Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Conservatives are Powerful Progressives – HuffPost

The events in Charlottesville have rocked the nation in a way it hasn't seen in years, maybe decades. If anything it should motivate the public to take a step back. Yes, a step back in every sense of the word. Step back in terms of national identity, generational progress, and perceived equality. It's hard to admit that, as a nation, we cannot simply plow ahead. Most people know what is right, just, peaceful, and equal, but it's about what to do next. A step back provides a perspective on the next two steps, and the first of the two may need to be a step to the side.

The concept of Conservatism, in my view, has three basic positions: throw society back to a previous time completely, keep society as it is right now, and preserve the core values of society while letting inefficient or ugly offshoot values go. Most conservative thought resides in the latter two with a significant lean towards the third. In this mindset the conservative voice must be careful from moving too quickly. It is cautious of change because history shows that not all change is speaking to the core values of humanity. And so, there must be a constant revision of how those values shine in society at large.

Of course this does not operate in a vacuum, yet in the pull of the opposing side. The United States is a two party system, which operates a check on one another. Conservatives generally want to slow the cart down not knowing if there is a cliff up ahead, and progressives warn if the cart is not moving fast enough it will get stuck in the mud. As this tug of war happens, progressives will see a need for change and find the shortest route to pull the cart. At the same time, being cautious of change, conservatives would like to consult a map. Either position when taken alone is unwise. It can lead to the wrong turn having the cart facing the wrong way, or it spends time with an outdated point of view that stops the cart while ignoring looming disaster. Essentially, progressives can't pull the cart out of the mud without conservatives, and conservatives can't follow a safe path without progressives.

In recent events, there should be no question in which way the cart should move. Hate is not a core value. It doesn't take deep revision of American history or American values to see that fascism, in particular Nazism, is nothing to conserve. It doesn't take deep revision to see that a confederate flag is not simply a symbol of counter mainstream identity. Many communities are revising symbols of their values for today, tomorrow, and the next generation. It doesn't mean they are changing history, but coming to terms with history. It doesn't mean they are they are smashing culture, but conserving a more accurate map of culture.

Conservative revision is progressive in power rather than amount. It must constantly restate the values it believes and check them over and over again. Some are doing this better than others apparent in how the latest adversity revealed their character. Violence is not the answer, but violence will happen if we don't move the cart to clearer skies and safer ground. Conserve our values by taking a step back so we can find a sure path forward. Rather than add dead weight, a leader should denounce evil and move the country out of the mud.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more from the original source:
Conservatives are Powerful Progressives - HuffPost

Moderate Democrats Push Back Against Warren’s Claim That Progressives are ‘Heart and Soul’ of Party – Washington Free Beacon

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) / Getty Images

BY: Cameron Cawthorne August 18, 2017 8:46 am

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.)told activists at the liberal Netroots Nation conference last weekend that progressives are the"heart and soul" of the Democratic Party, but moderate Democrats are pushing back against Warren's claim.

Several Democratic strategists, donors, and political organizers from across the country criticized Warren for her claim about a liberal takeover and said that Democrats can't win in swing states with progressive candidates, according to TheHill:

The clash is further proof of the divide in the party after 2016s disappointment. Even as they face a Republican Party torn over how to deal with President Trump, Democrats are still trying to figure out what kind of a party they are.

The Obama and Clinton supporters say they have grown tired of having to deal with fighting over progressivism and 1990s-era battles over former President Bill Clintons work on welfare and criminal justice reform, which were campaign issues last year and subjects of criticism by Warren just last week.

"We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states," former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D., Calif.) said.

Tauscher, the leader of the"Fight Back California" super PAC aimed at winningback seven House seats in California, said that welfare and criminal justice reform is a "tired, old debate."

"And it's certainly not going to help us win," she said. "Our party should be looking to expand the tent. If we divide ourselves, we're doing our opponents' jobs for them."

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D., Nev.) strategist Jim Manley said several progressive issues have become popular in the party, but he said that the party is in a rebuilding process.

"I don't think we as a party can be casting too many people aside," Manley said. "We need to figure out how to grow and bring everybody together. I realize that's happy talk but that's the reality. When you start talking about purity tests, that's a little problematic."

Following Warren's speech at Netroots, the New York Timespublished an article about Warren taking aim at moderates,which said that she "sent an unambiguous message that she believes the Clinton effort to push Democrats toward the political center should be relegated to history."

Warren's spokeswoman Kristen Orthman pushed back against this narrative by pointing to a part in Warren's speech where she talks about Democrats not"wast[ing] energy arguing about whose issue matters most or who in our alliance should be voted off the island," the Hill reported.

Democratic strategist Brad Bannon defended Warren's comments by saying that progressives "are the dominant voice in the party."

"She definitely will inherit the Sanders vote," Bannon said. "And I think a candidate who is willing to speak their mind and talk like Warren does have a better chance than a centrist who is calculating about everything he or she says. I don't think the electorate wants someone calculating They had cool and calculating with Hillary Clinton."

A Gallup poll earlier this week shows that 6 in 10 liberal respondents have favorable views of Warren, but the poll also shows that Americans are split in their support for her. 34 percent of Americans view her positively compared to 31 percent whoview her negatively.

Warren is fighting to preserve herself as the progressive voice for the Democratic Party in a potential 2020 presidential bid.

"Shes fighting not only for her own space but shes fighting to win the argument, and I have no problem with that," Manley said. "Thats what this party is all about."

Excerpt from:
Moderate Democrats Push Back Against Warren's Claim That Progressives are 'Heart and Soul' of Party - Washington Free Beacon

Progressives Gone Wild? Abraham Lincoln Statue Vandalized in Chicago – Townhall

All statues must goeven ones erected to the president who led the effort to abolish slavery through the 13th Amendment. The president who kept this country together during one of the most turbulent time in our history. Hes our greatest president full stop. And yet, someone decided to vandalize Abraham Lincoln in Chicago (via NBC Chicago):

An Abraham Lincoln was damaged and burned in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood late Wednesday, Ald. Ray Lopez said.

The statue was found burned near 69th Street and Wolcott, authorities said.

"What an absolute disgraceful act of vandalism," Lopez wrote on Facebook along with an image of the charred structure. He encouraged anyone who has information on what happened to contact police or his office "immediately."

The statue, a bust of Lincoln, was erected by Phil Bloomquist on Aug. 31, 1926.

It is one of many that have been vandalized across the country in wake of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia and the president's comments that followed.

On Tuesday, someone vandalized the Lincoln Memorial, writing "F--- law" in red spray paint on a pillar at the monument.

Was because people didnt care? People who dont know history? It really doesnt matter. At the same time, liberals do have a penchant for forgetting history, or using it for political purposes when it suits their aims. In this case, everyone just realized that Confederate statues were bad, bad things, despite them being in plain view of the public for decades. Its a way to paint President Trump and Republicans as racist. In other ways, its just another day that ends in y. It also shows that not even Lincoln is safe from this insanity.

View original post here:
Progressives Gone Wild? Abraham Lincoln Statue Vandalized in Chicago - Townhall

Progressives begin 2020 dissection of Kamala Harris – McClatchy Washington Bureau


McClatchy Washington Bureau
Progressives begin 2020 dissection of Kamala Harris
McClatchy Washington Bureau
It certainly doesn't feel that way after some left-wing leaders and think-piece writers spent the summer dissecting the California senator's record often harshly. Even a social-media meme took aim, questioning Harris' tenure as attorney general and ...

and more »

The rest is here:
Progressives begin 2020 dissection of Kamala Harris - McClatchy Washington Bureau

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