Mediaboss Marketing

The Labour leadership could be rationalised as reflecting the politics of leave-dominated constituencies. But it has taken principled positions in other areas. Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/AFP/Getty Images

It is a paradox not lost on many Labour MPs that while their leader is to the left even of Michael Foot, he has collaborated with the right more than any Labour leader since Ramsay MacDonald. Jeremy Corbyns insistence that Brexit means leaving the single market and customs union unpicking Keir Starmers carefully woven tapestry of ambiguity now puts him in the same place as Theresa May and Liam Fox. That place is to the hard right of British politics.

The similarities with MacDonald, accused by a large swath of his party of propping up a Conservative-dominated government committed to austerity, are striking. The Labour leadership is supporting the Conservatives on the biggest issue of the day, despite the economic harm that leaving the worlds largest single market is likely to cause by reducing tax receipts and increasing austerity.

Will the parliamentary Labour party put up with it? Many Labour MPs seek to oppose the first government since the second world war to no longer regard economic competence and performance as central to its programme. The Conservative proposition at the general election was extraordinary for its comically innumerate manifesto, and its treatment of business as an embarrassing relative best kept out of sight. The party has been consumed by English nationalism and the politics of identity: the economic consequences of policy are secondary to taking back control.

The far left has long viewed the EU as a capitalist project that good socialists should steer well clear of

I am genuinely puzzled by the position of Labours leadership. It could be rationalised as reflecting the politics of leave-dominated constituencies. But the leadership has taken principled positions in other areas. Moreover, it is seriously at odds with voters in London and Scotland, and the trade unionmovement.

I suspect that at the heart of it is a lingering attachment to the negative views about Europe incubated in the 1970s. The far left has long viewed the EU as deeply inimical to its values: a capitalist project that good socialists should steer well clear of. Somehow, that view of the world has survived like a mammoth preserved in the Siberian permafrost. The Guardians economics editor, Larry Elliott, breathes new life into it; and, as it appears to be the stance of Corbyn, we must engage with it, however removed it might be from todays reality.

Elliot and others argue that single market freedoms prevent sensible interventionism. They dont. State aid rules are sensibly designed to prevent ruinous bidding by national governments for internationally mobile capital. But they do not inhibit intelligent state intervention. As business secretary I had to seek state aid approval for several projects, including the publicly owned green investment bank. There was delay, but all were agreed.

The rules around public procurement have been over-interpreted by zealous British officialdom as outlawing support for community and national businesses. But this misguided literalism is not the European way: Germany and France interpret the rules more flexibly. The European commissions aggressive competition policy stems from a healthy distrust of monopoly.

Surely the Labour leadership has noticed that the European commission is the only organisation willing and able to challenge the new global internet platforms that treat national governments with contempt. European competition rules are, however, too permissive in relation to takeovers as is our own legislation which leave our science-based companies wide open to predatory acquisition. But other European countries are open to reform in this area.

More generally, outside the time warp of the British far-left, European progressive parties have recognised that the liberalising forces of the single market are balanced by strong environmentalism, consumer protection and labour standards: precisely that which the Conservative right is determined to get rid of once we take back control.

There is however one area where the left critique of the European project has real force, though it has limited impact on Britain. The asymmetrical demand management policies that have been pursued within the eurozone, at the behest of rigid advocates of German fiscal orthodoxy, have been very damaging to countries such as Greece and Italy. But they arent just an offence against the ideas of the left; they are bad economics. Leaders like Macron who understand that the need for a European Germany rather than a German Europe could (especially with help from the UK) change direction. Those who speak most eloquently against these policies, like Yanis Varoufakis, have argued for Britain to remainin the EU.

Tribalism gets in the way of sensible collaboration in British politics. But I want to reach out to Labour MPs privately angry that they are being ordered into the division lobbies to vote for Theresa Mays extreme Brexit. It is time we were more grown-up in politics and worked together where there is common ground. There are also sensible Conservative MPs who understand that Britain is stronger in the single market and customs union.

Leaving Europe has the potential to smash open the British party system. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for pro-European progressives to fight the forces of nationalism and reaction including on the reactionary left.

