Mediaboss Marketing

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

The Vermont Progressive Party is recruiting volunteers to write in the names of its top officeholders on its primary election ballot to ensure that a pair of perennial candidates don't claim the party's nomination.

The elaborate exercise is an attempt to allow Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, who is running for governor, and state Auditor Doug Hoffer, who is seeking reelection, to win the nominations of both the Progressive and Democratic parties. State law prohibits candidates from running in more than one party primary, but they can be nominated by additional parties if enough voters write in their names or if no other candidates run in a given primary and party leaders choose to nominate them.

As they have in the past, Zuckerman and Hoffer both chose this year to run in the Democratic primary, and both face competition for that party's nomination. At the same time, perennial candidate Cris Ericson of Chester is seeking the Progressive nomination for governor, auditor and every other statewide office on the ballot. Boots Wardinski, an organic farmer and horse logger who has run for office several times, is also seeking the Progressive gubernatorial nomination.

To prevent Ericson and Wardinski from winning the Progressive nod in the August 11 primary, the party is seeking 250 to 300 Progressive stalwarts to write in Zuckerman's and Hoffer's names in that party's primary, according its executive director, Josh Wronski.

"It's definitely not an ideal system," Wronski said. "The whole primary system is not geared towards nontraditional parties." This is hardly the first time the Progs have sought to secure their nomination from perceived interlopers, but the challenge is greater this year because, in response to the coronavirus outbreak, lawmakers temporarily removed the requirement that candidates for statewide offices gather 500 signatures to appear on the ballot. That resulted in more candidates filing for statewide office and made it easier for Ericson to run in every race.

Wronski said the party is particularly concerned about the prospect of Ericson winning its nomination. "This candidate holds views that are opposed to our core values of social, economic, and climate justice," he wrote in an email to fellow Progs. In an interview, Wronski said that Ericson's platform included "some stuff that's pretty racist," though he declined to elaborate.

Ericson, a marijuana legalization advocate, drew notice in her 2018 gubernatorial campaign for promising to host a weekly "governor's pardon TV show" during which audience members could vote to pardon those convicted of nonviolent offenses. This year, according to her campaign website, she is proposing to "train prisoners to build log cabins with solar panels for homeless people" and to dig a canal from Florida to California in order to protect whales, the fishing industry and farmers. She also opposes the decriminalization of sex work.

"[M]anymen in foreign countries arepeople of color, and they will comehere for white prostitutes becauseVermont is 94 percent white caucuasian [sic]," she wrote in an April post on her website. "WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO MAKE VERMONTA TOURIST DESTINATION FOR WHITEPROSTITUTION by decriminalizingprostitution and luring wealthyforeign men of color here,some with diplomaticimmunity, to spread the legs ofcreamy white Vermont flesh?"

Neither Ericson nor Wardinski returned calls seeking comment.

Asking volunteers to vote in the Progressive primary is not without risk, given that doing so could deprive Zuckerman and Hoffer of votes in the Democratic primary, but the approach has worked before. In 2016, Zuckerman won a hotly contested Democratic primary for LG while still drawing 228 write-in votes in the Progressive primary. That was enough to beat Wardinski, the only candidate on the Progressive ballot that year, who picked up just 150 votes.

Though some Democrats view Progressives with suspicion and question their desire to seek both nominations, other members of the two parties have argued over the years that running as a "fusion" candidate reduces the likelihood of splitting the left-of-center vote in a general election and electing a Republican.

The reason the Progs are going to bat for Zuckerman and Hoffer but not other statewide candidates, according to Wronski, is that the party's state committee voted to endorse both incumbents in May. Such an endorsement provides candidates with organizing and fundraising support, though it does not necessarily result in a party's nomination.

