Mediaboss Marketing

By Ronald J. Rosenberg

When U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi announced his Democratic primary run against Gov. Kathy Hochul, it may have seemed like a DAmato moment.Alfonse DAmato, then the Town of Hempstead supervisor, saw a glimmer of political daylight in 1980, when he decided to reach for the political gold ring of U.S. senator from New York. Defeating the legendary three-term incumbent Jacob Javits was deemed impossible by every political pundit and commentator, and you wouldve assumed that not even the bookies would take your bet. Yet DAmato successfully navigated every political rapid to secure victory, a win that stands to this day as testimony to astute political analysis, hard work and an indomitable belief in oneself. When Suozzi first announced his intention to run against Hochul, he rightly assumed that state Attorney General Letitia James would remain a Democratic primary candidate for governor. Given her left-wing credentials, combined with the progressive candidate for that office, Jumaane Williams, Suozzi reasoned that moderate Democrats would look for a safe house from which to escape the Democrats lurch to the left. He certainly has the credentials to be that moderate. But with James backing out of the race, the political threat from the left that Suozzi had expected to help rally centrist Democrats evaporated. Williams doesnt have the recognition, sufficient base or fundraising capabilities for a credible statewide race. That leaves Hochul in a powerful place, because she has the means to outflank Suozzi on any number of fronts.

Ronald J. Rosenberg has been an attorney for 42 years, concentrating in commercial litigation and transactions, and real estate, municipal, zoning and land use law. He founded the Garden City law firm Rosenberg Calica & Birney in 1999.

See original here:
How progressives might be left in the lurch - liherald.com

Inflation has become a big issue for the U.S. economy and, of course, a big political headache for the Biden administration. But while many people have been urging President Joe Biden to focus on inflation, there have been many fewer suggestions about what he might actually do. (Wander around the White House muttering, Im focused, Im focused?) For the most part, controlling inflation is now a matter for monetary policy, and the main thing that Biden can do is let the technocrats who control money do their job which means not engaging in Trump-style haranguing of the Federal Reserve.

One thing the Biden administration has been doing, however, is trying to toughen up antitrust policy, arguing that highly concentrated ownership in many industries largely a result of decades of lax regulation is helping keep prices high and possibly contributing to recent inflation.

Id describe this initiative as controversial, except that theres hardly any controversy, at least in the media: Bidens linkage of monopoly power to inflation is facing vehement, almost hysterical, criticism from all sides, including many progressive commentators. And I find that vehemence puzzling; I think it says more about the commentators than it does about the administration.

Lets stipulate that monopolies arent the reason inflation shot up in 2021 because there was already plenty of monopoly power in America back in 2020.

True, profit margins, as measured by the share of profits in gross domestic product, have increased quite a lot recently. Most of that rise, however, probably reflects big returns to companies, like shippers, that happen to own crucial assets at a time of supply chain bottlenecks. Its possible, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren has suggested, that some companies are using general inflation as an excuse to jack up prices, abusing their monopoly power in ways that might have provoked a backlash in normal times; thats certainly not a crazy argument, and making it doesnt make Warren the second coming of Hugo Chavez. Still, such behavior cant explain more than a small fraction of current inflation.

But as far as I can see, the Biden administration and its allies arent claiming otherwise. Theyre simply emphasizing monopoly power because its one thing they might be able to do something about.

And where is the policy harm? On one side, toughening up antitrust enforcement in sectors like meatpacking is something the U.S. government should be doing in any case. On the other side, theres no hint that the administrations anti-monopoly rhetoric will lead to irresponsible policies elsewhere.

As I said, all indications are that Biden and company will leave the Fed alone as it raises interest rates in an effort to cool demand. And I havent seen any important Democratic figure, inside or outside the administration, calling for Richard Nixon-style price controls. The most interventionist policy that seems remotely possible would be something like John F. Kennedys jawboning of the steel industry after an obviously coordinated jump in steel prices and its hard to imagine Biden sounding nearly as hard-line and critical of big business as Kennedy did.

So why the barrage of criticism, not just from the right which was to be expected but from the center and even the center-left?

I dont really know the answer, but I have a few suspicions.

Part of the problem, I think, is an obsession with intellectual purity. Some policy wonks outside the administration apparently expect the policy wonks inside the administration many of them friends and former colleagues to keep sounding exactly the way they did when they werent political appointees. But look, thats not the way the world works. Political appointees are supposed to serve the politicians who appointed them. Dishonesty or gross misrepresentation of reality isnt OK, but emphasizing the good things ones employers are trying to do is OK and part of the job.