See more here:
Corbyn wants a hard-right Brexit. Progressives must fight back, not follow - The Guardian

Progressive Voice is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in the column are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their organizations or ARLnow.com.

ByLarry Roberts

This is the final installment in a series of columns about how Arlington progressives and 8thCongressional District (Arlington, Alexandria, Falls Church and parts of Fairfax) Democrats responded from a policy perspective to the 2016 Presidential election.

I am providing again without editorial comment the progressive agenda as defined by resolutions adopted by the 8thCongressional District Democratic Convention delegates. This is a window into the views of progressive voters entering a gubernatorial election year with an outcome that will have a dramatic effect on progressives, Arlington County and the Commonwealths future.

Support for Local Moderate Income Down Payment Assistance Programs. We support Virginia developing local down payment assistance programs for well qualified first-time homebuyers; income limits for those who can qualify should consider multiple independent income earners in conjunction with or rather than total household size; and adding minimum annual student loan payments to the formula for determining income limits.

Thanking Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) for His Service to Virginia. McAuliffe has served as Virginias Governor with distinction. He restored public trust and confidence in the office in the wake of conflict of interest scandals surrounding his predecessor. On his first day in office, the Governor signed an executive order imposing a $100 gift ban on himself, his family and members of his administration and their families.

Under his leadership, Virginia has announced 926 projects, created 189,200 new jobs and attracted $15.86 billion in new capital investment. McAuliffe has worked to prepare the Commonwealth for the effects of climate changes and to reduce Virginias contribution to its causes. To promote Virginias State Park System, he will visit every state park.

In addition to positive leadership on important policy issues, the Governor has been an essential bulwark against the mean-spirited attempts of the Republican-controlled General Assembly to take Virginia backwards on many social and economic issues. He has vetoed 91 bills and has amended many additional ones. Absent his actions, Virginia would be far less welcoming to many of its residents.

Therefore, the Convention congratulates McAuliffe on a job well done and urges voters to elect a Democratic successor to continue his efforts to curb the excesses of the Republican-controlled General Assembly.

Title IX. Protections for transgender students should be reinstated and guidance issued, and investigations commenced by the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education should be continued per the current standards. Additionally, the OCR should be fully funded to ensure that all students in Virginia are protected so that they can attend public schools and universities safely and free of discrimination. All K-12 and Virginia higher education institutions should advance and enforce the principles and legal standards of equality promulgated under Title IX.

Title X. Title X of the Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Program provides significant and critical health and economic benefits for individuals, families and society. Millions of low income men and women in the United States rely on publicly funded services through Title X, family planning services, and other health care services including early detection and treatment of STIs and cervical cancer.

Without adequate funding to Title X to pay for these services, many men and women in Virginia will have no access to these lifesaving and family planning services. Sufficient funding should be provided to adequately meet the needs of the residents of Virginia who rely on services funded through Title X. The Federal government should prohibit discrimination against Title X providers that perform abortions with non-federal funds.

Voting Rights. We condemn any measure that seeks to gain political advantage by hindering citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote; urge Congress to act promptly to fix Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act so that states with a recent history of discrimination will once again be subject to pre-clearance review by the Department of Justice; urge the General Assembly to enact a no-excuse in-person early (absentee) voting procedures, repeal the recently-enacted voter ID laws, and streamline voter registration procedures; and commend McAuliffes actions to restore voting rights to convicted felons who have served their time without the unnecessary and time consuming application process previously imposed.

The General Assembly must amend Article II, Section I of the State Constitution to remove Jim Crow-era felon disenfranchisement provisions. The Virginia Parole Board and other government organizations should actively educate Virginians on their restored voting rights and assist them in registering to vote.

Larry Roberts is an attorney in private practice who has previously served in the state Cabinet as Counselor to Governor Tim Kaine and as Arlington County Democratic Committee Chair. He has been Chair for three successful statewide political campaigns, including Justin Fairfaxs campaign to be the Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor in 2017.

Continued here:
Progressive Voice: A Progressive Agenda Part 5 | ARLnow.com - ARL now

DNC Chair Tom Perez. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

In May 2017, the Democratic National Committee (DNC)postedits worst fundraising month since 2003, and April 2017 was its worst since 2009. Its abysmal fundraising turnout has continued into June, during which it only raised$5.5 millionand added $200,000 to the organizations debt of $3.3 million. The DNC has $7.5 million in cash on hand. For comparison, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has over $44 million and no debt. The DNCs lack of cash doesnt bode well forDemocratshoping to recoup their losses in 2018.