Thus far, the Progs have refrained from endorsing any candidate in the race to replace Zuckerman as lieutenant governor even though one of its most prominent officials, Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden), is seeking the post. According to Wronski, all four candidates running for the Democratic nomination Ashe, Sen. Debbie Ingram (D-Chittenden), assistant attorney general Molly Gray and activist Brenda Siegel are scheduled to appear at a Progressive Party forum on July 14, after which the party's executive committee may vote to endorse in the race.

Each of the four candidates or their spokespeople said they are seeking the Progressive endorsement. Ashe, Ingram and Siegel all told Seven Days that ifthey won both parties' nominations, they would list their Democratic affiliation first on the November ballot. A spokesperson for Gray, Samantha Sheehan, would not say what order the candidate would choose.

"At this time, Molly is focused on the upcoming statewide Democratic Primary on August 11th," Sheehan said in a written statement.

Hoffer told Seven Days that if he won both parties' nominations, he would list his Democratic affiliation first in November, as he has done in the past. Zuckerman's campaign manager, Meg Polyte, said her boss would do the opposite and continue to identify primarily as a Prog.

And if he lost the Progressive nomination to Ericson or Wardinski? "That would be sad," Polyte said.

Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy at sevendaysvt.com/disclosure.

Read the original post:
Progressives Seek to Ward Off Perennials Vying for Party Nod - Seven Days

"He doesn't take any race for granted," said Lynch spokesman Scott Ferson. Lynch beat his 2018 primary challenger, video game developer Brianna Wu, with 71 percent of the vote.

Neal, on the other hand, went on the air with his first reelection ad two months earlier than he did in 2018, when he easily dispatched an energetic challenge from another progressive, Springfield attorney Tahirah Amatul-Wadud. The television spot featured a local business in Holyoke, Morse's hometown, thanking Neal for helping secure a Paycheck Protection Program loan.

In Massachusetts, national progressive groups are hoping to replicate their recent success in New York, where races involving Reps. Eliot Engel and Carolyn Maloney remain uncalled pending counting of absentee ballots and Engels opponent, Jamaal Bowman, has already claimed victory.

Like Bowman, Morse is backed by Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement. Morse and Goldstein are both endorsed by Our Revolution, the spin-off group from Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign; Andrew Yangs Humanity First, and Indivisible.

Seeking to tap into progressive energy surrounding Bowman, Morse even went to the Bronx to campaign alongside Bowman on primary day. Bowman in turn urged voters to support Morse in a video on Twitter.

Vote for this man! Bowman wrote in a tweet.

As a result, Morse, Holyoke's first openly gay mayor, raised $110,000 from 2,200 contributions in a single week after the primaries in New York and Kentucky, his campaign told POLITICO. For a candidate that had $140,000 in cash on hand at the end of the last fundraising quarter, that's a significant bump.

The establishment is officially on notice that our movement has momentum. Together, we can build a Democratic Party that prioritizes working people over corporate profits," Morse said when he announced Bowman's endorsement.

If the dynamic sounds a little familiar, thats because it is. In 2018, Ayanna Pressley made history by toppling Capuano in a Boston-area district, just weeks after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's stunning upset of former Rep. Joe Crowley. Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Pressley in a tweet similar to the one Bowman posted for Morse.

Your guide to the permanent campaign weekday mornings, in your inbox.

Like Pressley, who was a Boston city councilor with a strong political organization when she ran, Morse is not a political unknown he's been mayor for nearly a decade.

"He's come up in politics during the social media time, and he's been able to use that well to get his message out," said state Rep. Aaron Vega, a former Holyoke city councilor who is staying neutral in the race.

"Like him or not, people know who he is. It's much different than other people who have run against the congressman who didn't have that level of name recognition and experience. Whether you agree with him or not, or what, he's been mayor for 10 years so he understands how things work and he does his homework. It's definitely a different kind of challenge," Vega added. "Anything's possible, especially in this time."

Still, both Neal and Lynch have the advantage of representing districts that are older and less diverse than the ones that have seen progressive upsets.

