Mediaboss Marketing

Less than three months before the New York City mayoral primary, the citys progressive left has declined to coalesce behind a single contender. Some of the most influential organizations, like the Working Families Party, havent endorsed yet, and some of the biggest individual players, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, might not endorse at all. But looking at the endorsements that have come so far, three candidates have emerged as progressive favorites: New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, former nonprofit leader Dianne Morales, and former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, Maya Wiley. And movement leaders are putting their faith into ranked-choice voting, hoping the divided support actually becomes an asset.

Supporting multiple candidates, having them all do semi-well, take away votes from the ones you dont want to win I think is an actual strategy, said Linda Sarsour, a Brooklyn-based activist who is influential in the progressive movement. It may seem like its not a strategy, but I actually feel like people are being a lot more strategic than theyre getting credit for.

The progressive movement in New York can be loosely defined as the individuals and organizations that supported Cynthia Nixon over Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the 2018 primary. While labor unions are often allies to this movement, their role and influence in the mayoral race is a different question entirely, driven by different motivations than a typical ideologically driven political organization, like the New York City Democratic Socialists of America or New York Communities for Change.

Members of the movement largely agree that Stringer, Morales and Wiley are most aligned with the group on policies like defunding the police, increasing taxes on the wealthy and forgiving unpaid rent accrued during the coronavirus pandemic. But there are enough policy disagreements among them, as well as different approaches, that choosing who to support, and in what order, is a hot topic of debate.

Our membership were kind of evenly split between who their favorite progressive was, said George Albro, co-chair of the New York Progressive Action Network, or NYPAN, which was born of Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. And rather than be a divisive choice, we thought wed unify the progressives in the race by doing a dual endorsement, of Morales and Wiley. But one persons unity is anothers division, and Stringer was the one left out. Albro was spooked by recent polling that didnt show Stringer in the commanding position he hoped to be in at this point. But theres also issues of race and gender to consider. Im not into identity politics per se, but weve never had a woman mayor of New York City, and weve gone 28 straight years with a white male mayor, Albro said. Stringer is a white man, while Wiley is a Black woman and Morales is Afro-Latina.

As much as Stringers identity may have been an asset in life, it could be a liability when trying to win progressive support in 2021. Still, it hasnt seemed to hinder him too much he has many more endorsements than either Morales or Wiley, including from women of color like state Sen. Jessica Ramos and Assembly Member Diana Richardson, who have been outspoken advocates for Stringers campaign.

In politics, discussions of race and gender often become questions of electability. Look no further than President Joe Bidens victory in the historically diverse presidential primary field, where a central argument of his supporters was that he, a traditional white male candidate, had the best chance to beat Donald Trump. But RCV may provide progressive voters a way to support a candidate like Morales, even if they harbor doubts about her viability as a first-time candidate in a crowded field and her low polling. Morales is basically the candidate practical lefties would never choose in a FPTP (first-past-the-post voting, the previous style) election, but with ranked choice, why not?, Steve Fox, an NYC-DSA member who works for Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, recently tweeted. Ill be putting her as my number one and Stringer as my number two. Stringer is who Id vote for in a FPTP primary.

Morales in particular has been earning interest from the socialist corners of the wider progressive movement.

Dianne doesnt identify as a socialist, but a lot of socialists like her, said state Sen. Jabari Brisport, who recently endorsed Morales as his first choice and Stringer as his second. Brisport is an NYC-DSA member, and although the organization isnt planning to get formally involved in the mayoral race, Brisport expects individual members will be inspired to help Morales.

Wiley is getting much less attention from leftists, many of whom see the former cable news legal analyst as a sort of MSNBC liberal, who doesnt actually want radical change. Of course, theres also some skepticism of Stringer. He has an impressive track record of endorsing progressive insurgents and speaking up on the right issues, but some cant help but think the longtime political operator is an opportunist, riding the progressive wave.

Enthusiastic or not, Stringer has far more money in his account than Wiley and Morales, solid name recognition, and enough political experience to last two lifetimes. And some in the progressive movement would rather go all-in on Stringer than put too much faith in RCV.

Scott is the lone progressive in this race with the political strength and resources to mount a successful challenge to Andrew Yang and Eric Adams corporate candidates who will betray working-class and poor New Yorkers, said Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change in the organizations endorsement announcement. NYCC called on other groups on the left to rally around Stringer and help him stay competitive with Yang and Adams both of whom the movement views largely with disdain.