While the DNC has repelled progressives, voters, and even the wealthy donors that new DNC Chair Tom Perez was instilled to appease, theDemocraticCongressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is abandoning progressivesto shift the party further to the right. The DCCC receivedcriticismfor pouring funds and resources into Georgia special election congressional candidate Jon Ossoff while ignoring Bernie Sanders-backed candidates in special elections in Montana and Kansas. Ossoffs campaign received over $23 million in campaign funds, making it the most expensive congressional election in history. His election was supposed to prove that fiscally conservative neo-liberals running in wealthy suburbs was the key toDemocrats recovery. Even though Ossoff came up short, the DCCC is doubling down on running Republican-lite candidates.

IBTimesreportedon July 20, To the scorn of progressives,Democratstrying to win back the U.S. House next year are relying on the conservative wing of the party. TheDemocraticCongressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Houses primary campaign group, is coordinating with the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 18 moderateDemocratsthat has shriveled in numbers and power in recent years, BloombergreportedMonday. The Blue Dog Coalition and the DCCC have widely favored courting Wall Street donors and appeasing them by propping up candidates who dont engage in rhetoric perceived as anti-Wall Street. By relying on moderate candidates, the DCCC is doubling down the faction thatran the party into the ground during theObamaadministration.

These people are the absolute last ones theDemocratsneed. Not only have the tectonic plates of politics fundamentally shifted from 2008, when the Blue Dogs peaked, the caucus ideology is bad and political poison, wrote Ryan Cooper in an op-ed for The Week. It may still be possible to win a race or two with a Blue Dog candidate. But their knee-jerk fiscal conservatism during a huge recession was politically catastrophic for the party as a whole (in addition to being stunningly economically illiterate).

The enthusiasm and energy within theDemocratic Partyis with the progressive wing, which champions policies like Medicare for All. TheDemocraticestablishmentresists progressives, and their failure to harness their energy ultimately benefits Trump and the Republican Party. Democratshave provided a pathetic opposition to Trumpand Republicans so far, and its likely these weaknesses will translate into losses come election season.

Steven ThrasherexplainedhowDemocratshave built the foundation for this weak opposition in a recent op-ed in The Guardian,TheDNCsinability to be an effective opposition party has been almost a decade in the making, exacerbated by their loss of over900 legislative seats since Obama took office in 2009; Obamas failure toprosecute Wall Street bankersafter they stolenearly half the black wealthin the country; the partys failure to develop an economic vision that waslittle more than Republican Lite(or, as Obamaput it, 1980s moderate Republicanism); and,unfairly helpingHillaryClintonduring the 2016 primaries, even though Bernie Sandersconsistently polled betterthan Clinton and the political winds (fanned by Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter) haveclearly moved onfrom neoliberal Clintonomics. Rather than harness progressives enthusiasm, which has gained strength withBernie Sanderspollingas the most popular politician in the country, Democratsto their detrimentare trying to revive past ideologies and strategies.

Go here to see the original:
Fundraising Trouble for DNC, DCCC Ignores Progressives for Wall ... - Observer

Progressive groups across the nation are launching their 2018 campaign efforts this weekend.

Their goal?Turn the 2018 midterms into a single-issue election that focuses solely on President Donald Trumps efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

The Health Care Voter campaign will kick off at more than 125 planned health care protests around the country. Voters will be asked to fill out a pledge cardvowingto vote out members of Congress who voteto get rid of Obamacare. The campaign will then use the collected contact information to alert voters about planned protests and town hall meetings.

The campaigns launch comes after the Senate votedto debate,predominantly alongparty lines, the GOP bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.

This vote is an attack against the most vulnerable people in the nation, a statement from the Womens March said in a tweet. Millions of families will now lose their health care coverage as a result of the GOPs vicious and dangerous actions.

Other progressive groups jumpedat the opportunity to wage attacks on Republican senators.