"Some of the things in this campaign, or maybe in other campaigns that were very trendy in New York or with AOC two years ago, just don't fly here," said Glazer, who is a fixture in Western Massachusetts politics. She also pointed to the size of the district Neal represents 87 cities and towns that cover nearly a quarter of the states land area, unlike the smaller, and more densely populated districts where progressives won in Massachusetts and New York.

Amatul-Wadud, who lost to Neal 71 percent to 29 percent in the 2018 primary, said national progressive interest isnt necessarily enough to overcome those hurdles.

"After AOC won in 2018, we got a big financial boost, we got a lot more media attention and more volunteers because people felt like that was a sign change could happen where we are," she said. "[T]he challenge still remains the same. This district is very, very different than the urban district of New York 16."

Morses task will be to activate voters in Springfield and Pittsfield, the two cities with the largest number of voters in the 1st District, Amatul-Wadud said. Springfield has seen an historic number of protests against police brutality and racism in the wake of George Floyd's death in Minneapolis, and not seizing on the moment has been a "lost opportunity," for Morse, she said.

"It's a lost opportunity if they're not taking the bull by the horns and talking about this and proposing solutions each and every day. And I'm not seeing it," Amatul-Wadud said. "This is the moment I wish I had in 2018."

See the original post here:
High on the lefts wish list: Knocking out another House chairman - POLITICO

Neal protected Blackstones profits by killing a bill that would have saved patients money, a narrator says in the 30-second spot. Now Blackstone is Richie Neals top contributor and one of Donald Trumps, too.

Fresh off a string of victories in New York last month, progressives are beginning to zero in on Neal, who faces Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse in his Sept. 1 primary.

Operatives running the group chose Neal as part of the initial campaign because of his clear ties to Blackstone. Neal received $48,600 from Blackstone executives and others tied to the company this cycle, making him their top 2020 donor, the group noted in a release.

They kill these efforts to reform surprise medical billing because they assume that there wont be any accountability over them, said Faiz Shakir, a top liberal consultant working with Fight Corporate Monopolies. They think that they can just receive campaign funds, continue status-quo politics and that there will never be a moment that voters hold them accountable.

Fight Corporate Monopolies is an affiliate of the American Economic Liberties Project, an organization aimed at lobbying government to take on corporate greed. Sarah Miller, a former Treasury Department official and antitrust advocate, leads both groups.

Shakir, Sanders' 2020 campaign manager and Miller's husband, will consult for the group. And Morgan Harper, a former Ohio congressional candidate, has signed on as a senior adviser. Harper ran an unsuccessful primary challenge against Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) earlier this year, accusing her of being in the pocket of corporations.

The group, which will play in state and federal races, takes a sharp focus: exposing politicians, primarily incumbents, who give the appearance of colluding with big business interests.

At the end of the day, Miller said in an interview, it is policy makers, it is anti-trust enforcers, it is the public sector that is responsible for keeping the private sector from growing so powerful that they can extort and abuse everyone that they have economic relationships with.

Each campaign, Miller said, will tell a really clear story around how a specific powerful corporation or a specific monopoly is actually transacting with a certain politician to get an outcome that that politician wants and then basically rewarding them for that.

Architects behind the anti-Neal effort hope their early foray into race eight weeks before the primary will help chip away at Neals incumbency advantage and entice other outside groups into the race.

Morse, youngest and first openly gay mayor in the history of Holyoke, is endorsed by the Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement, both of which worked to help middle-school principal Jamaal Bowman oust Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) in a primary last month. (Bowman leads in the preliminary vote count, though The Associated Press has not officially declared a winner.)

If we can get involved more than six-to-eight weeks out, potentially you can make what are very difficult races potentially more competitive and thats what were going to see here, Shakir said, predicting Morse could win the race with 45,000 votes. Thats not a large universe. This is going to be a significant ad buy.

Still, Neal will be hard to dislodge. He had over $4.5 million in the bank as of late March and has already begun airing TV ads to boost his image name ID. Morse had just $140,000 at the end of the first quarter.

