Mediaboss Marketing

(JTA) Ive spent most of the last decade focused on grassroots organizing and capacity building inside the American progressive movement. From helping build the largest leadership development organization on the left, to launching a first-of-its-kind organization to mobilize male allies into the fight to protect and expand reproductive freedom, Ive proudly helped elect progressive change makers and pass landmark legislation.

Ive done all of that as a Jew who wears a kippah in public, as someone who, statistically speaking, shouldnt exist. My grandfather is one of the 10% of Polish-born Jews to survive World War II. Three million of his Jewish neighbors, and another 3 million across Europe, were packed into boxcars and sent to the slaughter, to gas chambers, to the ovens.

What I am is central to who I am. So when I saw the statement from the Washington, D.C., chapter of the Sunrise Movement explaining its refusal to march in a voting rights rally with Jewish groups because they are Zionists, I understood immediately that it was deeply problematic. Not only did the decision have the potential impact of spreading anti-Jewish bigotry, but it also weakened our movement more broadly at a time when democracy, which is necessary to ensure civil rights, is under assault in America.

I also understood right away that, for many people, the anti-Jewish nature of the statement wasnt so obvious. When moments like this arise, I get texts and calls from progressive peers across the country who ask: Is this antisemitic?

To answer the question, I begin by explaining what it means to be a Jew. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. But Jewish identity is so much bigger and more diverse than religion. Some of us are deeply religious. Some of us are totally secular. All of us are Jews. Were a people, not simply a religious community.Contrary to what most think, antisemitism is not anti-Judaism in its modern form (several hundred years). Its anti-Jew. Its not about how Jews pray, but rather about who they are and what they are accused of doing.

Jews get attacked for supposedly controlling the world (governments, banks, media), for being disloyal to our home countries, for killing Jesus, for making up the Holocaust, for being greedy, for undermining the white race and subverting people of color (among other things).

Weve been blamed for plagues, famine, economic hardship and war. Whatever major problem a society has, Jews have been blamed for it. None of those things has anything to do with religion.

Criticism of Israel or opposition to it isnt necessarily antisemitic. Harsh criticism of Israeli government policy may make us uncomfortable but isnt antisemitic. But the Sunrise DC statement wasnt about policy. By attacking Zionist organizations in a voting rights coalition, and saying that they cant participate in in a coalition that includes them, Sunrise DC basically said it wont work alongside Jewish organizations (or Jews) that believe the state of Israel has the right to exist.

For the average Jew, Zionism has become simply the idea that Israel has the right to exist, rather than an embrace of the policies of its government. The Zionist movement got its name in the late 19th century, but it really put a label on a 2,000-year-old yearning to return to the native land Jews were violently forced out of (in an act of colonization). That yearning grew over time as we failed to find sustained peace and security elsewhere, including in Europe, North Africa and the broader Middle East.

Thats why when people attack Zionists, we hear Jews. We hear them saying that the 80-90% of Jews who believe Israel has a right to exist are unacceptable, and that Israel, a country that came into existence with the vote of the international community and today is home to 7 million Jews, must be ended.

Why is that antisemitism? First, it singles out Jews when most people believe Israel has the right to exist. (In fact, 85% of the general public in America believes the statementIsrael does not have a right to exist is antisemitic, according to a survey released this week.) Second, it seeks to deny Jewish people the right to self-determination by erasing our peoplehood and connection to the land. Third, it declares that a national movement for Jews is uniquely unacceptable, while at the same time advocating in support of another national movement.

Fourth, it divides Jews into good and bad. Only those who oppose their own national movement can stay. Only Jews who reject Zionism are allowed. Replace Jew with any other group and ask if that would be acceptable.

Even if you forswear coalitions with anyone, Jewish or not, who thinks Israel is legitimate, that still denies the Jewish peoples right to self-determination. It says that Jews must be a perpetual minority on this earth subject to the whims and bigotries of the societies they live in. For thousands of years Jews tried that and failed to find permanent refuge which, fairly or not, is part of the reason most Jews believe in the right to, and need for, national self-determination in some portion of a contested land.

Sunrise DC wasnt interested in the nature of their shunned Jewish allies support for Israel even though each of the three groups, like most Jews in America, have advocated for a Palestinian state and for an end to policies by the government of Israel that harm the Palestinian people, including, but not limited to, the occupation of the West Bank.

Ultimately, only Jews get to define who and what we are and what antisemitism is. Too often in progressive spaces that right is denied to Jews. Instead, to justify their own positions, some rely on Jews whose voices, while relevant, are far from representative on the question of what constitutes antisemitism. If someone ignored the voices and lived realities of 80-90% of any other minority group, most progressives would quickly recognize that as an act of tokenization to shield biases (or worse).

Some who identify as progressive feel its OK to use the word Zionist to attack others, claiming that the word is not about Jews. I encourage everyone to go on far right-wing message boards on occasion. Once there, youll see how white supremacists typically call Jews Zionists. The prominence of the word, in connection with claims that they control the governments and are trying to replace white patriots with Black and Brown interlopers, will stun you.

