Mediaboss Marketing

What wasnt to like?

A lot, as it turns out. The leaders of the Womens March, arguably the most prominent feminists in the country, have some chilling ideas and associations. Far from erecting the big tent so many had hoped for, the movement they lead has embraced decidedly illiberal causes and cultivated a radical tenor that seems determined to alienate all but the most woke.

***

Start with Ms. Sarsour, by far the most visible of the quartet of organizers. It turns out that this homegirl in a hijab, as one of many articles about her put it, has a history of disturbing views, as advertised by . . . Linda Sarsour.

There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: Nothing is creepier than Zionism, she wrote in 2012. And, oddly, given her status as a major feminist organizer, there are more than a few that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists, like this from 2015: Youll know when youre living under Shariah law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest-free. Sound nice, doesnt it? She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the most crude and cruel terms, insisting she is not a real woman and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Alis vagina this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia.

Ms. Sarsour and her defenders have dismissed all of this as a smear campaign coordinated by the far right and motivated by Islamophobia. Plus, theyve argued, many of these tweets were written five years ago! Ancient history.

But just last month, Ms. Sarsour proved that her past is prologue. On July 16, the official Twitter feed of the Womens March offered warm wishes to Assata Shakur. Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur! read the tweet, which featured a #SignOfResistance, in Assatas honor a pink and purple Pop Art-style portrait of Ms. Shakur, better known as Joanne Chesimard, a convicted killer who is on the F.B.I.s list of most wanted terrorists.

Like many others, CNNs Jake Tapper noticed the outrageous tweet. Shakur is a cop-killer fugitive in Cuba, he tweeted, going on to mention Ms. Sarsours troubling past statements. Any progressives out there condemning this? he asked.

In the face of this sober criticism, Ms. Sarsour cried bully: @jaketapper joins the ranks of the alt-right to target me online. Welcome to the party.

Theres no doubt that Ms. Sarsour is a regular target of far-right groups, but her experience of that onslaught is what makes her smear all the more troubling. Indeed, the idea that Jake Tapper is a member of the alt-right is the kind of delirious, fact-free madness that fuels Donald Trump and his supporters. Troublingly, it is exactly the sentiment echoed by the Womens March: Our power your power scares the far right. They continue to try to divide us. Todays attacks on #AssataShakur are the latest example.

Since when did criticizing a domestic terrorist become a signal issue of the far right? Last I checked, that position was a matter of basic decency and patriotism.

Whats more distressing is that Ms. Sarsour is not the only leader of the womens movement who harbors such alarming ideas. Largely overlooked have been the similarly outrageous statements of the marchs other organizers.

Ms. Mallory, in addition to applauding Assata Shakur as a feminist emblem, also admires Fidel Castro, who sheltered Ms. Shakur in Cuba. She put up a flurry of posts when Mr. Castro died last year. R.I.P. Comandante! Your legacy lives on! she wrote in one. She does not have similar respect for American police officers. When you throw a brick in a pile of hogs, the one that hollers is the one you hit, she posted on Nov. 20.

Ms. Perez also expressed her admiration for a Black Panther convicted of trying to kill six police officers: Love learning from and sharing space with Baba Sekou Odinga.

But the public figure both women regularly fawn over is Louis Farrakhan.

On May 11, Ms. Mallory posted a photo with her arm around Mr. Farrakhan, the 84-year-old Nation of Islam leader notorious for his anti-Semitic comments, on Twitter and Instagram. Thank God this man is still alive and doing well, she wrote. It is one of several videos and photos and quotes that Ms. Mallory has posted of Mr. Farrakhan.

Ms. Perez is also a big fan. In the fall, she posted a photo in which she holds hands with Mr. Farrakhan, writing, There are many times when I sit with elders or inspirational individuals where I think, I just wish I could package this and share this moment with others. Shes also promoted video of Mr. Farrakhan dropping knowledge and another in which he says he is speaking truth to power.