Republicans like Sens. Dean Heller and Rob Portman should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring the floods of people calling, protesting, and fighting like hell to keep their health care coverage,NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Houge said in a statement. The senators who voted to advance this bill yet again demonstrated that they will cast the health and well-being of women and families to the side in order to score points with the fringe elements of their base.

The American people will not sit by and be taken back to a time where people with pre-existing conditions died of easily treatable diseases, and people paid more for less comprehensive health care, Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of the pro-womens equality group UltraViolet, told CNN. Our lives depend on it, and our senators promised to protect us now we promise to make sure their constituents know how they voted.

Organizers and participants include:

One of the groups, Save My Care, launched radio attack ads targeting Republican Sens.Dean Heller (Nev.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) andCory Gardner (Colo.).

Go here to see the original:
Progressives launch massive campaign targeting Republicans who favor Obamacare repeal - TheBlaze.com

Attorney General Jeff Sessions looks during a press conference at the Department of Justice, in Washington, on July 13.

Aaron Bernstein/Reuters

All week, people have been making jokes on social media about how horrified they are to find themselves rooting for Jeff Sessions. With Sessions being publicly taunted and humiliated by Donald Trump every day in the press and on Twitter, even those who stand against everything he represents seem to be feeling protective of the attorney general. For many progressives, its a disorienting stance: Even as they condemn Sessions for all the policies hes pursued as the nations most powerful law enforcement officialon immigration, on police reform, on prison sentencingtheyve been put in the awkward position of hoping he keeps his job.

Leon Neyfakh is a Slate staff writer.

Theres no question that the attorney general has been a very detrimental force to civil rights progress and has undermined civil rights for so many communities even in the short time hes been attorney general, said Vanita Gupta, the former head of the Civil Rights Division and the president of theLeadership Conferenceon Civil and Human Rights. [But] I think it is really alarming that a president is attacking the Justice Departments independence and its institutional mandate to ensure that no one is above the law. Gupta called Trumps attacks on Sessions and DOJ a move toward autocracy, adding that while no one in the civil rights community is championing the attorney general, theres a sense that something fundamental is at stake here. I think the concern for civil rights advocates is the way in which this fundamentally undermines the rule of law.

Jonathan Smith, a civil rights attorney who spent four years working on police reform in the Obama Justice Department, took a similar position, telling me that in the absence of any good options, making sure Trump isnt allowed to overpower DOJ is of paramount importance. The attorney general should go, but not at the price of placing Trump above the law, he said in an email. The nation faces a terrible Hobsons choice, and Trump is a threat to the democracy.

I am not a Sessions fan (of course) but I find myself rooting for him to stay the course, said Richard Ugelow, an employment rights specialist who served in the Civil Rights Division for almost 30 years before leaving in 2004. The integrity and independence of DOJ is at issue.

This point of view makes intuitive sense to me. By making it clear that his anger at Sessions is almost entirely rooted in the attorney generals decision to give up oversight of the FBIs Russia investigation, Trump has effectively promised that hed try to replace Sessions with someone more obedient. Rudy Giuliani? Ted Cruz? A guy named John Huber from Utah? Whoever got the job, it seems obvious that this person would be tasked with making it easier for Trump to get rid of special counsel Robert Mueller and generally put the Justice Department under White House control. Under such extraordinary circumstances, rooting for Sessions feels like rooting for the rule of law and the continued independence of the Justice Department.

On Tuesday, some alumni of the department told me that this is nonsense. Sessions remains a villain, they said, and whatever the causes and consequences of his departure, it would be better if he wasnt the attorney general anymore.

I dont hope for one second that Jeff Sessions stays in his job, said University of Michigan Law School professor Sam Bagenstos, who began his career at DOJ in 1994 and later served as a political appointee under Obama. If Trump fires Sessions in an effort to interfere with Muellers investigation, that will be an abuse of power that I will criticize. And I will do what little I can effectively do to oppose Sessions replacement with someone who seems likely to abuse the power of the office.But I dont see how any of that would make me hope that Sessions stays.

