Mediaboss Marketing

The Herald

Greater Lake Wylie Progressives say they organized to impact elections and policy The Herald Members of the recently formed Greater Lake Wylie Progressives say they were frustrated with seeing mostly Republican candidates run unopposed in local elections. They also decided to take action to help their neighbors learn about important issues ...

See more here:
Greater Lake Wylie Progressives say they organized to impact elections and policy - The Herald

Al Sharpton, Opinion contributor Published 5:00 a.m. ET Aug. 9, 2017 | Updated 7:18 a.m. ET Aug. 9, 2017

Hillary Clinton in 2016.(Photo: Carlos Osorio, AP)

When Jesse Jackson ran for president during the 1980s, as when I ran in 2004, there were progressives in America just like there are today. Those progressives were well meaning individuals and politicians who shared our views and strongly believed in what we believed in. Despite this progressive political presence, our presidential campaigns were so important and necessary because the voices of black, brown and poorer white voters were not heard by the elites in American politics and government. Our agendas were not getting carried out. There was a great deal of talk back then, but no real action. That same dynamic holds true today.

The press speaks a great deal about the supposed fact that the Democratic base is riled up and activated by the state of play in America. This assessment ignores the most important segment of that base: the African-American voter. We are not motivated by anyone right now. While Sen. Bernie Sanders did a remarkable job in the 2016 presidential primaries and went further than anyone thought possible, he did so without the African-American vote, losing among African-American voters by more than 50 percentage points.

More: Democratic 'Better Deal' robs from the future

More: Rep. David Cicilline: A Better Deal is a bold agenda

While that progressive coalition purported to speak FOR the African-American voter, it did not talk TO African Americans. The so-called Hillary Clinton base of the party, while crushing Sanders, attracted substantially fewer black voters to turn out than in recent presidential primaries, and in the general election, running against a novice, the black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling 7 percentage points compared to 2012. Arguably, that disinterested black vote cost Clinton the presidency.

It would be unfair to claim that leaders like Clinton and Sanders do not care about issues that are important to people of color. They do. However, it is equally inaccurate to claim that the current progressive movement is fueling African-American participation or interest in our political process. It is not. Blacks largely sit on the sidelines while the game of politics is being played around us. In the post-Obama era there is the sense that Democrats feel people of color African Americans in particular have had their chance and that we should now take a back seat to new leadership and let them handle the politics of today. However, such a sentiment is both foolhardy and wrong.

More: Jeff Sessions' Justice Department goes after affirmative action's institutional racism

POLICING THE USA: A look atrace, justice, media

The 21st century version of the rainbow coalition lacks vision and color. Remarkably, blacks still need to fight for a seat at the table and are too often simply stage props for allied elected leaders to make their points. Consider this: In 2016, when the officially independent Sanders ran for president as a Democrat, there were more black chiefs of staffin the Senate working for Republicans (1) than for Sanders (0) or the Democrats (0).

Talk is not enough anymore to be on the righteous path for justice and black political participation. Nor is caring about, or sympathy over, unjust policies. An effective progressive movement is more than an intellectual exercise espousing policy goals: it requires action and results. And people of color need to be at the table in large enough numbers to help make that difference. We cannot depend upon action from well-meaning progressives or others who want to fight our fight for us. History proves that change comes too slowly when we rely on that model.

Perhaps it is time for another African-American presidential campaign to fuel black voter interest. Perhaps its time to remind people that progressive politics cannot be advanced without results and a fully vibrant rainbow of colors working to make that difference. Two things are certain: African Americans will not be taken for granted again and progressives invite failure yet again if they try.

Reverend Al Sharpton is president of the National Action Network.Follow him on Twitter: @TheRevAl

You can read diverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers on theOpinion front page, on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2uoaiSL

More:
Al Sharpton: 'Progressives' are shortchanging African Americans ... - USA TODAY

Look at the latest report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, comparing health care performance among advanced nations. America is at the bottom; the top three performers are Britain, Australia, and the Netherlands. And the thing is, these three leaders have very different systems.

Britain has true socialized medicine: The government provides health care directly through the National Health Service. Australia has a single-payer system, basically Medicare for All its even called Medicare. But the Dutch have what we might call Obamacare done right: individuals are required to buy coverage from regulated private insurers, with subsidies to help them afford the premiums.

And the Dutch system works, which suggests that a lot could be accomplished via incremental improvements in the A.C.A., rather than radical change. Further evidence for this view is how relatively well Obamacare, imperfect as it is, already works in states that try to make it work did you know that only 5.4 percent of New Yorkers are now uninsured?

