Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Progressives Opposed to Due Process for Men? – Wall Street Journal (subscription)


Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Progressives Opposed to Due Process for Men?
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Progressives Opposed to Due Process for Men? Maybe those accused of rape on campus should be tried in criminal court where the crime can be adjudicated under the rules of due process. July 26, 2017 5:54 p.m. ET ...
Betsy DeVos: Trump's illiberal ally seen as most dangerous education chief everThe Guardian

all 55 news articles »

See more here:
Progressives Opposed to Due Process for Men? - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Democrats please progressives with left-leaning policy agenda – McClatchy Washington Bureau


McClatchy Washington Bureau
Democrats please progressives with left-leaning policy agenda
McClatchy Washington Bureau
The Democratic Party's top leaders talked about reviving Teddy Roosevelt's fights against big corporations, mimicked Bernie Sanders' calls for a massive minimum wage hike, and echoed Franklin Roosevelt's promise to deliver a New Deal to the American ...
Help us Bernie Sanders, you're our only hope: Why the beloved progressive should start a labor partySalon
Looking Back at President Bernie Sanders, Six Months Into His TenurePatheos (blog)
Sanders keeping door open on 2020The Hill

all 37 news articles »

View post:
Democrats please progressives with left-leaning policy agenda - McClatchy Washington Bureau

8 Lessons US Progressives Can Learn From the UK Labour Party – YES! Magazine

In March, progressive activists in the United Kingdom had reason to feel deeply discouraged. Nine months earlier, a majority had voted for Brexit, setting in motion plans to pull the U.K. out of the European Union. Then Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May decided to call a snap election with the goal of consolidating Tory power in Parliament in the face of weak opposition. The Labour Party, led by progressive Jeremy Corbyn, was polling at a miserable 24 percent and facing the possibility of further marginalization.

But on June 8, Corbyn and the Labour Party experienced a stunning reversal of fortune, almost winning the national election called in to vanquish them. And as of mid-July, Labour is 8 percentage points ahead of the Conservatives.

One key force in this change was a grassroots network called Momentum, formed in 2015 to build participation and engagement in the Labour Party. This election, Momentum mobilized 23,000 members and 150 local chapters through on-the-ground campaigning and social media. Think Our Revolution and MoveOn.org with a powerful electoral field operation.

The results were beautiful, said Deborah Waters, a Momentum co-founder and volunteer. I heard it described as the bitterest of victories for the Conservatives and the sweetest of defeats for Labour. The winners didnt really win and the losers didnt really lose.

How did this reversal happen? And what can those of us deep in this Trump presidency learn from it? What follows are eight lessons from Momentum and Labours remarkable campaign.

What Momentum did best, according to national organizer Emma Rees, was [to] energize and mobilize people. Rees said that at every training session theyve had33 so farhalf the people who attended have been completely new to political organizing and had never knocked on a door.

New recruits were attracted to Momentum through creative social media outreach, campaigns featuring popular artists, and one-on-one connections through personal networks.

Momentum also activated long-time Labour voters who hadnt been enlisted to work for the campaign in decades.

Whether new to the Labour Party or long-time supporters, Momentum recruits were put to work for the campaign: Thousands of members knocked on doors, made phone calls, and performed other volunteer campaign tasks.

With their slogan For the Many, Not the Few, Labour and Momentum put issues of income, wealth, and social inequality at the center of the campaign. According to their website, Momentums goals are to redistribute wealth and power from the few to the many, put people and planet before profit and narrow corporate interests, and build a society free from all types of discrimination.

Waters, a veteran Labour Party organizer, said this focus on inequality made their campaign much more inclusive than in past elections, when her party focused primarily on turning out Labour-identified voters. Focusing on inequality helped the campaign reach across party lines, she said. When it comes down to it, we all have the same worries, the same fears for our families. Basically, its about reducing inequalities.

When Theresa May called a snap election, some Labour leaders wanted to shift into defensive mode. The initial response of some sections of the Labour Party was to run a Stop the Tory landslide campaign, said Rees. That kind of campaign would have been all about damage mitigation, she said.

Instead, Momentum ran a campaign that called for transformative change in the lives of ordinary people. And Rees believes that vision motivated people to participate in the campaign and, ultimately, to vote.

At the heart of Momentum are 150 local, volunteer-run groups. As of June, there was a small national team of six paid organizers and another dozen full-time volunteers, supporting a field of thousands of volunteers for local chapters.

To become an official local Momentum group, there are some basic guidelines. Local groups must have gender parity, a meeting space with disabled access, a Facebook page, and a group email address. But otherwise, local groups can choose to self-organize in any way. The national team provides support but also learns from local chapters and shares ideas among the network.

Local Momentum activists knocked on tens of thousands of doors, set up information tables at markets, and worked to have real, one-on-one connections with people.

