Mediaboss Marketing

One of the biggest and most overlooked election stories may have come out of the countrys smallest state.

Rhode Island, only 1,200 square miles and home to a little more than 1 million people, is rarely the subject of national political interest. With a majority-Democratic legislature, Democratic governor, and an all-Democratic congressional delegation, the states politics might seem sleepy to outsiders. Hiding beneath the surface is a much deeper story.

Much of Rhode Islands Democratic leadership is, put simply, quite conservative. The long-standing (and now outgoing) Democratic Speaker of the House, one of the states most powerful elected officials, voted down abortion rights legislation, and has an A rating from the National Rifle Association. Democrats in the state House voted in 2010 to cut taxes for the rich, and in 2011, a majority of Democrats voted for repressive voter I.D. laws. The Rhode Island Democratic State Committee stripped the Womens Caucus of privileges after the group lobbied for a reproductive rights bill. As a Republican official once told NPR, [Rhode Island has] a lot of Democrats who we know are Republican but run as a Democrat basically so they can win.

In this years elections, progressive Democrats mounted their most organized challenge to date, and earned victories that could transform the states politics.

Stay up-to-date with the Teen Vogue politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take!

Over the past year, progressives across Rhode Island mobilized to lay the groundwork for this crucial moment. Activist movements and progressive campaign veterans built an infrastructure to back insurgent candidates ready to challenge more conservative incumbents. Their preparation paid off in a huge way.

These wins were made possible thanks to the Rhode Island Political Cooperative, an initiative launched in 2019 to recruit, train, and financially support progressive candidates. All candidates endorsed a shared progressive slate of policy positions, creating a unified front of candidates fighting for a Green New Deal, single-payer health care, and a $15 minimum wage. Joined by additional candidates backed by Providence Democratic Socialists of America (ProvDSA), Reclaim I (a group of former volunteers for Senator Bernie Sanderss presidential campaign), and the Rhode Island Working Families Party, almost two dozen progressives mounted challenges from the left for state House and Senate seats. In partnership with movements like Sunrise Rhode Island, a youth-led climate justice group, candidates had full-time organizers dedicated to mobilizing voters. More than half of the progressive challengers won their races.

The first-time candidates that emerged victorious included Tiara Mack, a 26-year-old Black, queer reproductive justice advocate who challenged an anti-abortion Democratic incumbent who had held his seat for 35 years. Mack beat him in the primary and won her seat resoundingly, with nearly 90% of the vote. David Morales, a 22-year-old activist who will become one of the youngest Latino candidates elected to any state legislature, also defied expectations when he won. When the local Democratic committee endorsed his opponent, Morales found support and a volunteer army through partnerships with local progressive groups like ProvDSA. Mack and Morales were joined by 13 other progressive challengers who ousted more conservative Democrats or Republican incumbents.

Pundits like The Hills Krystal Ball argued this state-wide progressive takeover in Rhode Island could offer lessons to the rest of the country. A little-noticed local movement of left activists appears to have just successfully executed a massive overhaul of the Rhode Island legislature, in a model that could easily be replicated in states all across the country, said Ball. To understand how this statewide progressive strategy came to be and what it can teach us, Teen Vogue caught up with a few of Rhode Islands young leaders including two new elected officials and two movement leaders who mobilized to create real change in their state.

More:
Rhode Island Progressives Won Big in 2020 With Help From Youth Activists - Teen Vogue

The socialist left is on the rise, particularly in neighborhoods where Black and Latino residents are being gentrified out of existence, said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens and may become the first Black House speaker. To the extent the success of the socialist left is in part tied to gentrifying neighborhoods, it remains to be seen how that will impact a citywide race.

How left-wing activists and organizations will choose to wield their influence is unclear. Were all the groups affiliated with the progressive movement to align behind one candidate, they could have a sizable impact on the race.

So far, they are not coalescing.

Theres a big question of whether folks do, said Jonathan Westin, the executive director of New York Communities for Change. I think the candidate that is able to cobble together all of those groups is the candidate that is going to win.