Meanwhile, the political logic that led to Obamacare rather than Medicare for all still applies.

Its not just about paying off the insurance industry, although getting insurers to buy in to health reform wasnt foolish, and arguably helped save the A.C.A.: At a crucial moment Americas Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobbying organization, and Blue Cross Blue Shield intervened to denounce Republican plans.

A far more important consideration is minimizing disruption to the 156 million people who currently get insurance through their employers, and are largely satisfied with their coverage. Moving to single-payer would mean taking away this coverage and imposing new taxes; to make it fly politically youd have to convince most of these people both that they would save more in premiums than they pay in additional taxes, and that their new coverage would be just as good as the old.

This might in fact be true, but it would be one heck of a hard sell. Is this really where progressives want to spend their political capital?

What would I do instead? Id enhance the A.C.A., not replace it, although I would strongly support reintroducing some form of public option a way for people to buy into public insurance that could eventually lead to single-payer.

Meanwhile, progressives should move beyond health care and focus on other holes in the U.S. safety net.

When you compare the U.S. social welfare system with those of other wealthy countries, what really stands out now is our neglect of children. Other countries provide new parents with extensive paid leave, provide high-quality, subsidized day care for children with working parents and make pre-K available to everyone or almost everyone; we do none of these things. Our spending on families is a third of the advanced-country average, putting us down there with Mexico and Turkey.

So if it were up to me, Id talk about improving the A.C.A., not ripping it up and starting over, while opening up a new progressive front on child care.

I have nothing against single-payer; its what Id support if we were starting fresh. But we arent: Getting there from here would be very hard, and might not accomplish much more than a more modest, incremental approach. Even idealists need to set priorities, and Medicare-for-all shouldnt be at the top of the list.

See the original post:
What's Next for Progressives? - New York Times

Over the last two weeks, the failures and scandals and incompetence and general chaos of the first seven months of the Trump administration have become manifest and undeniable: the inability to advance even the slightest health care reform, despite Republicans controlling both houses of Congress; the hiring of loudmouthed hedge-funder Anthony Scaramucci as communications director and the subsequent resignation of press secretary Sean Spicer and firing of chief of staff Reince Priebus, followed by the firing of Scaramucci by new chief of staff John Kelly; the leaking of embarrassing transcripts of phone calls between Trump and world leaders, in which the president begged the Mexican president not to tell the media he wouldn't pay for the wall and behaved like a petulant preteen while talking to the Australian prime minister; a story in The New York Times suggesting that Vice President Pence is quietly readying a White House bid for 2020, should President Trump be unavailable; and the president's rock-bottom approval ratings, despite a decent economy and an unemployment rate at 4.3 percent.

Perhaps most alarming for Team Trump, last week brought news that special counsel Robert Mueller has convened a grand jury in Washington, D.C., to investigate the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia during the 2016 election, and subpoenas have started going out.

A grand jury was an inevitable and logical next step. But there's nonetheless an unavoidable sense that the noose is tightening. The president, meanwhile, is reduced to holding rallies in the friendliest of territories to prop up his fragile ego.

Congress is now in recess for the summer, having left town without delivering any major legislative victories for the new president. When it returns, GOP leaders are promising to tackle an overhaul of the tax system, a task no less complicated or daunting than health care. Soon, the midterm election season will be upon us, and Congress will be more interested in self-preservation than in passing controversial legislation at the behest of an unpopular president.

In other words, if you thought that first two hundred days were a godawful muddle, just wait; it's not going to get any easier for Trump. And if Democrats retake the House in 2018a distinct possibilitythe president can expect to be mired in investigations into Russia and God knows what else, all leading into 2020.

All of which is to say, Trump's window for effecting big, lasting change is closing, and he's done precious little with it.

The resistance, those who took to the streets and besieged senators with angry phone calls, succeeded. The question now is whether progressives can keep their feet on the administration's throat and turn anger and action in the first half of 2017 into victories over the next fifteen monthsand just as important, whether they can recruit and fund and propel a next generation of progressives into elected office.

That I'm less sure of.

People voting against Trump may be enough for Democrats to succeed. That's how Republicans gained power, by being against Obama and then against Clinton, not on the strength of their own agenda. But as Republicans are learning, if you want to stay in power, and if you want to get things done, you need to give voters something to support, a proactive agenda. And you need to develop a new, inspiring generation of leaders to champion it.

