Mediaboss Marketing

Freshman Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has recently become the subject of much speculation about a potential 2020 presidential run. Several major news outlets have run feature-length profiles of Harris, and top Democratic donors are starting to coalesce around her as their preferred candidate to take on President Donald Trump.

But not everyone on the progressive left is feeling Harris-fever, and if the senator wants to win the Democratic presidential primary in three years, shell have to start making inroads with a growing grassroots movement that remains highly skeptical of Harriss progressive bona fides.

Nomiki Konst, a Bernie Sanders supporter who serves on the Democratic National Committees Unity Commission had three words for Democrats interested in Harris as a candidate: Follow the money.

The Democrats will not win until they address income inequality, no matter how they dress up their next candidate, Konst said. If that candidate is in bed with Wall Street, you may as well lay a tombstone out for the Democratic Party now. Voters are smart; they can follow the money.

Konsts skepticism about Harriss alleged ties to Wall Street and insufficient commitment to populist economic issues reflect a broader trend among the residents of Bernieland. In a recent New York Times profile of Harris, another high profile Sanders supporter, executive director of National Nurses United RoseAnn DeMoro dismissed Harriss prospects as a progressive 2020 contender, saying, Shes not on our radar.

Shes one of the people the Democratic party is putting up, DeMoro told the Times. In terms of where the progressives live, I dont think theres any there there.

Sen. Bernie Sanders with RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United.

Harriss defenders immediately took issue with DeMoros lack of enthusiasm.

When it comes to where progressives live, uh, which ones are she referring to? The white ones? Essence contributor Michael Arceneaux wrote, alluding to the long-standing criticism that the Bernie-wing of the party has failed to make inroads with minority voters. OK, but they dont make the party. See the results of the last primary.

Since coming to Washington, Harris has engendered some progressive support by being a leading voice in the fight against Trumps agenda, earning praise from the left for her aggressive grilling of Trumps cabinet nominees during the confirmation process.

There are reasons for the suspicions about Harriss fealty to big financial interests. Despite opposing the nomination of treasury secretary and former Wall Street titan Steve Mnuchin, in a previous life as California attorney general, Harris was criticized for essentially letting Mnuchins bank off the hook during the foreclosure crisis.

In 2013, prosecutors in her office drafted a memo that claimed they had uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct at Mnuchins OneWest Bank. According to the Intercepts David Dayen, who first reported the memo, those prosecutors recommended Harris file a civil enforcement action against the bank. Instead, Harris did nothing. Later, it was revealed that Harris was the only 2016 Democratic senate candidate to receive a donation from Mnuchin.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

But as Dayen himself noted in his book Chain of Title, Harris does have a record of standing up for homeowners during her time as California attorney general. Specifically, Harris used her attorney general tenure to push back against the Obama administration during negotiations on a major settlement for homeowners and held out for a better deal.

Still, some progressives fear that big money donors within the Democratic party will have considerable sway over Harris.

She is the preferred candidate of extremely wealthy and out-of-touch Democratic party donors, said Winnie Wong, co-founder of the group People for Bernie, which played a prominent role the grassroots movement behind Sanders in 2016. Her recent anointing is extremely telling. These donors will line her coffers ahead of 2020 and she will have the next two years to craft a message of broad appeal to a rapidly changing electorate.

Still, organizers like Wong have signaled that there is still time for Harris to win over their side of the party in order to present a unified Democratic message in 2020.

If she wants to advance her political career, she will have to come out authentically and honestly in support of universal healthcare, free college, a federal $15 hour minimum wage, criminal justice reform and the expansion of social security programs, Wong said. Anything less than this means the party will continue to bleed voters.

Harris has already come out supporting all four of those policies in one form or another. Whether or not that will be enough for her critics remains to be seen.

Original post:
Democratic rising star Kamala Harris has a Bernie Sanders problem - Mic

The pro-EU march from Hyde Park to Westminster in London on March 25, 2017, to mark 60 years since the EU's founding agreement, the Treaty of Rome. Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.Voter revolt against the mainstream political agenda characterised both the referendum on UK membership of the European Union and the unexpected collapse of the Conservative governments majority in the UK's 8th June general election. These two directly linked electoral events have transformed British politics as well as unsettling conventional political wisdom on the continent.