While there is plenty of room for criticism of Israeli government policy, there should be no room for the exclusionary, reductionist and dehumanizing language of white nationalists in progressive discourse on the topic, or the denial of the right for Jewish self-determination on this earth.

I believe in standing up for those who are attacked for the crime of being who they are as much as I believe in standing up for Jewish life. For me, this work is personal. Not because every issue affects me directly. But because I feel like I owe it to my grandfather. To Jews who were murdered and never had a chance to live. To my peers here who face systemic racism and bigotry. And yes, because I believe Never Again isnt just a slogan to hope for, but rather a mission to fight for.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.

See the original post here:
My fellow progressives are always asking me if anti-Zionism is antisemitic. Heres what I tell them. - JTA News - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

House progressives are laying out their priorities in negotiations over Democrats' massive social-spending package, as lawmakers seek to trim its size to get more moderates on board.

"We have been told that we can either adequately fund a small number of investments or legislate broadly, but only make a shallow, short-term impact," leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) wrote in a letter Wednesday to Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSanders, Manchin escalate fight over .5T spending bill Sanders blames media for Americans not knowing details of Biden spending plan Photos of the Week: Climate protests, Blue Origin and a koala MORE (D-Calif.). "We would argue that this is a false choice."

Democrats are working to reduce the size of their spending package from the $3.5 trillion figure backed by progressives, sincekey centrists Sens. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinMajor climate program likely to be nixed from spending package: reports Sanders, Manchin escalate fight over .5T spending bill Sanders blames media for Americans not knowing details of Biden spending plan MORE (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaSanders, Manchin escalate fight over .5T spending bill Biden gets personal while pitching agenda The Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by The Conference of Presidents of Major Italian American Organizations - US opens to vaccinated visitors as FDA panel discusses boosters MORE (D-Ariz.) think that number is too high. In a meeting with House Democrats earlier this month, President BidenJoe BidenJill Biden campaigns for McAuliffe in Virginia Fill the Eastern District of Virginia Biden: Those who defy Jan. 6 subpoenas should be prosecuted MORE suggested lawmakers should consider a top-line number in the range of $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion.

Progressives in their letter reiterated their desire for the package to include five of their key agenda items: investments in the care economy, investments in affordable housing, Medicare reforms, addressing climate change and immigration reform. They also articulated their preferences for how to trim the top-line number.

CPC leaders said they would prefer the spending package to include "robust investments" over a shorter period of time. This contrasts with the position of some moderates, who would prefer that the legislation include fewer spending programs but over a longer period.

"We cannot pit childcare against housing, or paid leave against home- and community-based care," the progressive leaders wrote.

They also want the legislation to be designed "so that benefits flow to the American people as quickly as possible, both to assist the Biden Recovery and to demonstrate our commitment to tangibly improving the lives of the American people."

Progressives said they want programs in areas such as child care and education to be universal. In contrast, Manchin and some House moderates have said they would prefer spending programs be targeted to lower-income households.

"Universal programs are always the most politically durable and popular investments," CPC leaders wrote.

Additionally, the CPC leaders urged Pelosi to maintain provisions in the package that would make investments in communities of color, including proposals related to housing, home-based and elder care, and immigration.

"If we cut those programs, we reduce the broadly transformative power of this legislation, and we once again fall behind on our promises to ensure racial equity," the progressive lawmakers wrote.

The letter is part of progressives' aggressive strategyto shape the spending package that has yielded some early wins. Earlier this week, Pelosi walked back comments that suggested she preferred moderates' approach to reducing the size of the package over progressives'.

Visit link:
House progressives lay out priorities for spending negotiations | TheHill - The Hill

President Joe Biden has so far resisted calls for a blanket cancelation of student loan debt. But progressive Democrats have refused to relent on their top priority, ramping up the pressure this week on the administration for a sweeping order to fix broken parts of the federal student loan system.

Young adults have been drowning in student loan debtwhich has more than tripled since 2000for years after they graduate. With nearly 45 million individuals receiving a bill each month, Americans now owe about $1.7 trillion in student loans, more than the nation's total debt on auto loans and credit cards.

In April, the Biden administration instructed Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to produce a memo outlining the president's legal authority to eliminate student debt. Six months later, a group of 18 progressive lawmakers, led by Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar, demanded the document to be released by October 22.

"Decades ago, Congress voted to authorize the executive branch to cancel federal student loans. Federal student debt can be canceled with the 'flick of your pen,'" the members wrote in a letter to Biden, adding that "this authority is already being put to use, as it is currently being used to cancel the interest owed on all federally-held student loans.

"Now it is time for you to honor your campaign pledge and use this authority to cancel all student debt."

In a tweet Thursday, Senator Elizabeth Warren renewed pressure on the president to "cancel" student debt.

"Student loan borrowers are teachers, health care workers & other essential workers. Many of them have been carrying the burden of student debt for decades. Helping these borrowers is popular and it's the right thing to do," the Massachusetts Democrat wrote.

"Student debt relief is good for people and good for the economy. [Biden] can and must lift the burden of student debt for 43 million Americans," said Washington Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal, who is also the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, tweeted: "Today would be a great day for President Biden and Vice President Harris to #CancelStudentDebt."

