Mediaboss Marketing

The progressive group Democracy for America will back Democrat Paulette Jordans long-shot bid to unseat Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho).

Idaho is a deep-red state and Risch won reelection by 30 points there in 2014.

But progressives believe they have a rising star in Jordan, who in 2018 became the first Native American woman to be a major party nominee for governor in U.S. history. Jordan would be the first Native American woman elected to the Senate if she wins.

When she gets to the U.S. Senate, Paulette Jordan will be a fearless voice for progress, a relentless advocate for the people of Idaho, and a history-making trailblazer for Native American women, saidDFA CEO Charles Chamberlain.

Ready to fight for a transformative approach to healthcare like Medicare for All and justice for every American who calls our country home, Paulette Jordan is running for U.S. Senate to put people first not corporate lobbyists or D.C. insiders. DFA was honored to stand with Paulette in 2018, were excited to fight alongside her today, and we cant wait to work with her in Washington as she gets busy delivering for Idahoans.

Jordan won the Democratic Senate primary in Idaho with 85 percent support.

She served four years in the Idaho state house before running for governor in 2018. Gov. Brad Little (R) won that election by 20 points. President TrumpDonald John TrumpDemocrats blast Trump for commuting Roger Stone: 'The most corrupt president in history' Trump confirms 2018 US cyberattack on Russian troll farm Trump tweets his support for Goya Foods amid boycott MORE carried Idaho by more than 30 points in 2016.

More:
Progressive group backs Democratic challenger to Sen. Risch | TheHill - The Hill

By and large, conservatives have taken a nuanced approach to the progressive attempt to redefine racism. This new definition crafted over the past few decades, mainly in the academy, states that racism is not a question of animosity or feelings of superiority towards a racial group but rather a matter of privilege and systems. Under this rubric racism is not about individual actions, but rather support for systems of oppression.

But there is a key difference in the way that the left and the right have engaged in this dialogue. Progressives have no trouble at all saying that people who reject their newspeak version of racism are in fact racist. Up until now conservatives have largely resisted reaching the logical conclusion of their definition of racism, which is essentially discrimination based on skin color. That has to change now. The blatant racial bigotry of the left must be called out. It is no longer an esoteric academic debate; it is a crisis that threatens to tear the country apart.

Take this tweet from Farnaz Fassihi, a journalist at the New York Times, in reaction to a letter calling for an end to cancel culture.

Allow me to be blunt. This tweet is patently, obviously and indisputably racist. The content of the letter is irrelevant to Fassihi. All she needs to know is the color of the skin of the people who spearheaded it to know that she not only disagrees with it, but must call it out. Refusing to engage with someones ideas because of their skin color is racist. All the post-modern and critical race theory mumbo jumbo in the world cannot change that basic fact.

The only way one could look approvingly at this tweet that boldly states that Fassihi chooses to ignore ideas from people based on their skin color is if one believes, as many progressives do, that racism against white people is impossible. This proposition is an absolute absurdity. Under this premise it is not racist to say, I hate all white people and wish them harm. If that statement isnt racist then what it is exactly?

This pernicious excusing of blatant racism is no longer simply a controversial trend in academia. Our children, as young as grade school, are being taught to judge others and themselves based on skin color. That is nothing short of an abomination. Anybody who believes in equality and justice must completely reject this system that values or devalues individuals on the basis of race. Its frankly incredible and alarming that we even have to discuss that.

Someone who will look you in the eye and say I am not a racist, I just value your opinion less because of your skin color, is not only engaged in enormous self-deception. They are engaged in a project to exchange the very concept of meaning for power. The reason that George Orwells newspeak maxims like war is peace are paradoxes of ideas opposed to each other is that all words must be redefined so that it is only possible to say what the Party accepts.

I have spent several years attempting to engage the left in a conversation about racism and how we understand, tackle and defeat it. I have come to the conclusion that most of them have absolutely no interest in having this conversation and are much more comfortable just pointing fingers and screaming racism to gain power.

So let me make my position perfectly clear. If you value someone or their ideas more or less because of their skin color you are a racist. That is what the word means. That is what the word has always meant. If we reach the point where words have no meaning as Orwell predicted, then we cannot be free, freedom is predicated upon a mutual understanding of reality. Todays left is destroying that understanding and it needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged aggressively and it needs to be challenged now.

David Marcus is the Federalist's New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.

Follow this link:
The Progressive Left Is Becoming Blatantly Racist - The Federalist

Progressives are warning Joe BidenJoe BidenTucker Carlson ratchets up criticism of Duckworth, calls her a 'coward' Joe Biden wins New Jersey primary Biden wins Delaware primary MORE about compromising with Republicans, saying they will hold him accountable if he moves too much toward the center if he is elected president.