Stringer campaign spokesperson Tyrone Stevens insists that consolidation is already on track. Were building the progressive multiracial intergenerational coalition we need to win this race, he said. We have the most progressive support of any candidate for good reason and were proud of it. But many organizations and figures have yet to endorse. The Working Families Party is being closely watched, and an endorsement is said to be coming within the month. Jumaane Williams, another sought-after endorsement, hasnt formally backed a candidate yet, but is expected to. Same goes for his 2018 running mate Cynthia Nixon, and major groups like Make the Road Action. If they all back Stringer, it would be a strong case for consolidation, but if not, then the left will remain split in the mayoral race.

But with RCV throwing even more uncertainty into the mayoral race than usual, Sarsour doesnt think thats necessarily a bad thing.

The left is really being cautious about putting all their eggs in one basket, she said. Because with ranked-choice voting, you dont exactly know how its going to go.

Go here to read the rest:
In the mayoral race, progressives place their trust in RCV - City & State

More than two dozen House Democrats asked the Federal Reserve on Thursday to use its full arsenal of policy tools to direct funding away from the fossil fuel industry and toward communities harmed by climate change and pollution.

In a Thursday letter to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, 25 Democratic lawmakers asked the central bank to take more aggressive steps to fight climate change, including several actions the Fed has explicitly refused to take.

Without concrete objectives and measurable changes to the supervisory framework and monetary policy activities carried out by the Fed, we worry progress will be both too slow and insufficient in scale to adequately address the reality of the crisis our economy and our planet face, wrote the Democrats, led by Reps. Mondaire Jones (N.Y.) and Rashida TlaibRashida Harbi TlaibOmar on arrest of Georgia state lawmaker: 'Wild and completely unacceptable' Ocasio-Cortez endorses Turner in Ohio special election Democrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP MORE (Mich.).

The Fed has drawn political fire from Republicans for its early steps toward consideringthe risks climate change poses to financial stability and the economy. The bank has established two panels to research and identify those dangers, and is considering ways to incorporate climate risks into its supervision of U.S. banks.

Republicans have warned the Fed against steering banks and lenders away from fossil fuel production and toward green energy. But Powell and other Fed officials have unequivocally ruled this direction out.

We are not climate policymakers here who can decide the way climate change will be addressed by the United States. Were a regulatory agency that regulates a part of the economy, Powell told aHouse panel in February.

Some progressive Democrats, however, are pushing the Fed to do exactly what Republicans have pressured the bank to avoid.

Given the Feds financial stability objectives and supervisory role over these institutions, we believe there is a clear need and ability for the Fed to incentivize and enforce a reduction in fossil fuel financing, the House Democrats wrote.

The lawmakers asked Powell to explore all possible authorities it can use to encourage and support bank investment aimed at limiting global temperature rise ... with a particular emphasis on lending to low-income communities and communities of color hit the hardest by pollution and climate change.

The Democrats also asked the Fed to incorporate climate risks into its bank stress-testing regime another step the Fed has all but ruled out for now and gear future emergency lending facilities toward fighting climate change and away from supporting fossil fuel companies.

We echo the calls made by climate activists and concerned citizens for further action toprotect our financial system, our economy, and our planet from the devastating impacts ofclimate change," they wrote.

Read more from the original source:
Progressives push Fed to drive funding away from fossil fuel companies | TheHill - The Hill

Progressives are making a mistake by pushing Senate Democratic leaders to do away with the filibuster. If their agenda is worth fighting forand it isits worth the inconvenience involved in confronting the threat of the filibuster and forcing the obstructors to stand up and talk for days on the Senate floor.

Some argue that President Bidens agenda can only be realized if the requirement for a 60-vote supermajority to end debate is eliminated. Actually, the opposite is true. Democrats should force Republicans who are bent on obstruction to state their objections to the presidents policies on the Senate floor. Most of the time, the mere threat of a filibuster is permitted to prevent a vote, but many issues would lack enough senators to sustain a real filibuster.

Admittedly, if the number of filibustering senators is large, it may be hard to wear them down physically. But progressive programs are popular, and the way to advance them is by highlighting exactly who is standing in the way of progress. Drawing media attention and building public support increases the pressure on the obstructionists to end their unpopular activity.

Abolishing the filibuster is shortsighted, but reform may well be necessary. Heres how: First, foreclose senators ability to filibuster the procedural motion to bring a bill to the floor by limiting debate to one hour. Second, change the cloture rule for ending debate from three-fifths of all senators (a supermajority of 60 when no seats are vacant) to three-fifths of senators voting. Those senators blocking cloture should be required to do so by being present and voting. Finally, the majority leader should eliminate or curtail the senatorial courtesy known as a hold, which is a de facto filibuster.