What is Mr. Farrakhans truth? Readers born after 1980 will probably have little idea, since he has largely remained out of the headlines since the Million Man March he organized in 1995. But his views, which this editorial page has called twisted, remain as appalling as ever.

And dont you forget, when its God who puts you in the ovens, its forever! he warned Jews in a speech at a Nation of Islam gathering in Madison Square Garden in 1985. Five years later, he remained unreformed: The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like a radar controls the movement of a great ship in the waters. Or this metaphor, directed at Jews: You have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. He called Hitler a very great man on national television. Judaism, he insists, is a gutter religion.

In one of the several widely available YouTube videos hes made about the Jews, he told black Americans that the control of the Synagogue of Satan over our people must be exposed. He adds: These satanic ones have not only controlled hip-hop but they control, according to their own words, the very messages that are brought to the public. He goes on to offer a truly remarkable analysis of the hip-hop industry in which intelligent rappers are rejected by the satanic minds who insist that they want filth and encourage vulgarity and savagery. This is the first 10 minutes of an hour.

Mr. Farrakhan is also an unapologetic racist. He insists that whites are a race of devils and that white people deserve to die.

Feminists will find little to cheer in his 1950s views of gender: Your professional lives cant satisfy your soul like a good, loving man. Recently he told Jay-Z that he should make Beyonc put on some clothes. He also opposes gay marriage.

If that wasnt enough of a rap sheet, Mr. Farrakhan also loves Scientology and believes 9/11 was a false flag operation.

***

I can already hear the pushback. Whats a few impolitic tweets and photos compared to the horror show of this administration? Save your outrage for the transgender ban in the military, for the lies that spew forth daily from the press briefing room, for the cuts to Planned Parenthood, the shady business with Russia, and, and, and.

But the nightmare of the Trump administration is the proof text for why all of this matters. We just saw what happens to legitimate political parties when they fall prey to movements that are, at base, anti-American. That is true of the populist, racist alt-right that helped deliver Mr. Trump the White House and are now hollowing out the Republican Party. And it can be true of the progressive resistance regardless of how chic, Instagrammable and celebrity-laden the movement may seem. Recall that only a few months ago, Keith Ellison, a man with a long history of defending and working with anti-Semites, was almost made leader of the Democratic National Committee.

Will progressives have more spine than conservatives in policing hate in their ranks? Or will they ignore it in their fury over the Trump administration?

I am sure that Linda Sarsour, and perhaps the other leaders of the Womens March, will block me for writing this. Maybe Ill be accused of siding with the alt-right or tarred as Islamophobic. But what I stand against is embracing terrorists, disdaining independent feminist voices, hating on democracies and celebrating dictatorships. If that puts me beyond the pale of the progressive feminist movement in America right now, so be it.

The rest is here:
When Progressives Embrace Hate - New York Times

Rep. Maxine Waters / Getty

BY: Paul Crookston August 1, 2017 4:34 pm

After progressives turned "nevertheless, she persisted" into a rallying cry in support of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), they have now moved onto the refrain"reclaiming my time," taken from Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.).

Waters repeated those words to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin during a House Financial Services Committee hearing last week, when she thought he was stalling in his answer about responding to a letter she sent him in May. Committee chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) stepped in toexplain that the time did indeed belong to Waters as a ranking member of the committee, and progressives found it to be an empowering moment of defiance in the face of male verbosity.

"As a de facto leader of the anti-Trump resistance, Waters has become a bit of a rallying point for progressives in recent months and her words to Mnuchin quickly became an internet meme among women, minorities, and anyone else who's run out of time to waste and f**ks to give," Aja Romano wrote at Vox.

Progressives have praised "Auntie Maxine" (a name that millennials have given her), shared clips from the hearing, and used "reclaiming my time" as a catchphrase. Similar to the outpouring of affection for Warren when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said, "Nevertheless, she persisted" in reference to her, the attention on Waters has been supportive and enthusiastic.