The New York City Democratic Socialists of America has endorsed six candidates for the City Council, a move that promises significant organizational assistance. But it has yet to make an endorsement in the mayoral race, and several people affiliated with the organization do not expect it to.

If we had a mayoral candidate who came from the D.S.A., I think that would have been one thing, said Susan Kang, a D.S.A. member and a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Were trying to be very strategic in how we use our labor.

Another complicating factor is the popularity of Scott Stringer, the city comptroller and a leading mayoral candidate, among some prominent younger progressive lawmakers. In 2018, Mr. Stringer endorsed a D.S.A. stalwart, Julia Salazar, in her race for State Senate over the incumbent, Martin Dilan. Ms. Salazar won her race, and Mr. Stringer won her endorsement for mayor, along with several other high-profile endorsements from progressives.

Mr. Stringer has also won the backing of a few key unions, including most recently the Communications Workers of America, an early supporter of Mayor Bill de Blasio.

View post:
They Fueled A.O.C.s Win. Can They Shape the N.Y.C. Mayors Race? - The New York Times

Behold science, the sword and the shield of progressivism.

Over the course of the pandemic (and before that, in debates over climate change, stem cells, etc.), liberals have insisted that we must listen to science and heed the scientists. It was a cornerstone of President-elect Joe Bidens campaign and a constant refrain of President Trumps critics.

Taken literally, I endorse the phrase listen to science wholeheartedly. Scientists have important things to say to policymakers and citizens alike and lets not forget that in a democracy, voters are policymakers, too. A well-informed electorate is a useful check on ill-informed politicians.

The problem, however, is that the people who say listen to science tend not to mean it literally but figuratively, and worse, intermittently.

In the aftermath of George Floyds killing in May, massive protests against racism and police brutality erupted across the nation. The point of the protests (at least, most of them) was noble and understandable. But the same champions of science suddenly changed their tune about mass gatherings, because this was a good cause.

In a pluralistic society, the definition of a good cause is going to vary. Telling people that they cant see their dying parents, attend a funeral or make a living because science says its too risky but that protesting systemic racism and police brutality is OK is a great way to convince millions of people that listen to science is a weaponized political term, not a universal apolitical standard.

Indeed, liberals handed Trump precisely the kind of foil he wanted. At rallies, the president would tell the packed crowds that they dont want you to go to church, work, school or sporting events, but they think social-justice protests are fine. He even started calling his rallies protests to highlight the double standard.

Some epidemiologists made things worse by stepping out of their lanes.

We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus, Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, declared on Twitter. In this moment, the public-health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.

Im open to the idea that if the protests this summer could have ended racism, the benefits would outweigh the risks. But where is the evidence that happened? Is racism over now? Heck, where was the evidence that such an outcome was in the realm of the possible in the first place?

I trust epidemiologists to explain how epidemiology works. But there is no transitive property to their expertise. The opinion that the protests would even come close to eradicating systemic racism and police brutality is just that an opinion, and a flimsy one at that. Moreover, the opinion of medical scientists on such matters has no more authority than that of plumbers or electricians and less than that of many social scientists or, dare I say it, politicians.

Which brings us to the point. Again, politicians should listen to scientists, but at the end of the day, they must consider factors from outside science. Thats not only fine but unavoidable.Using the phrase listen to the science as a shield for your preferred policies or as an attack on policies you dislike is not only bad faith, its a bad idea,because it will undermine the credibility of scientists and politicians alike.

Now that were entering the vaccination chapter of this horrible story, many of the same science worshippers are, in effect, telling the scientists to listen to politics.

In California, theres an effort to factor historical injustice into the vaccination rollout as a form of reparations. Because indigenous Americans were treated horribly in the past, the argument goes, they should be moved higher on the list of vaccine recipients.

A similar argument has emerged over whether the elderly those most likely to die from COVID-19 should be moved down the list, because older populations are whiter, as noted by Harald Schmidt, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer, Schmidt told The New York Times. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.