The defeat of the Brexit referendum creates the possibility of achieving the dream of much of the UK corporate sector.

For the UK right, Brexit brought mixed consequences: positively, for them, the defeat of the referendum creates the possibility of achieving the dream of much of the UK corporate sector to escape the employment, environmental and civil protections institutionalised in the EU treaties. Exiting the European Union offers the only way for a Conservative government to negate these rights without violating EU treaties. On the negative side, the loss of a Conservative majority in the Commons leaves the Tory right without the power to realise its deregulatory dream.

In both major national parties, the centrists suffered unmitigated disaster as a result of the referendum outcome. These centrists strongly supported remaining in the European Union. With equal fervour, the Labour centrists the so-called Blairites opposed Jeremy Corbyn and the radical change he seeks for the Labour Party and the country.

On 23 June 2016, those Labour centrists complacently assumed victory for the Remain campaign and looked forward to undermining the party leader and provoking his resignation. One year later, Brexit seems irreversible and the social democrat they sought to undermine holds increasingly firm control of the party the party that the centrists thought was theirs by natural right.

With no political home and the tide running against them, some of their prominent spokespersons have descended into despair. For example, Nick Cohen advises his Guardian readers to leave politics, and Polly Toynbee laments the bribing of voters by Labour in the 8 June election. For the stalwarts of the status quo, the events following 23 June have brought a catastrophe of historic proportions. No obvious way presents itself to reconstruct the antediluvian neoliberal order that served them so well.

For the stalwarts of the status quo, the events following 23 June have brought a catastrophe of historic proportions.

In June 2016, progressives who were deeply discontent with the political status quo in Britain voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. This disparate group of left-of-centre voters included Labour Party members, Scottish National Party supporters, Greens and people not in parties who endorsed the dream of a unified Europe. Most of these progressives, myself included, felt unease casting our votes alongside the status quo-ers.

Remain lost because the Leavers constructed a slightly larger (though temporary) coalition of nationalists: a few progressives repelled by EU policies such as those involving Greece, and a very large number of people without fixed affiliation disgusted with austerity and its effect on them.

Most on the left voted Remain, as I did, well aware of the failings of the European Union. These failings include undemocratic governance, neoliberal economic policies chiselled into the treaties and political dominance by the largest member (discussed in Remain for Change).

However, pro-EU progressives will find it hard to deny that the referendum result we fought to prevent has led to events beyond our most optimistic hopes, with the fall of the Cameron government and stunning success of the Labour Party in the 2017 general election. I deeply regret leaving the EuropeanUnion, but must accept that the probability is great that the June 2016 referendum will in due course result in a UK government committed to social democracy, not neoliberalism.

The painful truth is that the vast majority of British households will be better off out of the European Union with a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn than in the European Union under the yoke of a Conservative government led by anyone. Had the referendum I supported passed even by the narrowest majority, David Cameron would still reside in 10 Downing Street with no election until 2020. The right wing of the Labour party would still pose a constant threat to the progressive leader. At the very least we should temper our Brexit regret.

It has been very long time since the Law of Unintended Consequences rewarded us at all, much less so spectacularly.

Had the referendum I supported passed even by the narrowest majority, David Cameron would still reside in 10 Downing Street with no election until 2020.

Legally and politically, Brexit means ending UK membership in the European Union and clarifying non-member association, which many countries have in various forms. Assessment of the progressive path forwards first requires consideration of the positive and negative balance of membership from a social democratic perspective.

For those favouring a Britain based on the principles of universal provision of social services funded by progressive taxation, the effect of full EU membership was mixed, and on balance negative. This balance results from EU treaty changes since UK accession in 1973, with each more neoliberal than the previous. Two treaties consolidated these neoliberal changes, one on European Union and the other on the Functioning of the European Union. Both place constraints on national governments that severely limit the scope for social democratic policies.

The most obvious constraint is on fiscal policy. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 established an excessive deficit procedure, supplemented in 2012 by a further treaty frequently called the fiscal pact. The later treaty arbitrarily and with no technical justification limits the permitted size of national fiscal deficits. More serious, the fiscal pact gives unelected officials in the European Commission the authority to overrule democratic decisions by national governments.

