, the first country President Trump went to, the first foreign country, was Saudi Arabia. He does the orb with the Saudi Arabians. He does the sword dances, or tries, with the Saudi Arabians.

NAOMI KLEIN: The sword stumble.

AMY GOODMAN: He seals these deals, well over $110 billion, leaves there extolling the Saudi leadership and attacks the European leaders, and then comes home, and, despite the almost begging of the European leaders on the issue of the climate accord, he not only attacks them, but then comes home to the United States and announces hes withdrawing from the very accord theyre pleading with him to remain in. What about this primacy of Saudi Arabia right now, both its connection to war, with the U.S.-backed Saudi bombing of Yemen, which is leading to a horrific cholera epidemic, not to mention just the number of deaths, and climate change?

NAOMI KLEIN: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. You know, one of the things that really worries me is how motivated these petrostates are to have more instability, because that sends the price of oil up, and, you know, their profits flow even more. Its something that the Saudis have in common with the Russians, have in common with Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon. You know, the way I think we should see that foreign trip of Trumps is basically as traveling weapons salesman, right? And hes sending this message: You buy enough American weapons, youre our friend. You know? Like this is the price. So he heaps praise on Saudi Arabia for, you know, having done that, having made that deal, and he goes to Europe, and he screams at them, you know, NATO members, for not pulling their weight, right? Which means not buying enough weapons. You know, Im Canadian. Im Canadian-American, dual citizen. But my government shamefully came home and announced a massivesorry, a massive increase in weapons spending. So, you know, this isthis is Trumps foreign policy, is traveling weapons salesman.

Read more here:
Web Exclusive: Naomi Klein on How to Resist Trump's Shock Politics - Democracy Now!

This post is part of Mischiefs of Faction, an independent political science blog featuring reflections on the party system.

An incidence of political violence occurred Wednesday. This, a horrific shooting in Alexandria, Virginia, as Republican members of Congress practiced for a baseball game, is different from the Greg Gianforte incident a few weeks ago. The rhetoric surrounding a violent incident matters, and, of course, the method and scale matters too.

But both incidents are likely to shape a bigger conversation in American politics about why this type of violence is happening now. As Ezra Klein pointed out in a somewhat complicated set of tweets, the ability to resolve differences and make policy without violence is as essential as it is difficult.

Two fantastic political behavior researchers, Nathan Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason, have shared their insights. Mason provides some detail about the nature and context of American political divisions, explaining that both parties treat each other with the contempt inherited from years of racial and religious strife. Kalmoe suggests that violent political rhetoric, along with individual personality factors, can drive support for political violence.

But another point of Kalmoes stood out the most to me. He writes, Another important factor was political disaffection. People who doubted that elections get government to pay attention to citizens were 12 points more supportive of political violence compared to those with the most confidence in elections.

Based on my own research and observations, this seems like a crucial element to understanding violent politics. Perhaps its not just dehumanization and animosity. It seems likely that a sense of political frustration or helplessness also contributes to a political situation in which people talk, joke, and even act on the idea of solving political differences with violence.

Contemplating the structural conditions does not absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions. And it does not limit the possibility that violent individuals will take out these tendencies in other ways, as it appears Wednesdays shooter also may have done. But we have to face the fact that some political disputes are resolved peacefully while others are not, and there are reasons for this difference.

Ive been saying for a while now that American politics is underresponsive and overresponsive at the same time. This observation is based on my research about mandate politics. Mandate rhetoric is designed to sound responsive: Politicians claim they are doing the peoples business carrying out the policies that are the reasons they were elected.

But on the other side of that coin is the sense that once youve won, you have a broad mandate to implement your agenda, objections be damned. That your election victory justifies what you said to get there and what you do with the power of elected office. And in a polarized political context, that can mean that moving forward with a policy agenda without making concessions to the other side.

Without assuming identical tactics or policy agendas, theres plenty of evidence to suggest that both Democrats and Republicans have felt this way in the past decade or so. Under divided government, its possible both sides felt this way that those in power were failing to respond to their concerns and policy demands.