The former vice president has increasingly signaled a willingness to cooperate with Republicans as he takes a bigger lead on President TrumpDonald John TrumpNew Jersey incumbents steamroll progressive challengers in primaries Tucker Carlson ratchets up criticism of Duckworth, calls her a 'coward' Trump on Confederate flag: 'It's freedom of speech' MORE in national and statewide polls, a stance some interpret as a strategy to win over independents and even some Republicans who may be abandoning Trump, who has seen his approval numbers slide.

During a speech Friday to the National Education Associations virtual Representative Assembly, Biden said change will take compromise and compromise is not a dirty word.

Its how our government was designed to work, the former vice president and longtime senator from Delaware added. Ive done it my whole life. No ones ever doubted my word, and Ive been able to bring Democrats and Republicans together in the United States Congress to pass big things, to deal with big issues.

The words have been noticed by progressives, who are warning Biden not to stray too far, either during the campaign or if he wins election.

Biden is transparently taking a bet to win over a group of anti-Trump Republicans but at the expense of what? Potentially losing some of the largest movements in history? said progressive activist Nomiki Konst, who supported Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersJoe Biden wins New Jersey primary Biden wins Delaware primary Military madness in the age of COVID-19 MORE (I-Vt.) in the Democratic presidential primary.

She and other progressives also warn it could cost Biden by reducing voter enthusiasm on the left in November.

His excitement is extremely low and that should always be alarming for candidates. Its the Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonSusan Collins signals she won't campaign against Biden Cuccinelli says rule forcing international students to return home will 'encourage schools to reopen' Clinton labels ICE decision on international students 'cruel' and 'unnecessary' MORE strategy all over again, she said.

Others pointed to the Obama White House as proof that compromise is not an option.

Its very hard to understand why after going through eight years of the Obama administration that Joe Biden thinks well be able to carve out grand deals with Republicans, said Neil Sroka, the communications director at Democracy for America, which was supportive of both Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenConsumerbureau revokes payday lending restrictions Tammy Duckworth hits back at Tucker Carlson: 'Walk a mile in my legs' Trump criticizes Redskins, Indians over potential name changes MORE (D-Mass.) in the primary. Its mind-boggling, really, given how intransigent theyve been. The only explanation is that he cant imagine another way to pass policy, and thats unfortunate.

The way well get Republicans to the table is by having a progressive movement in the Democratic Party that is strong enough to force them there, Sroka added. Thats the key.

Progressives voiced suspicions of Biden throughout the Democratic primary as he battled and then defeated candidates such as Sanders and Warren.

He was never the favorite of the left, and his positions on the Iraq War, the 1990s crime bill signed into law by former President Clinton and banking legislation, among other issues, drew criticism from progressives.

Yet to Biden and many of his supporters, the former vice presidents primary victory should serve as a reminder that to win back the White House, he should not move further to the left especially now that he has a lead in polls over Trump.

Bidens campaign is predicated upon his ability to bring back moderates that supported Trump, which now looks more likely than ever considering how the president has comported himself during these crises, said Basil Smikle, who served as executive director of the New York State Democratic Party and supports Biden.

Smikle said the key for Biden is to win states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida, where appeals to the center could make the difference.

Despite progressives wanting him to hit ideological themes more intensely, the Biden campaign needs to focus on an Electoral College strategy especially now that states like Florida are in play, he said.

A Biden ally also noted the primary results.

"Democratic voters sent a clear and unambiguousmessage in the primary when they overwhelmingly chose Joe Biden as their nominee," the ally said. "They want someone who will bring thecountry together not only to send Trump packing, but to get us back on track after four years of his division and hate."

In an effort to appease progressives, Biden has moved to the left on a number of policy issues. Earlier this year, he backed Warrens bankruptcy proposal and has signaled support for Sanderss policies on student loan debt and health care funding policies. Bidens team also worked alongside Sanderss team in task force groups in recent weeks to reach a consensus on issues like immigration and climate change.

Sources familiar with the task forces say the findings will be available in the coming days, a move that could help progressives support Biden.

But political observers say Biden finds himself in a difficult situation with a party that is still splintered even as it unites around the idea of defeating Trump.

If Biden does win in November, it will make governing that much more difficult.

Hell be in a bind, said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and the author of the new book Burning Down the House: Newt GingrichNewton (Newt) Leroy GingrichMORE, the Fall of a Speaker, and the Rise of the New Republican Party.

Barring an unlikely landslide victory, he will face a GOP just as obstructionist as before. And in his efforts to reach out, progressives will be frustrated. The notion that there will be a path to normalcy after November, regardless of who wins, is based on a mythological view of how the party ended up this way.

Konst said Biden should take a tip from Sanders, who has worked with Republicans on bills but he never compromised with them at the risk of hurting working people.

