Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Letter: Progressive liberal left controls the media – Chico Enterprise-Record

Remember the 70s saying, What is real? You wont find your factual real answer on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, The Associated Press and Reuters. I grew up believing that true journalism was reporting objectively, the factually confirmed news. Today, since the Enterprise-Record fills up its space content with Associated Press column reporting, count all the pages each day, each report is filled with biased, liberal leaning, misplace a fact or two editorializing. They buried objective reporting after colluding with the Russians, the progressive liberal left, Hillary Clintons hammer using computer server killers, Loretta Lynchs airport tarmac love fest with Bill Clinton, Lois Learner, the director of the IRS, and of course, who could forget Eric Holders middle finger to Congress when asked to testify under oath. Barack Obama had one heck of a corruption team. And how many minutes did the above news outlets dedicate to each and every one of Obamas scandals? Just 1.45 minutes.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the progressive liberal machine has learned they have all but destroyed Illinois government. S&P downgraded their credit worthiness to junk after learning those Democratic vote bribes for a pension have landed the state in a $250 billion deficit. Illinois state legislature representatives are talking about dissolving the state and/or formal bankruptcy. Good job progressives. California is next. Being saddled with $125 billion unfunded pension liabilities currently, Jerry Brown and his progressives say, Dont worry, well just borrow more money and cook the books. Yeah, we know.

Rick Clements, Paradise

Read the original post:
Letter: Progressive liberal left controls the media - Chico Enterprise-Record

‘She’s Not On Our Radar’: Progressives May Not Support Kamala Harris In 2020 – The Daily Caller

Many progressive votersquestion whetherDemocratic Sen. Kamala Harris of California wouldrepresent them if she campaignedagainst President Donald Trump in 2020, according to report released Friday.

Despiteher rising popularity on the national stage, progressive voters are unsure just how the freshman senator wouldrepresent them if she were to run for the White House.

Shes not on our radar, RoseAnn DeMuro, a supporter of former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, told the New York Times about Harris potential White House run. Shes one of the people the Democratic Party is putting up. In terms of where the progressives live, I dont think theres any there there. DeMuro heads National Nurses United, as well as the California Nurses Association.

Veteran Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein also appeared to distance herself from supporting the rising senator.

She just got here, Feinstein said. What she should do is concentrate on being a good, and possibly a great, United States senator. The rest will either happen or not happen.

Harris made a namefor herself during her questioning of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and AttorneyGeneral Jeff Sessions during a June Senate hearing. She was interrupted by Sens. Richard Burr and John McCain for her not letting the witnesses fully answer the question.

Since then, shes traveledthe country raising money for other Democrats, a pretty sure sign that shes interested in playing a national role moving forward. Shes raised more than $600,000 so far this year on behalf of a Democratic Senate fund, according to the report.

Harris hasalso shied away from far-left positions, mentioning several times that Democratic senators cant afford to be purists to gain an edge in the Senate in the 2018 midterms.

Follow Phillip On Twitter

Have a Tip? Let us Know

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Read more:
'She's Not On Our Radar': Progressives May Not Support Kamala Harris In 2020 - The Daily Caller

Knight: Unions offer balance to conservatives, progressives – Washington Times-Reporter

Bill Knight / Opinion columnist

Conservatives occasionally concede that organized labor has been a reason for rising standards of living and making the middle class, and The Atlantic magazine shows that unions provide common ground for progressives and conservatives alike.

Historically, conservative pundits and politicians have praised unions. Columnist George Will in 1977 said, I think American labor unions get a large share of the credit for making us a middle-class country.

In 1991, Republican economist George Schultz (Secretary of Labor under Richard Nixon and Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan) said a healthy workplace [needs] some system of checks and balances and unions provided an effective system of industrial jurisprudence, a check on corporations focus on profits.

In The Atlantic, Jonathan Rauch recalls a 2016 brunch with conservative Eli Lehrer, who runs Washingtons Republican-leaning R Street Institute, and Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union.

Lehrer believes the time has come for the American Right to reconsider its decades-long war on unions, Rauch says. Their collapse, he says, has fueled the growth of government and of the welfare state, which has stepped in to regulate workplaces and provide job security as unions have died out.

Stern thinks unions cannot survive unless they innovate and change, but laws intended to protect and preserve them get in the way, Rauch adds.

The journal National Affairs this summer published Lehrer and Sterns essay about the need for change. In How to Modernize Labor Law, the two write, The fundamental federal rules governing employer-worker relations were written for a different era.

That era was the Great Depression. It resulted in 1935s National Labor Relations Act, but it hasnt substantially changed except for court rulings and sometimes-partisan National Labor Relations Board decisions since 1947s anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.

Meanwhile, regular working people are worried about pay but also anxious, if not angry, about how theyre treated. Last years campaign showed that many workers feel voiceless and powerless, that unhappy workers are angry voters, and that angry voters can lash out against trade, immigration, and even democracy.

Private-sector unions are close to extinct, Rauch writes. In the 1950s, more than one in three private-sector workers belonged to a union; today, unionization is down to 6 percent of the private-sector workforce, lower than it was a century ago before the modern labor movement took off.

The decline of unions is one of the countrys most pressing problems and at least as much a social and political problem as an economic one, he continues. Old-style, mid-20th-century industrial unions had their flaws. But when unions work as they should, they serve important social functions. They can smooth the jagged edges of globalization by giving workers bargaining power. They are associated with lower income inequality. Perhaps most important, they offer workers a way to be heard.

Other models exist for workers organizing, from Europes works councils, which give workers a voice in company affairs, to Germanys permitting unions to organize sectors rather than employers, offering incentives to workers and companies to cooperate for better competitiveness.