Progressives have been pushing Biden to cancel at least $50,000 in debt with an executive order, which would wipe out the debt burden of 36 million individualsincluding about 10 million who have already defaultedaccording to data from the Education Department. Biden has previously said he's open to cancel up to $10,000 in student loan debt.

In July, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Biden lacks authority to unilaterally eliminate federal student loan debt.

"People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness," the California Democrat said. "He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress."

Supporters argue that forgiving student loan debt would help to alleviate racial and economic inequality. In recent years, proponents have also stressed that the cost of living has been rising at a much faster rate than college salaries.

Critics, however, say it's unfair to cancel student loan debt for wealthier borrowers who graduated from elite colleges, such as Harvard and Yale.

In 2019, 10 percent of student loan borrowers were in default, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics. Black graduates with a bachelor's degree are more likely to default than white dropouts. About 32 percent of Black Americans who went to college 10 years ago have since gone into default.

Biden has already canceled $9.5 billion in student debt for borrowers with disabilities and individuals who were deceived into attending now-defunct colleges. In August, the Department of Education announced a final extension of the pandemic-related pause on student loan repayment, interest, and collections until January 31, 2022.

"It's not enough," Schumer said last month. "We need to do more."

Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment.

Go here to see the original:
'Good for the Economy': Progressives Escalate Pressure on Biden to Cancel Student Debt - Newsweek

WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) Democrats are going toe-to-toe to try and get their policies inside President Joe Bidens final Build Back Better plan.

Some Democrats say they are growing worried important climate initiatives could be scrapped in an effort to appease moderate Democrats who have voiced concerns of their own.

Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., says Congress cannot wait to address climate change.

Were going to need more than pretty words, Casten said. If you look at the west on fire, if you look at the floods, if you look at the hurricanes and say, you know what we should do, kick the can down the road. Then you dont belong in this line of work.

Casten is fighting to make sure robust climate policies remain inside the presidents Build Back Better plan.

We need binding action, Casten said.

He says the planned policies will reduce carbon dioxide emissions in 2030 by 45%.

Thats not enough but that would be the most transformative, most significant climate policy ever passed by the United States, he said.

On Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vowed to keep climate policies at the forefront of the presidents plan, days after she met with Pope Francis and global leaders about the issue of climate change.

We have a moral responsibility, Pelosi said.

But Casten says he is deeply concerned moderates representing fossil fuel states, like Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., could sour that commitment.

We do have provisions in this bill to help out those parts of the country, Casten said. Weve tried to be thoughtful about it.

The White House says negotiations are still underway.

Were working with Sen. Manchin, were working with a range of Democrats, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said.

But Republicans who oppose the package across the board say they hope moderates do not cave.

These bills are inaccurate, theyre wrong, Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., said. Now we know that wont work, largely because of Senators Manchin and Sinema.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., is in favor of potential tax incentives in the bill.

As the author of the expanded and improved 45Q carbon capture tax credit, of course Im in favor of encouraging carbon capture projects, and I have a bill with Senator Smith to make the tax credit more accessible. But it seems this potential 45Q increase comes only in exchange for more Democratic support of CEPPa program that would penalize energy producers much more than 45Q would reward them. Boosting the 45Q tax credit would not even come close to negating the devastating impact CEPP would have on coal and natural gas plants.

Democrats have until the end of the month to get moderates and progressives united behind one plan.

The White House announced Thursday that Biden will also be traveling to Europe at the end of the month to meet with the Pope and to attend the UN annual climate conference.

Here is the original post:
Progressives press for climate reforms to stay in spending package - KXAN.com

Progressive groups will rally Thursday on the Ellipse to press President Biden and Congress to keep paid family medical leave in the social spending package that ultimately gets a vote, Axios has learned.

The big picture: Look for these and other advocates to step up their public engagement to keep their cherished programs from being axed, as congressional negotiators trim the size of Democrats' budget reconciliation package to roughly $2 trillion, from a $3.5 trillion starting point.

Between the lines: Some of the biggest supporters of a paid leave proposal costing as much as $500 billion have been reading tea leaves since President Biden did not mention it in his Michigan speech last week.

Driving the news: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday appeared to be bracing her caucus for major proposals to be scrapped from the package when she told colleagues in a memo that Congress should do fewer things well.

Be smart: Through the Care Cant Wait Coalition, groups are seeking to remain united rather than turn against one another's programs to save their own.

Details: Democrats have three main caregiving proposals: paid family medical leave, a new program to help cover costs for caring for an older family member and subsidies for day care and universal preschool.

What we're watching: Paid leave advocates are making it clear that they supported the American Families Plan, which dedicated $225 billion for the program, much lower than the $500 billion in the House version. They're willing to trim the number of weeks from 12 to four that someone can take off to care for a family member.

The bottom line: At a certain point, the groups now presenting a unified front may be asked to endorse a final bill that doesnt include their specific program.

Read this article:
First look: Progressives plan rally to keep paid family leave in plan - Axios