Momentum identified 66 swing districts where Labour had in previous elections come within 7,000 votes of winning. Waters said that though many thought this was a waste of resources, Momentum was getting signals from their local chapters that there was tremendous grassroots energy for change.

To help organizers target swing districts, Momentum created a website where volunteers can locate nearby swing districts by entering their postal codes. The website also matched people to carpool to nearby districts so volunteers could support local chapters with more canvassers. In the end, Labour won all but four of the 66 swing districts they targeted and picked up 32 seats.

Corbyn exudes integrity. Hes not a jet-setter. He lives in a modest North London home, grows his own vegetables in a community garden (and makes his own jam), and takes pictures of manhole covers as a hobby.

There is an enthusiasm factor that the polls failed to catch, said Rees, an intensity of support for Corbyn in large part because he is a real bloke. He is authentic. People feel they can trust him. A 1984 picture of Corbyn being arrested for protesting apartheid in South Africa was widely circulated among younger voters, reminding people of his lifelong commitment to racial justice (similar to photos of Bernie Sanders getting arrested for civil rights demonstrations).

Like the Bernie Sanders campaign, the Corbyn campaign mobilized millions of younger voters. They filled the ranks of Momentum volunteers, working alongside traditional Labour party activists.

The movement to elect Corbyn was animated by musicians and artists. Grime musicians, a music scene that emerged in London in the early 2000s, formed Grime4Corbyn. Other music scenes, like Moshers for Corbyn, followed along. These artists promoted voter registration and engaged their audiences.

Momentum aimed to use social media to make politics fun. They produced hundreds of shareable graphics and videos, including one popular memeBring your Dog to the Pollswhere people posted pictures of themselves with their dogs outside polling places before the election.

Social media can sometimes just be an echo chamber, but we are trying to change and break out to reach new people, Rees said. Some of our videos were highly shareable. While the conservatives spent millions on dark ads accusing Corbyn of being a threat to national security, we spent like 2,000 on Facebook advertising.

Rees said that 1 in 3 Facebook users in the U.K. watched a Momentum video during the campaign, and a staggering 7.4 million watched one particularly popular video.

The experience of Momentum is inspirational and instructive for those eager to repel Trumpism and the right-wing takeover of U.S. politics. There are obvious differences between our countries: The United States is more geographically diverse and our electoral systemsa parliamentary system in the U.K. and a Republican and Democratic party duopoly in the United Statesare also quite different. And the United States faces the special challenge of highly gerrymandered districts that reduce the number of truly competitive races.

But one common denominator is the power of grassroots organizing and the importance of face-to-face engagement. There is a realignment happening in U.S. politics, the result of growing inequality and polarization, and this creates both dangerous volatility and progressive possibilities. We need to build on the existing infrastructure of grassroots movements and mobilizing groups. Perhaps Momentum can provide some inspiration.

Read Chuck Collins full interview with Momentum activists Emma Rees and Deborah Waters here.

Read the original here:
8 Lessons US Progressives Can Learn From the UK Labour Party - YES! Magazine

Progressives Ban Dawkins From Speaking and Further Expose Their Hypocrisy – Townhall

|

Posted: Jul 24, 2017 10:01 AM

By canceling a talk by famed scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins, leftwing progressives have engaged in an ugly double standard, further exposing their hypocrisy.

As reported by the Independent, Dawkins was scheduled to speak on the Berkeley campus in August but the event was canceled after organizers learned about his criticisms of Islam.

What about his strong criticisms of Christianity? What about his attacks on the Bible? What about his horrific description of the God of the Old Testament? Did any of this bother the organizers, who were from the radio station KPFA, billed as a progressive station?

According to Dawkins, The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (From his book The God Delusion.)

Was this OK with KFPA, which recently featured a show on the theme of Liberation and Solidarity in the Gay and Lesbian Left?

In the past, Dawkins questioned whether it was acceptable for parents to teach their religious beliefs to their children. He wrote, Isnt it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about?

Did this kind of statement trouble the organizers? Apparently not. Rather, it was Dawkins tweets about Islam that got his event cancelled. As the organizers explained, we had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science when we didnt know he had offended and hurt in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people.

KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier.

Of course, its possible that the organizers didnt know everything about Dawkins attacks on Christianity and the Bible, but I seriously question if they would have banned him for this. Perhaps they would have even applauded these attacks, since its always in style to bash the Bible.

Put another way, bash Christians, youre a hero; bash Muslims, youre a zero. Bash Christians, well cheer you; bash Muslims, well jeer you.

Dawkins himself noted the double standard, writing, I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticize Christianity but not Islam?