Beyond that, it sure looks as if many people who consider themselves progressive are made deeply uncomfortable by anything that sounds populist even when a bit of populist outrage is entirely justified by the facts. Imagine the reaction if Biden gave a speech sounding anything like Kennedy on the steel companies. How many Democratic-leaning economists would have fainting spells?

So heres my suggestion: Give Biden and his people a break on their antitrust crusade. It wont do any harm. It wont get in the way of the big stuff, which is mostly outside Bidens control in any case.

At worst, administration officials will be using inflation as an excuse to do things they should be doing. And they might even have a marginal impact on inflation itself.

Paul Krugman is an economist and a New York Times columnist.

Read the original post:
Paul Krugman: Why are progressives hating on antitrust? - Berkshire Eagle

Every year for the past 48 years, anti-abortion activists have gathered in our nation's capital to protest the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in all 50 states.

This year, faced with the realistic prospect of that decision being overturned, hopes are at an all-time high. This is one important change that will make the annual March for Life feel different.

A less striking change will be the large contingent of progressives and liberals who are turning up in greater numbers each year. Yes, the event is often championed by right-wing politicians and organizations. At the same time, progressives like us are marching too: even progressive atheists, such as myself (Terrisa).

When we first marched in the March for Life, it was a challenge to find others who shared our worldview. Today, signs by liberal or secular groups are among the most visible at the March: Rehumanize International, Secular Pro-Life, Feminists for Life, PLAGAL+ (The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians) and more.

This change at the March reflects the growing number of non-religious and progressive Americans who oppose abortion. In 2012, the Pew Research Center found that 24 percent of non-religious Americans believe abortion should be mostly or always illegal. In 2018, Gallup found that figure was up to 30 percent.

But it's also driven by the pro-life movement's improved outreach to secular and liberal Americans. The movement has increasingly relied on messages that resonate with the core beliefs of millennials and Gen Z. We don't consider these arguments dishonest or backhanded: on the contrary, we believe they capture the heart of the pro-life movement.

First, the pro-life movement gives increasing weight to science. In 1973, the Supreme Court told us that there has "always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth." Today, 95 percent of biologists affirm the view that human life begins at fertilization. Modern advances in ultrasound technology and discoveries in prenatal development have laid the Roe Court's view to rest, rendering the decision obsolete.

Second, the pro-life movement is increasingly calling out the anti-feminist assumptions of the abortion-industrial complex. It is anti-feminist to suggest that women need abortions to succeed in a world that still hasn't upended patriarchal assumptions in families and the workplace. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the non-violent instincts of feminism to tie the liberation of women to the elimination of any group of human beings. Girls, furthermore, are disproportionately the targets of abortionespecially in places like China, India and parts of Eastern Europe.

Third, the pro-life movement increasingly points out the economic interests of the abortion-rights movement. We respect the personal sincerity of abortion rights proponents. Sadly, however, this social movement is inextricably tied to the interests of Big Abortion, a $3 billion industry. This industry stands to lose a lot if the demands of progressive pro-liferspaid parental leave, free health care, an increased focus on preventing unwanted pregnancy and, critically, ending legal elective abortion by targeting abortionistsare met. As younger Americans grow skeptical of the excesses of capitalism, they increasingly understand the conflicted motives behind the movement to expand access to abortion.

Finally, progressive Americans are finding it more difficult to square their commitment to non-discrimination with advocacy for abortion. Sophie Trist, a blind progressive advocate against abortion, speaks movingly about the ableist implications of abortion for people living with a disability. Some countries, like Iceland, claim to have "eliminated" Down Syndromea feat accomplished not by some miracle cure but by systematic elimination of human beings likely to have Down Syndrome in the uterus. This month, The New York Times ran an investigation revealing that many, if not most, prenatal tests used to diagnose Down Syndrome are not even accurate.

Fundamentally, we believe there will never be equity in our nation as long as we try to achieve it by ending the lives of the tiniest human beings among us.

Because we cannot outspend the industry, our quest for justice as a movement relies on our ability to mobilize enough people power for non-violent resistance. That is what the March for Life is all about.

This year, we hope, Roe v. Wade will fall under the weight of a pro-life revolution. We look forward to the day abortion is a distant memory of a late-capitalist past when profit mattered more than human lives.