Scientists are free to make such arguments, but these arent scientific arguments. They are political opinions, and they dont become any more legitimate simply because you wear a lab coat at work. So by all means, listen to the scientists, but listen very carefully, because they might be saying things that arent very scientific.

Twitter:@JonahDispatch

Visit link:
Progressives have made a mockery of the slogan 'listen to science' - New York Post

Over the course of the pandemic (and before that, in debates over climate change, stem cells, etc.), liberals have insisted that we must listen to science and heed the scientists. It was a cornerstone of President-elect Joe Bidens campaign and a constant refrain of Donald Trump critics.

Taken literally, I endorse the phrase listen to science wholeheartedly. Scientists have important things to say to policymakers and citizens alike and lets not forget that in a democracy, voters are policymakers too. A well-informed electorate is a useful check on ill-informed politicians.

The problem, however, is that the people who say listen to science tend not to mean it literally but figuratively, and worse, intermittently.

In the aftermath of George Floyds killing in May, massive protests against racism and police brutality erupted across the nation. The same champions of science suddenly changed their tune about mass gatherings because this was a good cause.

In a pluralistic society, the definition of a good cause is going to vary. Telling people that they cant see their dying parents, attend a funeral or make a living because science says its too risky but that protesting systemic racism and police brutality is OK is a great way to convince millions of people that listen to science is a weaponized political term, not a universal apolitical standard.

Indeed, liberals handed Trump precisely the kind of foil he wanted. At rallies, the president would tell the packed crowds that they dont want you to go to church, work, school or sporting events, but they think social-justice protests are fine. He even started calling his rallies protests to highlight the double standard.

Some epidemiologists made things worse by stepping out of their lanes.

We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus, Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, declared on Twitter. In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.

Im open to the idea that if the protests this summer could have ended racism, the benefits would outweigh the risks. But where is the evidence that happened? Is racism over now?

I trust epidemiologists to explain how epidemiology works. But there is no transitive property to their expertise. The opinion that the protests would even come close to eradicating systemic racism and police brutality is just that an opinion, and a flimsy one at that. Moreover, the opinion of medical scientists on such matters has no more authority than that of plumbers or electricians.

Which brings us to the point. Again, politicians should listen to scientists, but at the end of the day, they must consider factors from outside science. Thats not only fine but unavoidable. Using the phrase listen to the science as a shield for your preferred policies or as an attack on policies you dislike is not only bad faith, its a bad idea, because it will undermine the credibility of scientists and politicians alike.

Now that were entering the vaccination chapter of this horrible story, many of the same science worshipers are, in effect, telling the scientists to listen to politics.

In California, theres an effort to factor historical injustice into the vaccination rollout as a form of reparations. Because indigenous Americans were treated horribly in the past, the argument goes, they should be moved higher on the list of vaccine recipients.

A similar argument has emerged over whether the elderly those most likely to die from COVID-19 should be moved down the list because older populations are whiter, as noted by Harald Schmidt, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit, Schmidt told the New York Times.

Scientists are free to make such arguments, but these arent scientific arguments. They are political opinions, and they dont become any more legitimate simply because you wear a lab coat at work.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch.

See the original post:
For progressives, listen to science is subjective - Boston Herald

WASHINGTON When President-elect Joe Biden announced the core of his national security team on Monday, there was one glaring omission: his choice for defense secretary.

That absence is leading to questions about whether Michle Flournoy, a politically moderate Pentagon veteran whose confirmation would give the Defense Department its first woman leader, remains the odds-on favorite for the role.

The doubts came as Flournoy has been under pressure from the left over her defense industry ties and relatively hawkish views. Flournoy joined Booz Allen Hamiltons board and co-founded defense consulting firm WestExec Advisors in 2018, and, in 2007, co-founded the Center for a New American Security think tank, which relies on support from defense firms.

On Monday, Biden announced Antony Blinken, his longtime adviser and Flournoys partner at WestExec, as his nominee for secretary of state. Biden also selected Jake Sullivan for national security adviser; Alejandro Mayorkas for homeland security secretary; Linda Thomas-Greenfield as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; and Avril Haines for director of national intelligence. Haines also has ties to WestExec.