However, since Maastricht, UK governments, like Denmark, have had an exemption to the treaty requirement to adopt the Euro, and also from the enforcement powers of the excessive deficit procedure (now set out in Protocol 15 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU). In place of a comment to the deficit rules, a 2012 protocol vaguely pledges thatThe United Kingdom shall endeavour to avoid an excessive government deficit. In addition, the Cameron government refused to sign the fiscal pact.Other clauses on state aid prohibit public subsidies to private businesses (a key instrument of industrial policy), and require that public services be open to private bidding (one of the misnamed four freedoms). The treaties also make nationalisations difficult and perhaps prohibit them (depending on case-by-case interpretation of EU law).

The negative effects of EU economic policies had little impact on UK policy: George Osbornes austerity policy was completely home-grown.

Therefore, many of the budget and public debt rules of the EU treaties either do not apply to the British government or cannot be enforced. As a result, the negative effects of EU economic policies had little impact on UK macroeconomic policy: George Osbornes austerity policy was completely home-grown.

Other EU treaty constraints are potentially binding. Consider the possibility that a general election brings a Labour government, and that that government chooses to remain a member of the European Union (and the other 27 governments concur). In order to implement its manifesto for example public ownership of railroads and developmental support to specific companies the new British government would either have to negotiate additional opt-outs or ignore clauses in the EU treaties, treating them as if they did not apply to Britain.

Achieving additional opt-outs would be time-consuming, with success unlikely, though not impossible. Ignoring the treaty clauses would result in attempts by the European Commission to enforce compliance through the European Court of Justice. Either approach would reinforce yet again the British governments status as an EU Malcontent.

All this discussion leads to an obvious conclusion that might be extremely controversial and certainly unpalatable for most British progressives: for a Labour government, not being a full member of the European Union solves more problems than it creates.

As a fervent supporter of European cooperation and unity, I reach that conclusion with considerable reluctance. But progress does not always come wrapped as we might wish. And a social democratic UK government with or without EU membership is progress.

View original post here:
No Bregrets: does Brexit hold hope for progressives after all ... - Open Democracy

Doug Halls July 27 Commentary piece (News of R.I.'s demise exaggerated) criticized me and the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity, challenging our contention that it is unacceptable that Rhode Island should rank a dismal 45th in the broadest national research ever conducted on family well-being. Mr. Hall incorrectly stated that this index did not include a family income metric. It does.

Progressives like Mr. Hall believe that compassion should be measured by how many people are enrolled in government assistance programs, surviving at some arbitrarily defined meager level of subsistence. Our center believes that a more appropriate measure is how many families remain together, thrive and are empowered to improve their own quality of life via more and better jobs created by more and better companies.

The sad truth is that progressive policies have driven away more than 80,000 Rhode Islanders in recent years, yet pro-poverty advocates want even more progressive policies that seize wealth from those who have earned it and hand it over it to those who they want to be dependent on government.

Progressives can keep living in their land of make-believe, denying the harm of their policies on Ocean State families. Our center is not so naive and will continue to advocate for policies that encourage work and marriage.

Mike Stenhouse

Cranston

The writer is CEO of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity.

See original here:
Letter: Mike Stenhouse: Progressives deny the reality of their bad policies - The Providence Journal

Ben Wikler learned the Affordable Care Acts fate from a text message. The Washington director of MoveOn.org, who had led nearly daily rallies outside the Capitol to stop repeal, was five hours into the final protest when a colleague passed him her phone, buzzing with texts.

Pence not in chair, read one text. Wikler read it to the 300 protesters gathered around him, in a circle, who had been taking turns giving speeches. Murkowski is a no. Let me confirm that. Murkowski is a no. Then: McCain is a no.

Wikler read the text out loud. It was like fireworks going off, he said in an interview. Everyone started chanting U-S-A. Strangers were hugging.

One day later, Wikler and a sizable army of activists were still dazed, and a little nervous. The anti-Trump resistance movement, which has repeatedly watched the repeal effort die and be miraculously reborn, looked at the Senate vote as a genuine victory, with lessons about how to keep blocking the Republican agenda.

This is a truly historic victory and a demonstration of constituent power, said Ezra Levin, a former congressional staffer who co-founded the Indivisible project of grass-roots activist groups. We should celebrate ... [but] Trumpcare is not dead. Do not forget that in the House, [Speaker Paul D.] Ryan declared defeat, and then six weeks later they passed it.