Vocalist Mykal Kilgore even recorded asong in honor of Waters, titled "Reclaiming My TimeGospel Mix" and the Washington Posthailed Waters' phrase as an "anthem."

Waters took to Twitter to thank Kilgore for the song and praise his talent.

Read more:
Progressives Turn Waters' Repetition of 'Reclaiming My Time' Into a Catchphrase - Washington Free Beacon

Last week, the Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus voted to endorse City Councilman Jeff Johnson in the Cleveland Mayoral race.

The endorsement is Johnson's second from a local progressive organization, his first being from the Service Employees International Union, and it has given Johnson additional ammo and cred as the "progressive" candidate in the race, one which is perceived as a battle between an entrenched incumbent (Frank Jackson) and the field.

CCPC was formed with about 300 members one year ago as an outgrowth of the local Bernie Sanders campaign effort. The organization is headquartered in Lakewood and has ballooned to nearly 3,000 members. CCPC's political director Steve Holecko attributes that rapid growth to the spirit of political activism in the wake of Donald Trump's election. Its members have organized and demonstrated around issues of wealth inequality, which locally include the fight for a higher minimum wage and opposition to the Q Deal.

Holecko estimated in a phone conversation with Scene that roughly 800 of the organization's members are Cleveland residents.

Only three mayoral candidates applied for the endorsement: Johnson, Brandon Chrostowski and Eric Brewer.

Johnson is himself a member of the Progressive Caucus, and Holecko said that the organization's steering committee was hopeful that Johnson would win the endorsement. Holecko said they made no efforts to tilt the results, but that roughly 70 percent of the Cleveland membership voted to endorse Johnson regardless.

"We're very closely aligned," Holecko said, of the group's platform and Johnson's.

The endorsement is good news for Johnson after a week of legal challenges. Last Monday, one of Johnson's competitors in the race, Eric Brewer, challenged his candidacy by suggesting he was actually a resident of Twinsburg. Brewer emailed Cuyahoga County elections Director Pat McDonald to make his case, but the complaint was filed too close to the election for the board to act. Cleveland.com's Robert Higgs reported that the elections board had already ruled on Johnson's residency. It dismissed an earlier complaint and ruled that Johnson's voting address was at his Glenville home.

Johnson has maintained that he lives in Cleveland he is a "third-generation resident," of Glenville he says but his wife and two stepdaughters do indeed live in Twinsburg, where the teenage girls attend Twinsburg City Schools.

On last week's Reporter's Roundtable on WCPN, the panel of journalists suggested that Brewer who made news last week for not having voted since 2009 was merely trying to stay relevant by challenging and/or distracting the race's top candidates.

Also last week, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a resident's legal challenge to Johson's candidacy after the challenger didn't bother to present any evidence. The challenge was an attempt to appeal the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections' unanimous ruling, in May, that Johnson was eligible to run.

Follow this link:
Jeff Johnson at the Poles: Progressives Love Him, Others Want Him Out - Cleveland Scene Weekly

It hurts to think back to election night. After a few hours of watching the votes come in with the people Id spent countless hours on the campaign trail with, the results were becoming clear.

The room felt suffocating, so I decided to take a walk alone. For a few minutes, I strolled along the Charles River, watching the soft glow from Weeks Bridge as an existential dread formed in my stomach. I walked in a heavy silence, thinking about the organizing and campaigning wed done, realizing that, although ultimately not enough, wed given it our all.

Katy Perry had a different election night, one that marked the end of her superficial campaign effortsan uninspiring performance at the Democratic National Convention, some selfies, and bizarre attempts to get her fans to vote. She held Lady Gagas hand in the Javits Center as the results came in, and said it was traumatizing when she heard that Senator Hillary R. Clinton would not be arriving to give an acceptance speech. She claims that the night was an awakening for her and that shes tried reflecting that in her new album, Witness.

