Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Why Charter Schools Are Losing Support from Progressives – AlterNet

Protesters confront Georgia's Stacy Evans Photo Credit: Youtube

Every year Netroots Nation is arguably the most important annual event in the progressive community and a barometer of whats on the minds of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. At this years event in Atlanta, the headline-making happening was Democratic primary candidate for Georgia governor Rep. Stacey Evans being shouted down by protestors holding signs saying, "Stacey Evans = Betsy DeVos," "School Vouchers Progressive," and "Trust Black Women" (Evans' opponent in the primary is Georgia Rep. Stacey Abrams, who is African American.)

Protesters circulated leaflets comparing Evan's past votes on education-related bills to positions DeVos espouses. This included her support for a constitutional amendment in 2015 that would allow the state to convert public schools to charter school management, her support for a "Parent Trigger" that would allow petition drives to convert public schools to charters, and her support of a school voucher program.

After Evans was shouted down, National Education Association Vice President Becky Pringle took the stage and demanded progressives "stand in the gap for our children" when conservatives slash education budgets and attack the most vulnerable students in public schools. She received several standing ovations.

Jeff Bryant talked with Pringle about the significance of the protests and the possibility of a powerful new education movement emerging from the progressive community.

Jeff Bryant: Let's talk about what preceded your speech. Many of the signs the protesters carried addressed school vouchers. Why do you think that was the case?

Becky Pringle: This progressive crowd understands that vouchers are a scheme to suck money out of public education and funnel it to wealthy people like our current Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. This crowd is not cool by that, and they have been long time opponents to vouchers. They have more recently begun to understand the nuances of charter schools.

I've had plenty of conversations at Netroots Nation about charter schools, and we will get to that. But I want to call attention to one aspect of vouchers we should address because Georgia has what it calls a tax credit scholarship program that people defend by saying it's different from vouchers.

It's vouchers by another name. There are many names, euphemisms, for vouchers. Proponents of vouchers have learned over the years to use different names, but once you expose that, then they move on to different names. They're very good at evolving their message, but you're talking about taxpayer money being used to fund private schools, and that flies in the face of what public education is supposed to be.

So about charters, Stacey Evans was one of eleven Democrats to vote in favor of Amendment One that would have established the Opportunity School District that would have facilitated state empowered conversion of public schools to charter school management. The Amendment was eventually defeated in a November referendum. Is Evans out of step with most Democrats on that?

The NEA worked really hard with our Georgia affiliate to expose what the OSD is designed to do, and we were successful. We mobilized against a lot of big money to send a very simple message that we need to support our public schools and make sure that every public school is as good as our best public school.

Why haven't Democrats always been behind that simple message?

People say, 'We can't do it. It's too much money We can't make education equitable for all kids.' So instead, we get into these false conversations about other initiatives. We too often adopt the false language of 'failing schools,' when we should instead be talking about how we as a society have failed our students.

Along with that false conversation about failing public schools, another conversation I often hear among Democrats is that we need charter schools because they offer some Black families the only way to escape failed schools. How would you address that?

It is a challenge for our progressive allies who don't see the longterm impact of this narrative about the need to rescue Black families, one at a time, from their inequitably resourced schools. But if that story really is true which we could argue then what it's saying is that we're going to support and continue to build a system that is still inequitable, a system in which we're going to decide what some students will get and others won't. Also, if the story really were true, in what scenario are the students who get left behind getting what they need? Even if we agree that charter schools are the best option for black families and we have data that say that's not always true we know that having these charters puts into place a process where there are winners and losers.

I get what you're saying, that the process of school choice doesn't take into account the welfare of all Black families, but isn't it right to save some of them?

Approaching the problem of inequity by creating options for just some families is exactly the wrong way because you're accepting the premise that we can't educate all children.

Does that mean NEA is anti-charter?

We're not opposed to charter schools. We have started charter schools, and we have members in charter schools. But charters need to have specific criteria. They need to be accountable, controlled by democratically elected boards, and have transparency. And an important condition often overlooked they need to be part of the system, not separate. They should be part of a system of education that makes sure every student gets what they need to thrive. We have examples of that.

Is that what you mean by the "nuance" of charter schools that Progressives are finally coming around to?

Progressives at their core share a lot of the same values. But we need to dig down into what it is progressives think charter schools are doing, even for that black family who declares charter schools are working for them. Progressives need to understand that expanding charters is fraught with all kinds of unintended consequences that even those behind the expansions for the right reasons often don't see. What we're seeing is that even in communities where some families have benefitted from charters, like in New Orleans, charter schools are breaking the community apart, and when that happens, the community is not fighting together for its collective good. This diminishes the power of a collective community's ability to demand what it needs for kids.