But Morse has been able to tap into the some of the progressives' excitement around the New York primaries. Bowman endorsed him and urged his supporters to back Morse in a tweet that helped him raise $110,000 in a single week.

The district, which spans much of Western Massachusetts, leans heavily Democratic. Hillary Clinton carried it by 20 points in 2016.

See the original post here:
New progressive group will hit Neal in Massachusetts - POLITICO

The Star Tribune recently published commentaries on what has gone wrong in Minneapolis. Norm Coleman identifies a lack of leadership (Defund and disband City Hall leadership, June 17). Joseph Anthony attacks the ward-based system of representation (Yes, Minneapolis government is dysfunctional, June 26). I share both concerns. In fact, last year, I was part of a group that brought a proposal to elect more council members citywide. We didnt even get a hearing.

Yet both commentaries miss an important piece. Minneapolis has been touted as one of the most progressive cities in America. It also has some of the worst racial disparities in the county. These two facts are inextricably linked.

When I talk about progressive, I mean a very specific set of policies that define urban progressivism today. One touchstone is density. We must build more housing, goes the refrain, at almost any cost. Yet homeownership is the single most effective way American families build wealth.

In a city where Black homeownership is one-third that of white, over 90% of new housing approved by the city over the last six years has been rental. On top of that, the city stood by as corporations like Havebrook bought up single-family homes in north Minneapolis and converted them to rentals. All new housing subsidized by the city over the last six years has been rental.

It should be no surprise that Black families cannot build wealth through homeownership urban progressive policies havent produced any homes to own.

Families of color are twice as likely than white families to be multigenerational, to have four children or more and to have a nonfamily member living with them. Yet 70% of new housing units built in Minneapolis over the last six years has been one bedroom or smaller. No wonder the affordable housing crisis is so much worse for families of color. Urban progressivism has created it. In fact, it incentivized the destruction of homeownership opportunities and celebrated when Minneapolis became a majority-rental city.

Rental in Minneapolis is a $1.6 billion transfer of wealth from individuals to the pockets of corporations every year. Think how much wealth could be built with different policies.

Urban progressives ignored, then gutted, policies that shaped development, allowing developers to go where they would make the most money, not where we needed it. Uptown and Northeast have thousands of new housing units and jobs, yet Broadway never seems to change. This didnt just happen. It was chosen by urban progressives.

The citys 2040 Plan, the bible of urban progressives, says we must cut automobile travel by 40% in the next 20 years. Yet they never talk about how people will get to jobs. Minneapolis has 15% of the jobs in the region. There is no bigger indicator of a family leaving poverty than availability of a car. Yet Minneapolis didnt even plan for automobiles. At the same time, Black commuters use bikes at one-third the rate of white commuters. How are people of color supposed to get to jobs?

Children under the age of 18 make up 20% of the population of Minneapolis. Two-thirds of children in Minneapolis Public Schools are children of color. Some 26% of children grow up in deep poverty. Yet there is no planning for where they will live, how they will get to school or how their lives will get better.

This isnt just a moment for recognition of the killing of a Black man. It is a moment of reckoning for urban progressive policies that keep people of color poor. We need a complete reorientation, not just of our police department, but of the whole urban progressive agenda. People of color deserve no less.

But it isnt going to happen. In Minneapolis, urban progressivism is driven by a tiny number of activists, mostly online and mostly paid. Anyone who strays from their orthodoxy is immediately harassed and humiliated, until they are driven out of the policy discussion. That is what instantly shut down the discussion of a different structure for the City Council.

And it isnt going to change until we elect leaders who listen to all voices in Minneapolis, not just paid, online activists.

We have an election next year. We are looking for candidates.

Carol Becker lives in Minneapolis.

Go here to read the rest:
OPINION EXCHANGE | Counterpoint: Minneapolis is 'progressive' and has terrible racial disparities - Minneapolis Star Tribune