Others warn they will hold Biden accountable and appear to be getting ready for the internal Democratic battle that could come with a Biden administration.

We should be investing time in building a much more powerful movement that will have to, without a doubt, fight a President Biden and a tidal wave of corporate interests who never go away and will have the usual access to the White House, said Jonathan Tasini, a progressive strategist.

Here is the original post:
Progressives wary as Biden talks compromise with GOP | TheHill - The Hill

Jamaal Bowman ran against veteran Rep. Eliot Engel in the Democratic primary for New York's 16th Congressional District. John Minchillo/AP hide caption

Jamaal Bowman ran against veteran Rep. Eliot Engel in the Democratic primary for New York's 16th Congressional District.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party couldn't break through in the presidential race, but in congressional races, younger, more diverse, progressive candidates are enjoying a recent surge in support.

"The logic of COVID-19 as well as the logic and the righteousness of the movement for Black lives, I think, is forcing all of us to re-imagine both what is necessary and what is possible, and I think it's having an impact on our politics," said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, a New York-based minor political party.

Progressive Black, male candidates in New York's June 23 primaries (results have not yet been officially called by the Associated Press) are on track to win in three safe Democratic seats, virtually ensuring they will win in November and serve in the next Congress.

"Have I benefited from the newfound realization by some folks that we live in a severely unjust society as it concerns issues of race? Yes. Is that why I won? No," Mondaire Jones told NPR.

Jones, 33, is also openly gay. He is on track to win a contested open seat primary for the seat of retiring Rep. Nita Lowey, who represents a mostly white, wealthy, suburban district home to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Jones said he is winning because of his support of unabashedly liberal ideas. "I am the only candidate in a crowded Democratic primary who supports the only policy that would literally ensure everyone has health care in this country and that is Medicare for All," he said, in reference to the government-run health care proposal championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2020 presidential primary race.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden opposes a government-run health care system, and he secured the nomination in part by locking down the more centrist wing of the Democratic Party. But in these contested congressional primaries, progressive candidates made races competitive running on some of the party's most provocative ideas: Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, paths to citizenship for all undocumented workers and dramatic redistributions of wealth.

Another progressive, New York City Councilman Ritchie Torres, 32, who like Jones is also openly gay, is on track to win a Bronx-based seat to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano, the most Democratic congressional district in the country.

Middle school principal Jamaal Bowman is expected to defeat veteran incumbent Rep. Eliot Engel for his his Bronx-based seat. Engel has not yet conceded the race. Bowman attacked Engel for his absence from the district one of the hardest hit in the nation by COVID-19 and ran an energized campaign focused on redirecting help to the poor and working class.

"Poverty is by political design and is rooted in a system that has been fractured and corrupt and rotten from its core from the inception of America," Bowman said in a primary night speech to supporters.

In the Kentucky Senate Democratic primary, another progressive Black candidate, Charles Booker, gave establishment-backed candidate Amy McGrath a close race coming within 3% despite raising around $3 million to McGrath's over $40 million and relying on volunteer progressive activists.

Evan Weber, the co-founder the Sunrise Movement, a progressive group focused on combating climate change, backed Booker's campaign. He's clear-eyed about where the progressive wing still stands right now. "We're sort of like a junior party in a governing coalition," he said.

But progressive activists are energized by these races and what they could mean. Waleed Shahid is with Justice Democrats, a group closely aligned with Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Looking ahead, Shahid says that if Biden wins, the progressive wing will have leverage.

"The Congress that Joe Biden is inheriting, if he becomes president in 2021, looks really different than the one Barack Obama did in 2009, in terms of how much more muscle the progressives in Congress have, how much more media attention they get, how much more they can hold the president accountable," he said.

And there could be a fresh crop of lawmakers, like Jones, Torres and Bowman, among others, coming to Washington to take on the establishment and push the party to the left.

"I am excited. I am happy. I am fired up. And I can't wait to get to Congress and cause problems for the people in there who have been maintaining a status quo that is literally killing our children," Bowman said last Tuesday.

Progressives are now working against Democratic incumbents in upcoming primaries in Massachusetts and New Jersey.

Read more:
Progressives Surge In Congressional Primaries After Faltering At National Level - NPR

Outside Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 2015.(Dominick Reuter/Reuters)Erasing all memory of our founding principles would pave the way for a socialist future.

Princeton Universitys decision to remove the name Woodrow Wilson from its School of Public and International Affairs is a big win for progressive activists, and the implications will extend far beyond the campus.

It hardly surprises me, in todays polarizing environment, that my alma mater caved to pressure from radical progressives. What is surprising, however, is that the school caved now, after resolutely standing against the pressure for so many years.