At Netroots, we've heard a lot about drawing lines in the sand where if Democrats cross, they're no longer a progressive. For instance, any candidate who comes here and is not pro-choice on women's reproductive rights is going to have a hard time. We seem to have a line drawn in the sand on school vouchers. But how do you tell when progressives are closer to drawing a line in the sand on all forms of public school privatization, including charters?

We're getting closer. It's happening. What happened with the NAACP is instructive. It was not easy because Democrats are not yet united around the issue of privatization, and there are many parents in communities of color who still see charters as a way to save kids. But when the NAACP held hearings around the country, I went to the one in New York. I heard the stories, for instance, of parents of special needs students who had been thrown out of charter schools and sent back to public schools whose resources had been decimated due to the money flowing to the charters. What I saw was a rising grassroots understanding among parents that charters are not passing the smell test, and we have to fight for something better for our kids. So I think we're on the verge of a widespread consensus that the current approach to charters is not working.

What should progressives be for instead?

Progressives all share a core value that all students need to be successful, and when they aren't, we need to provide more opportunities. What progressives have lost sight of is the other core value of the collective good. Progressives are going to have to wrestle with that. I see signs they are.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Excerpt from:
Why Charter Schools Are Losing Support from Progressives - AlterNet

Letter: Moderates, progressives must fight Trump – NorthJersey.com

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Moderate Trump voters and progressives must join to fight the president.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

NorthJersey Published 9:32 a.m. ET Aug. 18, 2017

President Donald Trump(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

After Novembers election, like many progressive Americans, I spent time trying to understand how voters could see fit to elect a man like Donald Trump into office. While I continue to believe his candidacy was gravely flawed, Ive come to understand that distrust of dysfunctional establishment politics, dismay of a sprawling bureaucracy and desire for a shake-up, ultimately led to his election.

These grievances are real. I believe many including myself have not taken American disaffection seriously enough; that must change.

While these issues are valid, I believe it is clearly time for reasonable Americans to end their support for this particular experiment. We have been subject to deliberate and persistent lies, shunning of scientific fact, vilification of independent news media and a reckless approach towards a deranged nuclear adversary.

Perhaps more alarmingly, our current president has made it abundantly clear he believes racism is to be tolerated, if not celebrated. Pre-election racist stunts like perpetuating the birther movement and branding Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals have given way to unwavering hateful rhetoric and policy since his swearing-in. This hate has the potential to do long lasting harm to our civil society.

I understand it is not easy to admit a mistake, especially in the face of admonition. Regardless, our country needs conservatives and moderates to disavow this malicious leader while progressives welcome them back with open arms and without rebuke.

On the campaign trail Trump said, Im gonna bring people together; you watch.. Lets prove him right.

Eric Fuhrman

Ramsey, Aug. 16

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2xaPrPD

View post:
Letter: Moderates, progressives must fight Trump - NorthJersey.com

Make America Safe Again – HuffPost

Through six months of Donald Trump the progressive resistance has been united by opposition to his policies. The good news is that we have stopped his legislative program. The bad news is that most Americans don't understand what progressives stand for, other than opposing Trump. Now's the time to bring forward an agenda that emphasizes safety.

During the next six months, Trump won't change. He'll continue to lie, bloviate, and feather his own nest. His racism and resentment will become more obvious. And congressional Republicans will careen from issue to issue without challenging Trump or accomplishing anything of significance.

This six-month period provides a golden opportunity for progressives and Democrats, in general, to tell voters what they stand for. So far, the results have been underwhelming.

Democrats have responded with "A Better Deal." (https://democrats.senate.gov/abetterdeal/#.WZGuAHeGOE0) Washington Progressives have their own "Progressive Agenda." (http://www.21stcenturydems.org/index/the-progressive-agenda-in-13-steps/#.WZGiCHeGOE3) Both documents are too complicated. They follow the losing HRC prescription: "when in doubt hand the voter a policy paper."

An affective progressive agenda should contain only a handful of objectives. And, hopefully, one or two memorable phrases.

Affordable Healthcare: The obvious place for progressives to begin is with healthcare. The resistance has beaten back Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Progressives believe in strengthening Obamacare and expanding Medicaid into the 19 states that do not have it.

We should aim higher. Progressives should advocate Medicare for All; a concept easy to remember. We stand for safety through the democratizationof healthcare.

Economic Equality:Most Americans believe the system is rigged. 61 percent feel "the country is headed in the wrong direction." Voters continue to rank "the economy" as the number one problem.

While the stock market is booming and total employment is at record levels, most Americans do not believe capitalism is working for them. Consumer-credit is at near-record levels; Americans carry more than $1 trillion in credit-card debt.