On his excellent comparative politics blog, Tom Pepinsky wrote back in January about how most authoritarian politics is characterized not by daily dystopia but by boring and tolerable existence in which political participation had little effect on the government. This post has haunted me as Ive watched the 115th Congress unfold, with jammed phone lines and canceled town hall meetings. Democracy requires real responsiveness and transparency. Elections are part of responsiveness, but the process doesnt end once the ballots have been counted.

There will be a lot of takes, I expect, castigating the tone of political discourse and calling for civility. But I suspect a deeper explanation for why political differences give way to violence has to do with the frustration of unresponsive politics. No level of frustration justifies violence. An important part of democracy, however, is trying to understand the conditions that allow anger to fester and make violence look to some like a viable approach. Peaceful democratic governance is better, and it requires leaders who listen to their citizens not just the ones who voted for them, and not just during an election year. Theres not much the left and right agree on, but perhaps these principles can be a start.

Read the rest here:
Political violence is a sign of eroding democracy - Vox

George Osborne arrives at the London Evening Standard offices to start work as its new editor. Jacob Ecclestone refers to the end of the longstanding convention that prohibited non-journalists from being given jobs on national newspapers people like George Osborne, for example Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA

George Monbiot is to be applauded for acknowledging the crisis in British journalism (The biggest losers? Not the Tories but the media, who missed the story, 14 June). Ata moment when historic news brands should be doing all they can to foster trust in the face of fakery, they are squandering it. That the most trusted our broadcasters have been slavishly accepting the lead and the language of the worst our corporate press is simply tragic. British journalism is shredding its own future.

Only journalists can fix this, but there are public policy measures that can help. We can prevent Rupert Murdoch gaining full control of Sky. We can initiate part two of the Leveson inquiry, looking into the role of newspaper managements in criminality. And we can ensure that news publishers in print and online, and including the Guardian are properly accountable to a fully independent and effective self-regulator of the kind recommended by the Leveson inquiry. These are urgent matters. Prof Brian Cathcart Kingston University, London

The explanation for why young people from working-class backgrounds have, over the past 30 years, been steadily excluded from all forms of mainstream media is to be found in the anti-union legislation of the 1980s and 90s. Media companies were encouraged to derecognise the National Union of Journalists (and other unions), to scrap collective bargaining, to withdraw from agreements on training and crucially to kill the longstanding convention that prohibited non-journalists from being given jobs on national newspapers people like George Osborne, for example. Thedestruction of workers rights to organise industrially has also undermined the ability of journalists to hold on to some ethical standards.

Where do ideas come from in our society? Traditionally they have come from those who control the means of production. But now as someone who was a member of the NUJ for almost 60 years I am grateful for the alternative that social media seems to offer. Jacob Ecclestone (NUJ president 1979-80), Diss, Norfolk

Another aspect of the media/politics nexus that George Monbiot might have covered in his excellent piece is that media and politics are nowadays often simply career choices for those lucky enough to be able to make them. No different from, say, accountancy, banking, law, corporate management or finance. As with all careers, family connections are particularly helpful. Possibly as a result, neither media nor politics is any longer anything approaching a vocation for the majority of industry players. Thefew for whom it is make themselves known to us by their deeds. Quite neat as well that Georges piece should be published on the day you printed JimmyBreslins obituary. John Smith Sheffield

As a Labour campaigner and media watcher its been clear to me for a long time that too many political pundits are just as trapped in a Westminster bubble as MPs. They feed off each other, as is demonstrated by the frequency with which the same views and even the phraseology used in the largely rightwing press regularly crop up in radio and TV interviews with Labour MPs. The failure to get out more and do their own research has resulted in a media groupthink which led to the failure to recognise the support that Jeremy Corbyn had in the country. At least George Monbiot is honest enough to admit his own susceptibility and loss of faith. I believe this failure to maintain confidence in ones own judgment allowed too many Labour MPs, especially the newer and less experienced intake, to join the dissenters clamouring to oust their unelectable leader. Theyd better get behind him now and take a bit more notice of ordinary members who worked so hard to deliver the votes that got them re-elected. Karen Barratt Winchester

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Here is the original post:
Cosy media means democracy loses out - The Guardian

Momentums snappy social media campaigns gleaned millions of shares. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

Not so long ago, in the slur-filled era before this years election, Momentum, the grassroots group of supporters for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, were routinely dismissed as armchair activists, cultish Trots, delusional young nafs, or some combination of the three. Now, media coverage of the group carries headlines such as How Momentum changed British politics for ever and How Momentum HQ perfected social media outreach.