Terrisa Bukovinac is founder and President of PAAU (Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising). Xavier Bisits is Secretary of PAAU and former Vice President of Democrats for Life of America.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

The rest is here:
The Progressive Case Against Abortion | Opinion - Newsweek

In better times, the French left used to draw inspiration from the old Popular Front phrase, les lendemains qui chantent (the tomorrows that sing). These days that kind of optimism along with any sense of unity among progressives is just a poignant memory.

With less than 100 days to go before the first round of the French presidential election, the jockeying for position among the flatlining candidates of the left has become a fractious sideshow, as the campaign continues to be dominated by the right. At the weekend, the Socialist former justice minister, Christiane Taubira, became the latest hopeful to formally throw her hat into the ring. She joins the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo also a Socialist France Unboweds veteran hard-left leader Jean-Luc Mlenchon, the Green candidate, Yannick Jadot, and an assortment of fringe figures. None of the candidates has managed to break through the 10% barrier in polls and none has a chance of making it through to the second round of voting; yet all remain in the race, vying to take votes from each other. Singing tomorrows have given way to a cacophonous clashing of stubborn egos. The result is that the 30% or so of voters who identify as being on the broad left are being effectively disfranchised.

Ms Taubira is associated with one of the most notable progressive victories in recent times, having pushed through same-sex marriage in 2013. Charismatic and popular with grassroots activists, she will hope that her radical pedigree can transcend the factional warfare. But there is also a risk that she simply divides this divided field still further. Ms Hidalgo recently warned that the choice for the left was to either unite or risk eventual extinction as a political force in France. But Mr Jadot and Mr Mlenchon, whose poll ratings have more than halved since the election of 2017, have both refused to recognise the validity of an unofficial peoples primary at the end of the month.

It is a sorry spectacle. In 2012, following the election of Franois Hollande as president, the Parti Socialiste controlled the lyse, both houses of parliament and most regional administrations. It then paid a heavy price for enacting post-crash austerity measures and haemorrhaged working-class support during the growing backlash against globalisation. In 2017, the party was out-manoeuvred by Emmanuel Macron, who left it to set up the centrist En Marche movement and successfully brought about a realignment in which he became the presidential bulwark against the threat of the far right.

Faced with these formidable structural challenges, the French left cannot afford the luxury of endless infighting and self-indulgent campaigns leading to mutually assured destruction at the polls. The peoples primary was set up by progressive activists in a last-ditch attempt to achieve a united front. It seems destined to fail in that aim though it may serve as a kind of launchpad for Ms Taubira, who has said she will not run unless she wins. The near-certain humiliation that awaits the left in April should be the catalyst for a radical reboot of how progressive politics is done in France.

Read the original here:
The Guardian view on French progressives: divided they fall - The Guardian

President Joe Biden needs a win, observed NBC News reporter Jonathan Allen last September. Following a string of bad headlines on issues ranging from the resurgent pandemic to the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to a brewing immigration crisis, the administration was desperate for a victory. It didnt get one. As 2021 came to a close, Bidens ambitious legislative initiatives mostly imploded, and the courts struck down his pandemic-related executive initiatives (the eviction moratorium in September, and the private sector vaccine mandate in January). Today, approaching the end of the presidents first year in office, only the most committed partisan hacks can ignore President Joe Bidens losing streak.

This negative perception is an outgrowth of the unreasonable demands the progressive left has made on this administration.

But this negative perception is an outgrowth of the unreasonable demands the progressive left has made on this administration. The presidents first year in office was not bereft of significant and popular accomplishments. In his first weeks in office, Biden signed into law a nearly $2 trillion Covid relief package and, months later, affixed his signature to the largest investment in American infrastructure in the countrys history both of which earned significant bipartisan support in Congress.

Those achievements dont feel especially significant because the Biden administrations progressive allies have set their sights higher, and the White House is allergic to managing their expectations. And yet, the failure of progressive initiatives ranging from a vaccine mandate for private businesses to the Build Back Better bill and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act have set the Biden White House up for a comeback. The only question is, can the administration make the most of it?

A CBS News/YouGov survey released on Jan. 16 diagnoses the administrations primary political malady: Namely, that voters priorities dont seem to align with the presidents. Among all registered voters, the issues that matter most are the economy and jobs, inflation, and, of course, the coronavirus outbreak. Though Biden has tried to convince the public that his long-sought legislative agenda, which predates the current inflationary spiral and is only tangentially related to Covid, would somehow remedy those conditions, many voters arent buying it.