The Progressive Agenda offers a thirteen-point proposal "to restore an economy that works for working Americans. While they are all good important, progressives need to identify one or two memorable ideas that differentiate them from Republicans. Two suggestions:

Feature the slogan: Give America a raise. The Progressive Agenda suggests: "Raise the federal minimum wage, so that it reaches $15/hour, while indexing it to inflation." Republicans have shown no interest in this measure but it's one that resonates with most voters. (A recent poll [http://thehill.com/homenews/335837-poll-bipartisan-majority-supports-raising-minimum-wage] found that 74 percent of respondents favored raising the minimum wage.) Safety through better wages.

The second suggestion is adopt the slogan: Make Capitalism work for everyone. One of the unnoticed sections of "A Better Deal" is the section on "Cracking Down on Corporate Monopolies" (https://democrats.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/A-Better-Deal-on-Competition-and-Costs-1.pdf) which states:

This break up monopolies stancerepresents a dramatic change from previous Democratic platforms. It differentiates progressives from Republicans and is an issue that resonates with voters in general -- for example, a 2015 poll found that a majority of Americans favored breaking up the largest financial institutions.

Of course there are many other issues that could be featured in a progressive agenda; among these are climate change, immigration, reproductive rights, and criminal justice to mention only a few. Rather than add another issue to the three already mentioned, it would be more productive for the progressive agenda to focus on values.

The place to start is withsafety.

America is a great country but American democracy is not working for everyone. We need look no farther than the Charlottesville violence, or the number of voters that believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, to understand that Americans are not satisfied with the status quo.

Donald Trump won the presidency because his slogan, "make America great again," resonated with more voters than did Hillary Clinton's slogan, "stronger together."

Trump's slogan, "make America great again," was interpreted by many of his supporters as, "let's return to the fifties when America was number one in the world and white men called all the shots." Clinton's tepid slogan was interpreted as "let's keep doing what Obama has been doing," an endorsement of the status quo.

Progressives need an effective alternative to "make America great again." Make America safe again. This reflects the reality that because of economic inequality and Donald Trump, most Americans are fearful. They fear for the future because the economy is not working for them and they do not have adequate healthcare, education, or housing. Many Americans fear for the future because of climate change.

In addition, the Charlottesville violence reminds us that many Americans are fearful because of the color of their skin, or their gender/sexual orientation, or their religion or country of origin. Donald Trump has brought bigotry and hate into the mainstream. He has legitimized the politics of resentment.

It's time for progressives to stand up to Trump's hate-filled conduct and proclaim to all Americans:We will make America safe again.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See the article here:
Make America Safe Again - HuffPost

Victor Davis Hanson: Progressives overlook faults of today’s tycoons – The Columbus Dispatch

Progressives used to pressure U.S. corporations to cut back on outsourcing and on the tactic of building their products abroad to take advantage of inexpensive foreign workers.

During the 2012 election, President Obama attacked Mitt Romney as a potential illiberal "outsourcer in chief" for investing in companies that went overseas in search of cheap labor.

Yet most of the computers and smartphones sold by Silicon Valley companies are still being built abroad to mostly silence from progressive watchdogs.

In the case of the cobalt mining that is necessary for the production of lithium-ion batteries in electric cars, thousands of child laborers in Southern Africa are worked to exhaustion.

In the 1960s, campuses boycotted grapes to support Cesar Chavez's unionization of farm workers. Yet it is unlikely that there will be any effort to boycott tech companies that use lithium-ion batteries produced from African-mined cobalt.

Progressives demand higher taxes on the wealthy. They traditionally argue that tax gimmicks and loopholes are threats to the republic.

Yet few seem to care that West Coast conglomerates such as Amazon, Apple, Google and Starbucks filtered hundreds of billions in global profits through tax havens such as Bermuda, shorting the United States billions of dollars in income taxes.

The progressive movement took hold in the late 19th century to "trust-bust," or break up corporations that had cornered the markets in banking, oil, steel and railroads. Such supposedly foul play had inordinately enriched "robber baron" buccaneers such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon, Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan.

Yet today, the riches of multibillionaires dwarf the wealth of their 19th-century predecessors.

Facebook, with 2 billion monthly global users, has now effectively cornered social media.

Google has monopolized Internet searches, and modulates users' search results to accommodate its own business profiteering.

Amazon is America's new octopus. Its growing tentacles incorporate not just online sales but also media and food retailing.

Yet there are no modern-day progressive muckrakers in the spirit of Upton Sinclair, Frank Norris and Lincoln Steffens, warning of the dangers of techie monopolies or the astronomical accumulation of wealth. Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook are worth nearly $1 trillion each.