A senior editor at Pitchfork wrote in a review of the album that [Katy Perrys] stated goal of making woke pop is, depending on how cynical you are, either admirable or shameless (or both), but either way, its not terribly effective. The album fails because Perry does not follow through on her commitment to social justice; she simply uses it as a selling point. On the album, shes featured homophobic artists, which seems to be in line with a career marked by anti-gay lyrics and blatant cultural appropriation. Katy Perry uses the so-called Resistance as a way of updating her brand, marketing her music, and making money.

When Katy Perrys performanceincluding painfully unoriginal statements on freedom on the Fourth of Julyisnt accepted as genuine, she gets frustrated and accuses critics of issuing vindictive clapbacks for the sake of conflict. Instead of focusing on what she can do for social justice, she worries about why people arent believing her act.

President Donald Trump is an easy punching bageven Perry has taken her shotswhich has made it easy to shirk personal responsibility to social justice while also claiming to care about progressive causes. Denouncing Trump is easy. Actively working against the sexism, xenophobia, and racism that fueled his political success is much harder and doesnt happen as often. The Womens Marches in January were powerful acts of protest, but they were still very white and cisgender. The impressive attendance at them was marred by the sense that some were only there for the the photo-op. Theres been a spike in these performative progressives, who strive to say the right thing without taking substantive action.

Katy Perry is one of the most high-profile examples of this phenomenon, but shes far from the only one. Kendall Jenner commodified the protests sweeping the country in an attempt to sell Pepsi. A recent SNL sketch depicted men at a bar who flirt with a woman by uttering popular feminist phrases before calling that woman a bitch when she rejects their advances. In New York Citys Washington Square Park last weekend, I saw a woman selling $3 Pins for the Resistance, and people lined up to buy them. The political movement for equality has slowly transformed itself into an aesthetic that allows people to be progressive on paper while upholding the status quo in person.

At Harvard, this attitude is clearest among discussions about final clubs. Although membership processes premised on gender exclusion and wealth generally select for a more conservative ideology, many final club members identify as progressive. They support progressive causes online and through membership in political groups on campus, but their performance ends as soon as they join a club. Their actions support institutions that foster class exclusion, gender discrimination, and unhealthy social dynamics on campus. Theyre progressive, but incredibly selective in their causes, which makes their work feel like a show.

The faculty recommendation to phase out social groups brought another set of performative progressives to the forefront. These individuals are progressive in most cases, writing passionately on Facebook about gender, sexuality, and racial equality, but turn a blind eye when discussing the exclusionary culture surrounding final clubs. Perhaps its because their social lives center around Mount Auburn St. Maybe they have friends in clubs who they see as good people, which blinds them to the structural issues that plague clubs. Maybe the idea of social exclusion doesnt seem antithetical to their progressive ideals, as if elitism werent founded on power imbalances. They say the right things, but then turn around and defend institutions that represent everything progressive movements aim to change.

The Resistance, the movement, the causeuse your term of choiceis not about individual gain or bolstering personal image. The ultimate goal should be the betterment of the oppressedcriminal justice reform, curtailment of sexism, equality in both principle and practice. Performative and selective progressives, with their hollow words and convenient blind spots, do nothing to bring us closer to these goals. Its time we stop performing our politics and instead head to the streets as organizers, protesters, and community builders dedicated to making real progress.

Ruben E. Reyes Jr. 19, a Crimson Editorial Chair, is a History and Literature concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears on Mondays.

PROF. HART A CANDIDATE

Professor Albert Bushnell Hart '80, of the department of Government, was nominated for the Massachusetts Senate on the Progressive ticket

Progressive Rally Tonight

A meeting of New England Progressives will be held in Tremont Temple this evening at 8 o'clock. Charles Sumner 'Bird

SUFFRAGE TALK IN EMERSON

Miss Helen Todd, of San Francisco, will lecture ion Emerson D this evening at 8 o'clock. She will speak under

On the Shelf

The current issue of the Harvard Progressive is by all odds the best of the three thus far published. Pessimists

Recap: You Get What You Need Devastating and Magnificent

Read the original post:
Performative Progressives | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson - Harvard Crimson

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