According to that poll, majorities say Biden and his fellow Democrats either dont care about or only care a little about the issues that matter to them. Fewer than half of voters described Biden as competent, focused and effective today. Sixty-four percent of respondents say Americas battle against Covid is going badly. Fifty-eight percent add Biden hasnt devoted enough attention to the economy. Another 65 percent say the same of Bidens disregard for inflation an issue on which 7 in 10 voters disapprove of the presidents performance. But when asked what would improve their opinion of the president, getting inflation under control or passing the Build Back Better bill, a staggering 63 to 24 percent sided with inflation.

And therein lies the opportunity for the Biden White House. That is, if theyre willing to take it.

Democrats spent the better part of the last six months engaged in an insular conversation among themselves over the smorgasbord of legislative reforms bundled up in the Build Back Better bill. But that discussion also often highlighted the price tag. For months after Congress carved the hard infrastructure out of the legislation, this reconciliation bill was known simply as the $3.5 trillion spending plan, the $3.5 trillion Budget Blueprint, or the $3.5 trillion investment. When you spend most of your time calling out an initiatives cost, dont be surprised when the public treats it like a bill they have to pay.

In October, pollsters Joel Benenson and Neil Newhouse found that 71 percent of self-identified independents agreed with the notion that Americans will continue to pay more money on everyday expenses unless the government becomes more fiscally responsible. Thats a reasonable connection to make amid the worst inflation in 40 years and the unprecedented injection of $6 trillion into the economy.

Try as they might, Democrats cannot talk Americans out of noticing the rising cost of consumer goods, nor can they decouple Washingtons spending frenzy from that unhappy condition in voters minds. Nor are they wrong to make that association, according to the San Francisco Federal Reserve, which has warned that excessive Covid relief is contributing to inflationary pressures on the economy. Congresss failure to introduce another $2 trillion in government spending into an already heated economy is, in fact, a gift for this White House. That, and the apparent demise of the Democrats voting rights legislation (which is the priority of just 16 percent of the public, per CBS/YouGov), provides this president with an opportunity to pivot.

Given the administrations makeup, which Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein observed is packed with scores of liberal policy thinkers at its highest levels who come from the [Bernie] Sanders and [Elizabeth] Warren faction of the party, abandoning the preconditions that the left believes constitute success will be bitterly resisted. But this administrations efforts to mollify progressives are arousing the resentment of a much larger host. According to Gallup, voters party identification shifted from a 9-point Democratic advantage to a 5-point GOP lead at the end of 2021. Most of that shift occurred in the second half of the year, amid worsening conditions at home and abroad and with Democrats squarely focused on their partys narrow priorities over the more pressing issues facing the country. If that trend continues into November, it portends a calamitous midterm election year for the party in power.

What would such a pivot look like? Maybe something like the transformation Bill Clintons presidency underwent. Then as now, the president spent his first year in office pursuing transformational social legislation that undermined his self-styled image as a centrist policymaker and bridge-builder. Clinton failed to read the writing on the wall in time to avert a disastrous midterm election, but the message voters were sending was received by 1995.

What would such a pivot look like? Maybe something like the transformation Bill Clintons presidency underwent.

With the aid of his less ideological advisers, Clinton co-opted the Republican issue set by embracing fiscal prudence, opposing racial quotas in the private sector, and endorsing a moral crusade against violence in media. His pollsters went into the field not with the goal of drumming up support for the Democratic agenda but to learn what voters actually wanted particularly those demographics that had most soured on his administration and crafted an agenda around their concerns. Most importantly, the Clinton White House abandoned its pursuit of big, bold reforms in favor of basic managerial competence (for example, overseeing the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing and containing a geopolitical crisis in the Balkans). The contrast with a GOP-led Congress so fractious it couldnt even keep the governments lights on was mighty. Bill Clintons makeover worked.

A smaller, more quotidian approach to the day-to-day business of managing a country mired in a prolonged crisis would go a long way toward restoring the impression in voters minds that they got the president they voted for in November 2020. Biden can escape the box canyon into which progressives have corralled his administration. Their failures have given the president a pathway out. All he has to do is take it.

Read more:
Biden popularity poll amid voting rights vote seems bad. But there's a silver lining. - MSNBC