The 24,000-member group didnt deserve those dismissive pre-election labels, but it has certainly earned the more recently positive ones. Credited with mobilising the youth vote, Momentums snappy social media campaigns gleaned millions of shares. The group also sent scores of campaigners some of them first-time canvassers into the countrys most marginal constituencies, helping to drive up support for Labour, house by house and street by street.

Using an online map of marginal seats as well as WhatsApp and phone banks to enlist and direct activists, the group transformed Labours canvassing game, helping to turn seats such as Canterbury, Sheffield Hallam, Derby North and Croydon Central into Labour wins. MPs who may once have criticised the group are now more enthusiastic, while Momentum organisers say that, since members and constituency campaigners worked so closely in the past six weeks, relations are more cordial. Those who were divided over past splits in the Labour party got to know each other and found that they got along.

Now, Momentum wants to build on the oh, lets just go with it momentum to militate against any complacency over Labours dramatic increase in voter share, now at 40%, or disillusion that the party nonetheless lost the election. Since the general election, the Labour party has gained 35,000 new members, while 1,500 have joined Momentum. With greater numbers, capacity and credibility, the task now is ensuring more activists join in and are election-ready because who knows how soon were going to have to do it all again.

But elections arent the only focus. For a start, Momentum wants to move away from the idea that political campaigning only takes place when votes are needed. It plans to engage in community action, whether thats voter registration campaigns or support for local causes, so that the group and, by extension, the Labour party, is organically active at grassroots level. Not to re-open old wounds and definitely not now the Labour party is united in support for its leader but this terrain might have been broached sooner, were it not for Momentum instead having to rally in support of Corbyn during last years leadership challenge.

In any case, such endeavours, however embryonic, have already begun. Last year, local Momentum groups started to collect and volunteer for food banks. Now, national organisers are looking at the possibility of running these independently, although the idea isnt to provide tinned beans bearing party slogans so much as to support local communities in tackling hardships also addressed by Labours political offer. At a time when so many have been terribly affected by the recession and Conservative austerity cuts, there are multiple social issues where Momentum could get involved.

The focus seems to be on harnessing the political engagement unleashed by Corbyns leadership and fostering unity among Labours different voter groups. This pursuit of collectivism, in the face of decades of rampant individualism, was always one of the more radical aspects of Corbyns leadership. It was in evidence throughout his campaign speeches, where he often spoke of societys many cohorts as one community, binding together groups young and old, black and white, nurses as well as builders and office workers that are more often encouraged to compete against each other in the current economy.

Momentum draws inspiration and cross-pollinates ideas with the leftwing Syriza party in Greece and Podemos in Spain, both of which were fed by practical, grassroots organising to counter the effects of crippling austerity cuts. In Greece, for instance, the social movements that ran health clinics, food banks and legal aid centres were the blood supply for the Syriza party now leading a coalition government. In the UK, Momentum is also looking at growing the information-sharing debates developed by the World Transformed, which launched parallel to the Labour party conference in Liverpool last year and hosts political events.

The intention is to convert social media clicks and shares into practical action: the demand for Momentums election campaign training and turnout on the doorstop has shown that there is a desire to get involved, given the means, confidence and skills to do so. Its also pretty much what grassroots democracy looks like a movement that chimes with and feeds into a viable political party. And its this combination a left wing effective both at parliamentary and community level that could help turn the Labour party into an unstoppable political force and propel it into power.

Read the original:
Momentum's grassroots democracy can make Labour an unstoppable force - The Guardian

America should thank Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback.