Politico reported Monday that while Flournoy is still a strong contender, Biden is not entirely sold on her, though its unclear how big of a role the resistance from the left is playing. Jeh Johnson, President Barack Obamas second secretary of homeland security, is another top candidate and he would be the first Black defense secretary, but he could also concern progressives as a member of Lockheed Martins board.

Fox News reported Monday that Flournoy will be the pick, but the timing of the move is not clear. The Biden transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

There is a push to support Flournoys candidacy amid the uncertainty.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

Subscribe

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Thanks for signing up!

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

A group of 11 military and veteran support organizations endorsed Flournoy over the weekend, praising her undisputed expertise and calling for a swift confirmation, should she be nominated. And after news of some Biden picks leaked without a defense secretary on Monday, the No Exceptions initiative, which pushed to open all combat positions to women, activated its email network to urgently gather signatures for an open letter to support Flournoy as a historic choice.

Michle was a tremendous ally to No Exceptions in our fight to open all combat roles in the U.S. Armed Forces to women. Now, its our turn to support her, said the email, which was described as time sensitive. The group hoped to release their letter Tuesday or Wednesday, a spokeswoman said.

Flournoys Pentagon experience is not in doubt, as she has served multiple times in the Defense Department, starting in the 1990s and most recently as the undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2012.

Still, progressives wary of Flournoys business dealings want Biden to show a break from President Donald Trump, who selected two defense secretaries from industry: former Boeing executive Patrick Shanahan and former Raytheon executive Mark Esper.

Left-leaning Reps. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., wrote a letter this month asking Biden not to nominate a defense secretary who has ties to defense contractors, which was seen as a veiled shot at Flournoy. Meanwhile, progressive groups are broadly calling for greater transparency into the potential conflicts of interest of executive branch appointees.

After the rampant corruption and conflicts of interest weve seen in the Trump administration, it would behoove the Biden administration to really demonstrate they are charting a different course and they are adding some protections to restore faith and trust in these institutions, said Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, a progressive foreign policy organization.

Another concern for progressives is that Flournoy, as reported by Foreign Policy, clashed with Biden over U.S. force levels in Afghanistan when he was vice president and she was Pentagon policy chief during the Obama administration and in the past, she pushed to keep more U.S. forces in Iraq. (Biden is seeking a swift pullout from Afghanistan with a residual counter-terrorism force.)

In a tweet on Sunday, Rep. Ro Khanna, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and House Armed Services Committee, raised questions about Flournoy publicly and by name.

Flournoy supported the war in Iraq & Libya, criticized Obama on Syria, and helped craft the surge in Afghanistan. I want to support the Presidents picks, said Khanna, D-Calif., referring to Biden. But will Flournoy now commit to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan & a ban on arms sales to the Saudis to end the Yemen war?

Progressives and grassroots advocates spurred congressional actions around ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen an end Biden supports and is included in the 2020 Democratic platform and they want to ensure his administration keeps human rights concerns at the center of a new, less-militarized U.S. foreign policy.

I think progressives effectively pulled together with the Biden campaign to get a number of important foreign policy priorities into the Democratic Party platform, said Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders. Now progressives are going to want to hear from any nominee how theyre going to be following through on those commitments.

Flournoy has taken the concerns of progressive foreign policy groups seriously enough that she convened a call with them, and she offered assurances she opposed the sale of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia that could be used in Yemen, according to Politico.

Because Flournoy, Blinken and other Biden team figures have maintained or at least opened communications with progressive groups, some of their representatives say their intent isnt to block Flournoy or other nominees, but to put progressive issues and foreign policy concerns on the table.

You dont have to protest outside the White House when you can go into the White House and make the case for your position, Miles said. That doesnt mean you never protest outside the White House, but when theres a time and a place for it.

View post:
No SecDef pick from Biden as Flournoy hits resistance from progressives - DefenseNews.com