In the Obama era, the nation received all sorts of progressive lectures on the downsides of being super-rich.

Obama remonstrated about spreading the wealth, knowing when not to profit and realizing when one has made enough money. He declared that entrepreneurs did not build their own businesses without government help.

Yet such sermonizing never seemed to include Facebook, Starbucks or Amazon.

The tech and social-media industries pride themselves on their counterculture transparency, their informality and their 1960s-like allegiance to free thought and free speech. Yet Google just fired one of its engineers for simply questioning the company line that sexual discrimination and bias alone account for the dearth of female Silicon Valley engineers.

What followed were not voices of protest. Instead, Google-instilled fear and silence ensued, in the fashion of George Orwell's "1984."

On matters such as avoiding unionization, driving up housing prices, snagging crony-capitalist subsidies from the government and ignoring the effects of products on public safety (such as texting while driving), Silicon Valley is about as reactionary as they come.

Why, then, do these companies earn a pass from hypercritical progressives?

Answer: Their executives have taken out postmodern insurance policies.

The new elite are overwhelmingly left-wing. They head off criticism by investing mostly in the Democratic Party, the traditional font of social and political criticism of corporate wealth.

In 2012, for example, Obama won Silicon Valley by more than 40 percentage points. Of the political donations to presidential candidates that year from employees at Google and Apple, more than 90 percent went to Obama.

One of the legacies of the Obama era was the triumph of green advocacy and identity politics over class.

No one has grasped that reality better that the new billionaire barons of the West Coast. As long as they appeared cool, as they long as they gave lavishly to left-wing candidates, and as long as they mouthed liberal platitudes on global warming, gay marriage, abortion and identity politics, they earned exemption from progressive scorn.

The result was that they outsourced, offshored, monopolized, censored and made billions without much fear of media muckraking, trust-busting politicians, unionizing activists or diversity lawsuits.

Hip billionaire corporatism is one of the strangest progressive hypocrisies of our times.

Victor Davis Hanson is a historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

author@victorhanson.com

Read the original here:
Victor Davis Hanson: Progressives overlook faults of today's tycoons - The Columbus Dispatch

What’s So Generous about Spending Other People’s Money? – National Review

The popularity of Democratic Socialism is rising, and more and more people are viewing it as a generous, compassionate alternative to cruelty of capitalism.

As The Week notes, membership in Democratic Socialists of America has more than tripled in the past year, and last weeks conference in Chicago was by far the largest ever. There are many reasons for this and the likability of Bernie Sanders, especially compared withthe likability of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, is certainly part of it.

But another part is the way that progressives routinely portray their economic platform as being morally superior. The holier-than-thou branding is everywhere; just think about how often progressives accuse economic conservatives of wanting to kill sick people, just because they believe that the free market can solve problems. The ultra-liberal are the generous ones, the ones who want to give you things like health care. The conservatives are the mean, old ogres who want to take those things away.

The popularity of the Democratic Socialists seems to suggest that these kinds of tactics are working, and I have just one question: Just how in the hell do so many people seem to believe that its generous to spend other peoples money?

Let me clear this up for the people who dont seem to understand: Progressive politicians are not people who are going to give you health care, because in order to give something, then it has to be yours to give awayin the first place. Think about it: If your boyfriend were to surprise you with dinner and a present, then youd probably be quite happy and thank him for giving you those things. But if you found out that your boyfriend had actually paid for those things using your credit card? Well, then youd probably think much less of it, and maybe youd remind him that the only way that that could count as giving would be if he were nineand you were his mother. People who advocate for progressive politicians are not advocating gratitude; theyre advocating for big government, plain and simple.

Believing in the ability of big government to solve problems doesnt make you any better than the people who believe in shrinking government to solve them; it just means that you have a different view of economics. And the politicians who promise to give you health care, welfare, and other benefits in exchange for votes arent really promising to give those things at all; theyre promising to take resources from others in order to fulfill their promises, without ever having to feel the pinch themselves.

Its going to be incredibly difficult to find solutions to these sorts of problems unless we all acknowledge that everyone is, in fact, looking for them. There isnt just one ideological group who wants people to be healthy and prosperous; literally anyone who is not a sociopath wants that. Its just that one group believes that the best way to do that is to take other peoples money and let the government distribute it. Democratic Socialism is not generosity, its a political view and one that has historically had outcomes more despicable than heartwarming.

READ MORE: Jeff Sessions Threatening Reporters is Not OK So, Were Whipping Water into Journalists Faces Now? Chicago Students Will Need Govt. Approval Before Graduating

Katherine Timpf is a National Review Online reporter.

See the article here:
What's So Generous about Spending Other People's Money? - National Review