After his election in 2010, the hard-right Republican launchedthe state on an adventure in conservative policymaking by slashing personal income taxes in what came to be known as the Kansas Experiment. It was an effort to show that running a state according to conservative economic orthodoxy would deliver jobs and growth that would in turn offset the lost tax revenue.

The experiment failed spectacularly. Since Brownback took office, Kansas growth and employment have both lagged behind the country as a whole. In 2016, economic output in the state was up a scant 0.2 percent compared to growth of 1.5 percent nationally. During Brownbacks tenure as governor, employment in Kansas is up about 6 percent half that of the U.S.

The tax cuts also hurt the states finances, shrinking revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars and helping to open up a budget deficit of roughly $900 million over the next two fiscal years. Kansas has tried to make up for the shortfall by repeatedly raiding the states highway fund meant for infrastructure improvements, skimping on pension contributions, and cutting education spending.

Predictably, those tactics have proved wildly unpopular. In April, a poll showed 66 percent of Kansans disapproved of Brownbacks performance as governor, making him the second-most-unpopular governor in the country, behind only New Jerseys embattled Chris Christie.

After an influx of moderate, anti-Brownback Republicans were elected to the state legislature in 2016, Kansas decided enough was enough. Earlier this month, legislators overrode Brownbacks veto of a large tax increase set to raise $600 million a public acknowledgement that the people of Kansas no longer want to be governed as Republican guinea pigs.

But the states turn away from Brownbackism was more than yet another illustration of the fact that tax cuts arent a foolproof way to boost economic growth. Kansas also shows that American politics are not necessarily destined to become more and more extreme.

Brownback never hid what he intended to do as governor of Kansas, and his supporters got what they voted for. After a few years, however, they learned that what they voted for was an economic mess. Having tried extreme right-wing economic policy and seen the damage it inflicted, they then changed their minds and voted for moderate lawmakers.

This is how a healthy democracy works. But in recent years, American democracy has become increasingly unhealthy, in part because Americans have been shielded from the impact of the policies for which they claim to be voting. As a result, the conservative wing of the American electorate has failed to correct and continues on an increasingly extreme course.

For example, Republicans regained control of Congress in 2010 in the aftermath of the Great Recession, empowering tea partiers who were focused on cutting back government spending a crucial component of the economic recovery and setting off a string of destabilizing fights over the U.S. debt.

These fights amounted to mini-crises that slowed the recovery. But they didnt push the economy back into recession, thanks in large part to extraordinary efforts by the Federal Reserve to effectively bail out the economy and keep interest rates at historically low levels. Effectively, the Fed an unelected quasi-independent branch of the government managed to shield the economy from the impact of what people actually voted for.

Then theres Obamacare. Many people in states like Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio were able to obtain health care coverage thanks to President Barack Obamas signature law. A few years later, many of these same people voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, a candidate who ran on an explicit promise to do away with Obamacare.

Some didnt realize their health care was, in fact, Obamacare, while others took Trump at his word that hed come up with something terrific to replace it. But no doubt many didnt believe they would actually feel the effects of the policy for which they voted because of the checks the legislative process puts on a president.Even one whose party controls both houses of Congress.

It should be pretty easy for Republicans to run the country the way they want right now, yet the first several months of the Trump administration have shown the GOP is having difficulty enacting major legislation.

That doesnt mean the party is backing off its agenda. House Republicans pushed through a plan to undo the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the financial overhaul designed to make the banking system safer after the financial crisis. And all signs indicate that Senate Republicans are serious about producing a bill that would effectively destroy Obamacare, resulting in millions of Americans losing their health insurance.

But the lack of major legislation in the early days of the Trump administration does suggest that Republicans dont want to set off a broader Brownbackian backlash. One could argue thats politically savvy. And in the short term, its probably better for the country if policy doesnt lurch toward the extreme right.

But over the long term, American democracy needs a fundamental course-correction to a more moderate path. And one way to temper the current Republican appetite for extreme policies may be if America, like Kansas, gets a good look at what those policies do when actually put into practice.

Go here to read the rest:
Kansas' shattered economy shows that democracy can still work - VICE News