The Dems' recently unveiled "Better Deal" agenda marks a turn toward economic populism (antitrust regulations, $1 trillion for infrastructure, $15-an-hour minimum wage), a naked appeal to the suburban and Rust Belt whites who supposedly abandoned the Dems for Trump because they were "economically anxious." It's also a recycling of shopworn, incremental-minded Democratic policy ideas from the last twenty yearshardly exciting stuff.

Then there's the question of who's going to be selling it. Barack Obama was a singularly talented politician, but under his presidency the Democratic bench was eviscerated. Democrats lost statehouses all over the country, including in North Carolina, where our recently elected moderate Democratic governor's power is checked by the legislature's Republican supermajority.

Even as the progressive movement continues to resist a flailing Trump agenda, it needs to also focus on the state and local levels. In the Triangle, there are a number of smart, engaging progressives worthy of promotion: Wake County commissioners Jessica Holmes, John Burns, and Matt Calabria, as well as Durham City Council member Jillian Johnson come to mind. (There are certainly others.)

The point is, after Trump's inevitable collapse, progressives must have the infrastructure, ideas, and leaders in place to pick up the pieces and move forward. And that work should begin now. As the saying goes, you don't beat something with nothing.

jbillman@indyweek.com

See the rest here:
The Trump Presidency Is a Train Wreck. Progressives Must Be Ready to Capitalize. - The Independent Weekly

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) -- Democrats running for governor are beginning to organize their own events around the Illinois State Fair to replace the Democrat Day rally after party leaders pulled the plug on the annual outdoor festivities last month.

Chicago city Alderman and Democratic gubernatorial candidate AmeyaPawarcriticized party leadership for nixing an open air rally in lieu of a private brunch with donors.

"If we continue shutting people out of the conversation about the future of our state, then we will never grow as a party and we won't stand a chance to beat Bruce Rauner next year," Pawar said. "We can't just be talking to each other behind closed doors at fundraisers.

Pawar plans to host his own 'Progressives Day Rally' at Springfield's Douglas Park on Thursday, August 17th immediately after the brunch. The Pawar campaign is reaching out to invite other candidates to join him at the event, which is located three miles from the fairgrounds. Part of the itinerary includes stump speeches, hay bales and a band.

"As Democrats, we should be the 'big tent' party. And we must be willing to take our message directly to the public and present our case as to why a progressive Democrat is better suited to be governor than Bruce Rauner," Pawarsaid.

House Speaker and Democratic Party Chairman Michael Madigan made the decision not to hold the annual Democrat Day rally this year, instead opting to focus on a Chairman's Breakfast with party donors and activists.

So far, at least eight primary candidates are on the agenda, including headliner speeches from U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and AmyKlobuchar(MN). Admission is $40 per person. Sponsors can pay as much as $15,000 for a table. The donation provides them exclusive access to Senator Klobuchar at a reception.

Dan Kovats, a spokesman for the Sangamon County Chairman's Association, said "This year will be our largest year ever. We'll have close to two thousand people at the event."

Kovatssays general admission tickets are nearly sold out, but some could possibly be available at the door. The event is booked at the ritzy Crowne Plaza hotel near Lake Springfield.

"We're very much in favor of a big tent party," Kovats said. "We're not trying to close anyone out or section it off to anyone."

Statewide office holders like Secretary of State Jesse White, Comptroller Susana Mendoza and Attorney General Lisa Madigan will also be addressing the crowd.

Madigan spokesman Steve Brown bristled at the notion that party leaders were neglecting individual voters in favor of donors, saying only conservative groups would make such a suggestion.

Brown then offered to help promote Pawar'sevent, although he has not said if Speaker Madigan would attend.

"If they want to tell us where it is, we'll put it on our website and let people know about it," Brown replied.

The widening split within state party ranks mirrors a national fight in the Democratic party between the moderate and progressive wings. Several of the primary candidates have opened bruising lines of attack against Madigan in their bid to represent the party in the 2018 general election.

Chris Kennedy has called for a ban on property tax attorneys doubling as state lawmakers, a clear shot at Madigan's private business operation.

State Senator and candidate Daniel Biss (D-Evanston) routinely rails against "money and the machine" and has called for term limits on legislative leaders. Madigan just recently became the longest tenured state House Speaker in American history.

House Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood) has compared Madigan to big screen villains Dr. Frankenstein and Lord Voldemort, and recently tweeted the state of Illinois more closely resembles a dictatorship than a democracy.

Madigan will be on stage as one of the speakers at next Thursday's fundraising brunch. Party leaders have instructed primary candidates to keep their speeches under three minutes.

Read the original post:
Pawar bucks Madigan, hosts 'Progressives Day' rally - IllinoisHomePage.net