Bagenstos argued that the premise that Sessions can be expected to protect the DOJs independence is incorrect. Sure, he recused himself from the Russia investigation, but he did that only because he was legally required to, and theres no reason to interpret it as a sign that Sessions will stand up for the DOJ in the future. Matthew Miller, an Obama-era spokesman for the DOJ, echoed this point: Sessions already demonstrated his lack of independence, Miller said, when he signed off on James Comeys firing in May, and he confirmed his status as a yes-man by staying silent in the face of Trumps outrageous tweets about the DOJ being weak on Hillary Clinton.

Its possible that Sessions successor would be less effective at making Trumps dreams come true.

He has refused to stand up and defend the department against the vicious assaults on it by the president, Miller told me in an email. He added, Sessions should be out publicly telling the president to back offto stop trying to meddle in DOJs investigationsand if hes not willing to do that, he might as well leave.

Several former DOJ officials, including Bagenstos and his one-time Civil Rights Division colleague Roy L. Austin, suggested that I shouldnt overthink the question of whether the country is better or worse off with Sessions as AG. What ought to matter most is his agenda, they said, and the fact that he has already made tremendous progress toward fulfilling it is reason enough to want him out.

He has just done so much other damage to DOJ that I dont want to see him there anymore and it does not particularly matter to me how he leaves, Austin said in an email. Pretty much everything about this presidents Cabinet picks has been a disaster, so it is not like the next pick could be much worse and I will hold out some hope for a little better.

Bagenstos framed Sessions potential departure as urgent harm reduction. Sessions is actively doing a lot of harm right now, on vote suppression, on civil rights generally, on drug and forfeiture policy, he said. He is as extreme an appointee as one can imagine on these issues.And that has to weigh in the calculus here.

Is there really any chance that after ousting one extremist, the Trump administration would bring in someone less extreme? The answer is we dont know, but one thing that can be said about Sessions six months into this presidency is that he has made extremely quick work of advancing his policy goals. As an arch-right attorney general who has been described as the presidents ideological twin, Sessions has demonstrated a tremendous aptitude for the work of policymaking in the Trump era. Its possible that Sessions successor would lack that aptitude and be less effective at making Trumps dreams come true.

Its also possible that Sessions replacement would be less ideological than he is, a former DOJ official told me, speaking on the condition of anonymity. I think his departure will lift a significant barrier from the administration that will allow it to eventually take more moderate tones on a host of issues, the official said. This particular individual is such a roadblock to anything positive going on. That is why Breitbart is siding with Sessions over Trump.

These are thought-provoking arguments. It seems at least possible that 1) with Sessions out of the picture, Trumps ability to do bad things would be crippled because hed be forced to operate without his most effective lieutenant; and 2) Sessions is the last guy anyone should count on to protect the DOJs independence.

And yet, for many peoplemyself includeda scenario in which Sessions gets fired or resigns feels somehow more dangerous and dislocating than the alternative. Why? Because if Sessions were to leave now under pressure from Trump, it could end up proving that this president really can do whatever he wants, up to and including taming the Department of Justice. It would be yet another test for elected officials who have so far failed all of them: If it happens and theres no more reaction from Congress than there was after the Comey firing, it would feel like decisive evidence that nothing will ever change. Trump would be in good shape, autocracy-wise, if firing his attorney general for failing to protect him from the FBI doesnt cross a red line for law-and-order conservatives on Capitol Hill.

No one knows exactly what would happen if Trump fires Sessions or the attorney general resigns. But the mere fact of it happening would demonstrate that Trump is able and willing to do a lot more than just talk about bringing the DOJ to heel. This is a scary thought.

Top Comment

It's really all a matter of gauging the odds. What is the likelihood that his replacement will be significantly better on voting rights, domestic surveillance, asset forfeiture, and drug policy? More...

While Sessions replacement would probably be less conservative, thats not what matters now, said Eric Columbus, who served in the deputy attorney generals office from 2009 to 2014.Trump wants to fire Sessions because Sessions upheld the rule of law. That alone is reason to hope Sessions sticks it out. Quitting would set a dangerous precedent for the next time an official ponders whether following the law is worth the cost of enraging Trump.

Columbus continued, During the campaign I found myself nodding in bewildered agreement with principled conservatives who bucked Trump. I never expected Sessions would join that crowd, but here we are.

See the rest here:
Should He Stay or Should He Go? - Slate Magazine