Six months earlier, when new and old liberal groups first organized against the Trump administration, it was unclear whether they could cohere and avoid plunging into the infighting that typically follows electoral defeat. President Trump had full command of the news cycle; Republicans, who had passed multiple ACA repeal bills, insisted that they had a plan to scrub the act off the books.

Activists, who on Friday were still surprised by their victory, credited a number of factors for the turnaround. First, to their surprise, the conservative movement that had so effectively toxified the ACA for voters seemed to phone it in during the repeal fight. Pro-repeal organizations such as the Club for Growth ran TV ads to urge House members along, but faded during the Senate battle. The Club for Growths biggest contribution, a team-up with the Tea Party Patriots, was a little-seen website that attacked skeptical Republicans as traitors. In the end, no TV ads were run to support the Senates version of repeal, and no activism or rallies in favor of repeal was seen by any senator.

I never had any of that in my state, a state [Trump] won bigger than any other state in the nation, said Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.). Even the people who voted for Trump, they were benefiting from the law. They got a Medicaid expansion. They got subsidies. The people who were harmed by it because they made too much money to get subsidies: I want to help them. They have a right to be upset. But they were not an organized force like the ones who threw it out.

The Republican decision to craft a conservative bill that only needed intraparty support also put the activists on the same side as health insurance groups and AARP, which activated their own networks to oppose repeal.

But the critical mass of opposition came from liberal groups that had never been so threatened or so organized. MoveOn, battle-hardened by the effort to prevent (and then end) the war in Iraq, ran an aggressive protest and media campaign, including tens of thousands of calls to congressional offices and a series of rallies in swing states that featured Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

They were matched by tens of thousands of more calls from a constellation of groups and by protests organized by everything from ADAPT, a disability rights organization, to the Democratic Socialists of America. Planned Parenthood, which was threatened with zeroed-out federal funding if repeal succeeded, organized nationally and hyper-locally, with key states quickly growing their activist networks.

In Maine, whose Republican senator, Susan Collins, became a reliable vote against repeal, Planned Parenthood began working against repeal immediately after the 2016 election. According to Nicole Clegg, vice president for public policy at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, the local chapter signed up 300 new activists in the week after Trumps victory.

I dont think we ever took the foot off the pedal, she said.

A similar effort took place in Alaska, where another Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, declared in February that she would oppose defunding of Planned Parenthood. She eventually voted to oppose repeal. Activists in Alaska perfected a model that became universal by July protest after protest in the offices of Republicans who might vote for repeal, but steady phone calls and shows of support for Republicans who might vote no. (On Friday afternoon, Planned Parenthood sent superhero capes to the offices of no-voters.)

Starting Friday morning, all of the activist groups began organizing a next step steady action to assure legislators that any revival of the repeal push would spark a backlash. A national day of health-care action was already planned for Saturday, so little had be changed.

In the meantime, MoveOn and its allies faced an unexpected problem: accusations of being sore winners. Some of the first coverage of the Capitol protest appeared on Fox and Friends, reportedly the presidents favorite show, in a segment shaming Democratic senators for taking selfies at Wiklers rally. (Congratulations, the healthy people are paying for the sick people, said co-host Brian Kilmeade.)

But Democrats, who repeatedly praised activists for making the repeal push untenable, were happy to celebrate the rally. On Friday morning, dozens of Democratic candidates at a training session sponsored by a progressive group watched a video that Sen. Elizabeth Warrens staff had recorded at the protest. It began with the senator speed-walking away from the vote, then marching, in the witching-hour darkness, toward Wikler and his microphone.

The nightmare is over, said Warren (D-Mass.). The 15 million people who were going to lose their health-care coverage can sleep a little better tonight.

On Facebook, Warrens video of the rally was watched nearly 1million times.

Read more at PowerPost

More here:
Wary and weary, progressives celebrate victory over ACA repeal ... - Washington Post

Common Dreams

House Progressives Call on Members of Congress to Sign Single ... Common Dreams Support for a single payer healthcare system has grown in recent years, with 33 percent of Americans supporting the plan last month. (Photo: National Nurses ... and more »

Read more:
House Progressives Call on Members of Congress to Sign Single ... - Common Dreams