The Democrats elimination of the filibuster for judicial nominations in 2013 led to the confirmation by majority vote of three Supreme Court justices and 54 federal appellate judges, appointed to life terms by President Trump. It was a strategic mistake that will reshape the judiciary for decades to come. (One of us, Mr. Levin, cast one of three Democratic no votes in 2013.)

Read more here:
Progressives Would Miss the Filibuster - The Wall Street Journal

Theres a growing argument, coming mostly from the left, that President Joe Bidens foreign policy is essentially the same as former President Donald Trumps.

It goes something like this: Two months into his administration, Biden is pursuing many of the same objectives as his predecessor. Sure, the tone has changed namely, talk of rebuilding alliances and defending democracy and human rights but much of the substance remains the same.

For example, Biden has taken an adversarial stance toward China and Russia; sold billions in weapons to a dictator in Egypt; kept the economic sanctions Trump imposed on Iran and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in place; declined to sanction Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for his role in ordering the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi; and is unlikely to drastically slash the Pentagon budget.

In effect, they argue that US foreign policy right now is Trumps with Bidenesque characteristics.

That critique is coming from a small but vocal chorus of analysts, activists, and noted commentators like Noam Chomsky. Stephen Miles, executive director of the progressive foreign policy group Win Without War, recently told Politico that Theres this fear of being attacked on the right of not being tough enough on China or Iran or other issues. The problem, he adds, is there doesnt seem to be as much concern about the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party.

Its a provocative case, but its not very convincing. While there are some similarities between the two presidents, Biden and Trump have extremely different foreign policies. Any claims that theyre the same are incomplete at best.

In December, I wrote a story about how Biden wanted the US to pursue a traditional, post-World War II foreign policy to defend the liberal international order essentially the diplomatic and economic rules and norms that run the world. As Biden formed a team to do just that, progressives I interviewed couldnt mask their displeasure.

Americans are looking for a complete, fundamental shift in US foreign policy, Yasmine Taeb, a senior fellow at the progressive Center for International Policy whos leading the lefts critique of Bidens team, told me at the time. I hope they recognize that the vast majority of the American people have rejected establishment foreign policy and the trajectory that weve been on for decades.

Now, Taeb and others are essentially saying, I told you so. They argue that two months into Bidens presidency, its clear that complete, fundamental shift in US foreign policy hasnt happened yet. What Americans have gotten instead is a Biden foreign policy that echoes Trumps more than progressive critics like.

Take Biden selling $200 million in missiles to Egypt, a country led by a dictator who has routinely violated human rights, jailing thousands of political dissidents and killing hundreds more. Bidens detractors compare that to Trumps decision to sell $8 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, even after Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the 2018 murder of US resident Jamal Khashoggi.

They also point out that Bidens team hasnt lifted sanctions the Trump administration placed on the ICC. Trump took that action because the ICC was considering opening two investigations: one into alleged war crimes committed by US troops during the Afghanistan war, and one into alleged war crimes committed by Israelis and Palestinians during the 2014 Gaza War; the court was also considering making a determination on whether Israeli settlements in the West Bank constitute a war crime.

Two months in, Bidens team has kept those sanctions in place. Its not exactly clear why; when asked by reporters, the administration usually declines to comment. But Axios and the Guardian last month noted that Jerusalem is lobbying allies, including the US, to keep the financial pressure on the court in hopes that it will drop the case.

That rationale that the Biden administration is keeping Trumps sanctions on partly at Israels behest tracks with comments some US officials have made.

We have serious concerns about the ICCs attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a February statement. The United States has always taken the position that the courts jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it, or that are referred by the UN Security Council.

For these and the other reasons cited above, critics say Bidens foreign policy represents more continuity than change from the Trump years. That seems fair on the surface, but the truth is Bidens foreign policy is nothing like Trumps. Not even close.

Consider either what Biden has done or has said he wants to do on foreign policy:

Theres more, but its already notable that Biden and Trump just dont see the world the same way.

Whats more, Bidens different tone defending democracy and supporting human rights, among other things is in itself a substantive policy change from the Trump years.

I made it clear that no American president [should] ever back down from speaking out of whats happening to the Uyghurs, whats happening in Hong Kong, whats happening in-country, Biden said during a press conference last week about his conversations with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The moment a president walks away from that, as the last one did, is the moment we begin to lose our legitimacy around the world, he continued. Its who we are.

Biden has followed through on his rhetoric by sanctioning Chinese officials for human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and for cracking down on Hong Kongs democracy.

But dont take it from me or Biden. Trump administration officials also note the wide gap between the current presidents positions and the old ones.