Unfortunately, in America in 2017, we dont know how a truly modern union would look, writes Rauch, because it is mostly illegal to find out.

Efforts to legislate reforms have fizzled (most recently, during President Obamas first term, when Democrats had more power), and the GOP-dominated Capitol makes change doubtful. But Stern and Lehrer suggest a workaround like giving states authority to grant labor-law waivers permitting experimentation. For example, if employers and unions had an interesting model that met certain guidelines, they could try it.

The Stern-Lehrer waiver idea is a no-brainer if we want to address the deeper causes of the malaise and distemper afflicting Americas lower-middle class, Rauch writes. Although income stagnation is certainly one culprit, another is the decline of the civic organizations and social institutions that help people feel connected. Service fraternities, volunteer clubs, youth groups, churches, political parties, widespread military service, unions and the rest in their prime all fostered social interaction a sense of social cohesion even when times were much tougher. None matters more than unions.

GOP President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s seem to know this, but also saw the relationship as unchanging.

Only a handful of reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions and depriving working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice, Ike said. I have no use for those regardless of their political party who hold some vain and foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when organized labor was huddled, almost as a hapless mass. Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.

Contact Bill at Bill.Knight@hotmail.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Knight: Unions offer balance to conservatives, progressives - Washington Times-Reporter

Why Progressivism and Religion Don’t Go Together – National Review

Anyone watching the Democratic leaders in the months since Donald Trump was elected president will likely agree: The party is in nearly complete disarray. There is less consensus, however, about exactly why Democrats are having such a difficult time defining themselves in the post-Trump electoral landscape.

Democratic candidates have fallen in special election after special election this spring, most recently in Jon Ossoffs nearly four-point loss to Republican Karen Handel in Georgias sixth district, despite the historic $23 million Ossoff raised and the extra millions poured into the race by the national Democratic party.

In the wake of that demoralizing defeat, some have suggested that the partys top leadership is the main issue, and Democratic politicians in the House have begun openly grumbling against minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Others on the Left believe that Democratic candidates have been losing because theyve stayed too close to the center, rather than endorsing the increasingly progressive policies some voters desire. Still others have posited that the underlying issue is the partys dismissive attitude toward religious values and even organized religion itself.

While the problems afflicting the party must stem from some combination of these factors, Democrats scorn for religion should be their biggest concern. That scorn is compounded by the partys sudden and dramatic swerve to the Left on key social issues abortion, contraception, religious liberty, and marriage, to name a few in a quest for votes from far-Left, progressive Americans.

Mr. Sanderss non-Christian background may have hurt him in the South; he did poorly among African-American voters, despite his consistent civil rights record. But he did what few other secular candidates have done: He won a sympathetic hearing from conservative evangelicals with a speech that gave a religious grounding for his economic views, complete with biblical citations. When Mr. Sanders spoke at Liberty University, he did not pretend to share evangelical Christians faith, but he showed respect for his audiences religious tradition.

Williams concluded by arguing that Democratic politicians must convince religious voters that they are not enemies of faith, and they ought to do so by grounding their policy proposals in the religious values of prospective voters.

This week, in a New York Times column, Annette Gordon-Reed and Peter Onuf offered an alternative model. The co-authors suggested that Thomas Jeffersons unique attitude toward religion which pervaded his contributions to the nations founding and early government could serve as a model for todays Democrats, especially Jeffersons vigorous embrace of civil religion and peaceful pluralism.

These debates may provide Democrats a method of attaining electoral success, perhaps even in the near future. But while each suggestion hints at a way of combating negative public perception, neither of these models can eliminate the underlying obstacle: progressivisms inherent contradiction of religion.

Progressivism has always been premised on the notion that man has a changeable nature and thus is able to achieve perfection during his time on earth. As a result, progressives consistently maintain that government is responsible for transforming men and women into perfect creatures. They develop programs and reforms suited not for man as he is, but for man as he ought to be (and, progressives would argue, for man as he could become, with the right societal structures).

Against that idea, most religious believers contend that man is flawed by his very nature and incapable of perfecting himself without the help of God, and that perfection is in fact unattainable during earthly life. While sects and denominations differ vastly, religion itself and indeed any dependence on a Creator is a direct contradiction to the progressive conception of man as changeable and perfectible.

In short, progressivism and religion understood as a fundamental reliance on God rather than on oneself or on other men are inherently incompatible. Where progressivism asserts that properly ordered government can and should transform man into a perfect being who lives in a man-made utopia, religion insists that God, not government, is responsible for changing mens hearts.

To be sure, many religious Americans believe that progressive social programs are helping to carry out Gods work caring for the worlds poor and needy. But that underlying contradiction remains a stumbling block for many faithful voters, especially when seen in conjunction with Democrats increasing repudiation of traditional values. Unless Democratic politicians understand and address those legitimate concerns, they wont sway those who reject the notion that government should take the place of God.

READ MORE: You Gotta Lie: The Tangled Progressive Web Backward-Looking Progressives Americas Progressive Auto-Immune Crisis Continues Apace

Alexandra DeSanctis is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

Continued here:
Why Progressivism and Religion Don't Go Together - National Review

Progressives Demand Voting Rights Overhaul Amid GOP Suppression Efforts – Common Dreams


Common Dreams
Progressives Demand Voting Rights Overhaul Amid GOP Suppression Efforts
Common Dreams
"Lots of folks believe that neither old party can fill the political vacuumand they could be right. But Congressman Beyer has offered his party an opportunity to rise above partisanship and stand on principle," writes John Nichols. (Photo: Michael ...

Go here to see the original:
Progressives Demand Voting Rights Overhaul Amid GOP Suppression Efforts - Common Dreams