Thats the real gist of the question. Had the organizers cancelled the event because they wanted to focus on science and didnt want Dawkins to bring his anti-God, anti-religious baggage with him, that would have been one thing. But to cancel his event because of his criticism of Islam? This is highly instructive.

To ask again: Were the organizers totally unaware that Dawkins had hurt and offended millions of Christians and Jews over the years? Did they only know of him as a science writer? This strains credulity.

Focusing on Twitter, how about this April, 2015 tweet on Dawkins Twitter account, linking to a video where he is exploding at b---s--- in the Bible? Or how about this one, from June, 2017, which states, God: the most unpleasant character in all fiction?

Did none of these tweets concern KPFA? Again, it appears not, since it is only Islam, not the Bible, which is somehow exempt from criticism on the left.

Its also ridiculous to argue that radical Islam is not abusive but criticism of radical Islam is abusive. As one commenter on Twitter observed, Kill the infidel, beheadings, enslaving women, taking children as wives etc are not abusive. However, accusing these disgusting beliefs is?

Dawkins himself wrote in response to his Berkeley event being canceled, I have indeed strongly condemned the misogyny, homophobia, and violence of Islamism, of which Muslims particularly Muslim women are the prime victims. I make no apologies for denouncing those oppressive cruelties, and I will continue to do so.

So, Dawkins has condemned what could be called the anti-progressive aspects of Islam. Yet for this he is de-platformed by the so-called progressive left, which once again feels the need to fend off criticism of Islam while ignoring criticism of the Bible and the Christian faith.

The progressives remain true to form.

Original post:
Progressives Ban Dawkins From Speaking and Further Expose Their Hypocrisy - Townhall

Do progressives really want a President Pence? – The Independent Florida Alligator

Do progressives really want a President Pence? Their immediate answer may be: yes, impeach President Donald Trump no matter what, but if progressives considered what was best for their agenda, they would recognize how relatively great the Trump presidency has been thus far.

Last week, special counsel Robert Mueller revealed the Department of Justices probe of Trumps campaign regarding collusion with Russia would be extended to allow investigation into all of Trumps business transactions with Russians dating as far back as 2008.

While this revelation hasnt grabbed headlines like previous developing stories on Russian collusion, it could have serious legal implications for Trump. Doing business in Russia is not like doing business in the U.S. The Russian economy is largely controlled by the president and is run more like a mob than a legitimate economic organization. Because of this, to have favorable business deals in Russia, businessmen have to do business as Russians do. In other words, in order to have a successful business in Russia, ethical standards are abandoned to give bribes to elected officials or to pay whoever needs to be appeased. As a result, Trump, who has had several successful business ventures in Russia since 2008, should be particularly worried. It does not take much of an imagination to see Trump bribing a crony of Russian President Vladimir Putins to ensure the success of his Miss Universe pageant. This has potential to expose his presidencys possible less-than-legal financial exchanges, which could evolve into grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

While this may be the result progressives have been clamoring for since his inauguration, it may not be as desirable as they imagine. If Trump is impeached and subsequently removed from office, Vice President Mike Pence would be sworn in as president. Pence, because he was not directly elected by the Americans, would obviously lack the popular legitimacy an American presidency desires. Nevertheless, for many reasons, he would be a much tougher opponent for liberals. This leads me to question why liberals would want to remove a president from office who may be the most liberal Republican president in recent history.

Trump may not seem to be a liberal on the surface: He ran as a Republican, favors increased military spending, advocates for limited government in most areas and nominated a textualist to the U.S Supreme Court. These are traditionally conservative ideological views, but does Trump himself favor these ideas? Trump has expressed protectionist trade views on the campaign trail and has even supported Democratic political candidates vocally and financially both of which are counter to typical Republican ideals and are much more aligned with liberals than conservatives.

Pence as president would be a dream come true for establishment Republicans who have openly opposed Trump since he declared his candidacy. Establishment Republicans have ensured that no major legislation would pass for Trump to sign. Nearly everything substantial that Trump has accomplished thus far has been a result of executive orders. This would not be a problem with a President Pence. Pence has enjoyed amicable relations with Republicans during his entire career. Instead of encountering resistance among Senate and House Republicans, Pence could take advantage of a united Republican majority and pass major legislation.

Mike Pence is a rock-ribbed conservative. He does not support LGBTQ+ rights, is anti-abortion and generally holds views counter to those held by progressives on the issues they hold most dear. And because Pence has such good relations with his fellow Republicans, he would likely be able to make progress in achieving his desired goals. A President Pence could push Democrats to tone down their hysteria, considering Pence is a more traditional politician that is nowhere near as controversial as Trump and doesnt tweet everything that comes to mind.

So, how would a Trump impeachment help advance the progressive agenda?

Jack Story is a UF graduate. His column appears on Tuesdays.

Link:
Do progressives really want a President Pence? - The Independent Florida Alligator