Indeed, the list above didnt just come from my head. It came from conversations with Trump-era staff who said US foreign policy would be a bit different, according to one, if the Republican had won a second term.

Among other things, they said the US wouldnt have extended New START for five years, rejoined the WHO, lifted the terrorist label on the Houthis, or pushed for a return to the UN Human Rights Council.

And already former Trump administration officials, like then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, are blasting Biden for pursuing a foreign policy built around defending democracy and human rights instead of pure national interests.

The central theme of President Bidens foreign policy is a global, muscular liberalism, he wrote in the Washington Post last week. But it is not a sensible policy today, he wrote, partly because the US is no longer the unquestioned global power.

While he didnt specifically mention Trump in the piece, he argued the more economic-focused course Trump took making sure we can determine our future free of external coercion and being able to trade and invest overseas on terms that promote a broad-based national prosperity would be better.

So no, Bidens foreign policy isnt nearly the same as Trumps. But the meme persists, it seems, mostly because Biden has yet to return the US to the Iran nuclear deal.

Those who argue Biden is pursuing a Trump-like foreign policy have one overriding complaint: that Biden hasnt lifted Trump-imposed sanctions on Iran as a way to return swiftly to the nuclear pact a decision praised by Jared Kushner, Trumps senior adviser and son in law.

But Bidens team says the situation isnt as simple as progressives and Iran doves make it out to be. Tehran is in violation of the agreement, namely by enriching uranium at levels beyond caps outlined in the deal. Until the US can verify Iran has come back into compliance, theres no reason to remove the economic leverage America has.

Indeed, Bidens team feels they inherited a bad situation. After Trump withdrew the US from the pact in 2018, Iran decided to violate the deal as a way to pressure the US back into the accord. Dropping the sanctions now, some in the new administration would say, rewards Tehran for no longer abiding by the nuclear deals terms.

Hence the delay. The US would have to evaluate whether they were actually making good if they say they are coming back into compliance with their obligations, and then we would take it from there, Secretary of State Tony Blinken said in his January confirmation hearing.

But even here theres a yawning gap between how Trump and Biden handle the issue. The Trump administration wanted Iran to change nearly every aspect of its foreign policy before winning sanctions relief. Biden just wants Iran to abide by the nuclear pact again, and has even proposed partial sanctions removal for partial compliance.

Ryan Tully, who served as a top official on Trumps National Security Council, confirmed his team wouldve pursued a different course. We wouldnt give sanctions relief to get to the negotiating table with Iran, he told me.

The US may not be back in the nuclear deal, then, but its at least trying to get there. Biden is offering Tehran a way out that doesnt involve either its capitulation or collapse, said Henry Rome, an expert on US policy toward Iran at the Eurasia Group consulting firm. Its a very different ballgame.

A very different ballgame goes not only for Bidens Iran policy, but his entire foreign policy. There are clearly some similarities between the last two administrations its been only two months, after all but overall, they are vastly different.

An informed electorate is essential to a functioning democracy. Vox aims to provide clear, concise information that helps people understand the the issues and policy that affects their lives and its never been more vital than today. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive. Support from our readers helps us keep our work free for everyone. If you have already made a financial contribution to Vox, thank you. If not, please consider making a contribution today from as little as $3.

Here is the original post:
Bidens foreign policy isnt the same as Trumps - Vox.com

Progressives are trying to sell President Biden's infrastructure initiative with new cable TV ads arguing clean energy projects will immediately create thousands of jobs.

Why it matters: White House press secretary Jen Psaki suggested Sunday that Biden will split his potential $3 trillion package in two investments in infrastructure, followed by billions more for the caregiving economy. The first political fight may be over what qualifies as infrastructure.

Our thought bubble: "There may be resistance to making the infrastructure bills too climate-heavy, unless the public views clean energy spending as a win/win for jobs and the environment," writes Axios energy and climate reporter Andrew Freedman.

Between the lines: White House officials know theres a limit to the number of shovel-ready jobs in any infrastructure package.

The big picture: By dividing Bidens Build Back Better agenda into two legislative proposals, the White House is trying to suggest the first one wont engender much controversy.

By the numbers: Like Bidens $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, Democrats insist the presidents infrastructure proposals have national bipartisan support, even if House and Senate Republicans have signaled their opposition.

Between the lines: More than two-thirds of voters would be more likely to support the Build Back Better plan if it prioritizes oil and gas workers for new clean energy jobs, and if they have the chance to unionize.

The bottom line: Democrats insist any laid-off workers in the oil and gas industry will be able to find employment in the green energy economy.

Read more:
Progressives try to sell climate spending with jobs pitch - Axios