Five years ago, as part of a broader nationwide effort to rewrite American history, Princeton students mounted a campaign to remove President Woodrow Wilsons name from the school because of his racist views and his efforts to prevent the enrollment of black students. In response, the Board of Trustees formed a committee to review the matter. The following year, the board released a report detailing how to handle President Wilsons legacy.

The 2016 report drew this important conclusion:

The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Woodrow Wilson College should retain their current names and . . . the University needs to be honest and forthcoming about its history. This requires transparency in recognizing Wilsons failings and shortcomings as well as the visions and achievements that led to the naming of the school and the college in the first place.

How refreshing a recognition that the school should be honest and forthcoming about its history and employ a sophisticated approach to reconciling Wilsons moral failings with his accomplishments for the university.

Princetons own statement tacitly acknowledges the key factor here. It was not the name Woodrow Wilson that was under attack; history itself was the target. As we see across the nation, progressives now use Alinsky tactics on history itself. Saul Alinskys formula of picking a target, freezing it, personalizing it, and finally polarizing it is no longer reserved for living people; historical figures and even episodes in history receive the Alinsky treatment.

Back in 1852, Daniel Webster delivered a speech to the New York Historical Society, on the importance and dignity of history. The dignity of history, he orated, consists in reciting events with truth and accuracy. History is unapologetic in its presentation of facts. History demands that we examine facts and incidents that make us uncomfortable. Such study challenges us, inspires us, and serves as a call to action in our own lives. The progressive pressure campaign is not about progress. Rather, it is an attempt to erase parts of history leftists do not like. This is a slippery slope, as many left-wing activists are even attempting to tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln, the president who ushered in the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves.

History, it turns out, is little concerned with our comfort level.

In the speech, Webster also explained that historys main purpose is to illustrate the general progress of society. History and progress are inextricably linked. History tells the story of progress, and progress is possible by studying history and, in some cases, learning from past mistakes.

What the Princeton incident reminds us of, however, is how little progressives care for progress. They are unable to recognize the progress the university has made, which the school noted in its 2016 report, in rejecting Wilsons racist policies and championing the enrollment of black students. Former first lady, Michelle Obama, a Princeton graduate, frequently cites her experience at Princeton as an empowering opportunity one that was possible only through the schools progress.

How do we celebrate Americas accomplishments if we do not acknowledge where we started?

The Princeton name change is part of a larger movement of destruction. As Americans watch in horror and disbelief while statues, national monuments, and even war memorials are removed and defaced, we are left to wonder: What is the end goal of all of this destruction? When will it stop?

Elihu Yale, an early benefactor of Yale University, actively participated in trading slaves, including purchasing and shipping slaves to the English colony of St. Helena. American universities are littered with this type of racism: William Marsh Rice, the Lowell family of Boston, Thomas Jefferson, and Jesuit priests in Maryland all used the profits derived from slave labor to build some of the most prestigious universities in the country. Will tearing down these institutions achieve progressives goal?

Will changing a colleges name or removing the statue of a Founding Father change a Klansmans deeply held racist beliefs? Will erasing certain books and movies from our public lexicon truly change the hate in someones soul? These changes might appease progressives for now, but their goal is much larger.

In my forthcoming book, The Capitol of Freedom: Restoring American Greatness, I explore this very topic. Progressives are determined to destroy not just statues, but historical memories, because they know American history is incompatible with their goals. Americas founding documents, and even the stories behind the statues in the U.S. Capitol building, tell the story of American greatness and offer a roadmap for us to renew our commitment to our founding principles.

Slavery is a dreadful part of our history. Despite what progressives say, the abolition of slavery occurred because of, not in spite of, our history and foundation. A nation that was formed with liberty as the chief objective of government was on the right path. The 19th century improved what the 18th century got horribly wrong, and the 20th century continued to build upon the 19th centurys advancements. With each century that passes, we move toward a more perfect union. That is progress.

From its founding, our nations history is the story of individual freedom and personal responsibility, with limited government as a means for accomplishing both. Our Constitution simultaneously protects individual liberty and thwarts the progressive agenda. Progressives are constantly frustrated in their attempts to remake America into a socialist and godless society because of our Constitution. Is it any wonder that they devote so much of their energy to undermining, subverting, and circumventing the Constitution?

Progressives know that what can be erased can be replaced. Knocking down statues and removing names of institutions are the necessary first step in reshaping Americas future.

For Americans hoping to stop the progressives destruction, Princeton provides the answer. No, not the Princeton of 2020 with its disappointing decision to abandon Woodrow Wilsons name, but the Princeton of 2016 that recognized the importance of being truthful about our history.

In our fight against the progressive agenda, our history is not only what we seek to protect it is also our primary weapon.

See the rest here:
Why Progressives Wage War on History - National Review