Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Progressives aim to sway new City Council on SLO campaign funding – The San Luis Obispo Tribune


The San Luis Obispo Tribune
Progressives aim to sway new City Council on SLO campaign funding
The San Luis Obispo Tribune
After a second unsuccessful attempt lobbying the San Luis Obispo City Council to pursue a democracy voucher that would give voters city money to donate to candidates in local elections, a progressive group led by former congressional candidate Bill ...

Originally posted here:
Progressives aim to sway new City Council on SLO campaign funding - The San Luis Obispo Tribune

What Trump Gets Rightand Progressives Get WrongAbout Andrew Jackson – The Atlantic

In an interview excerpt that ricocheted around the internet Monday morning, Trump implied that the Civil War didnt have to happen, and had Andrew Jackson been the president, it might not have happened because he would have talked some sense into the parties. Or something.

In this same interview, the president also sang the praises of the people of Tennessee who, he assured us, love Andrew Jackson. Let me fact-check this segment: We Tennesseans are indeed amazing, though Im not sure we all love Andrew Jackson. Going off demographics alone, the small number of Native Americans who remain in Tennessee despite the Trail of Tears certainly do not love Andrew Jackson. The roughly 17 percent of Tennesseans who are African Americans likely do not as well. And my fellow Chattanoogan, Jon Meacham, wrote a Pulitzer-winning political biography of the man that was fair but certainly critical.

The Border Patrol's Corruption Problem

And then there are contemporary progressives, in Tennessee and elsewhere. Many who swooned over a young senators speech at Iowas 2007 Jefferson-Jackson dinner are appalled that the current president embraces Jackson and see racist dog whistles in his recent visit to Jacksons grave and estate outside Nashville.

But it says a lotand not all of it goodthat progressives have so completely sworn off the political legacy of Andrew Jackson. As Steve Inskeepwhose own book pulls no punches on how Jackson stole the American South away from its native peoplesargued in these pages, Jacksons greatest political achievement was the widening of democratic space. He brought new groups of voters into the political system.

Inskeep was making that argument to demonstrate a key difference between Jackson and Trump, who largely failed to widen the electorate in 2016. Jackson, Inskeep noted, brought new voters into the American democratic experiment and gave a political voice to those who had previously been voiceless. But if Trump failed to do the same, he seems to have understood lessons about Jacksons success that progressives, to their detriment, have largely forgotten.

As Meacham argued, the great political tragedy of Jackson was that a man dedicated to freedom failed to see liberty as a universal gift. He did not, in other words, see fit to extend political liberties to those other classes of peoplewomen, African Americans, native peopleswho were denied a voice in the early days of the Republic. But Meacham was also quick to remind his reader that Jacksons triumph was that he held together a country whose experiment in liberty ultimately extended its protections and promises to all.

This is why Trump is not wholly wrong, albeit in his rambling way, when he speaks of Jackson saving the Unionnot during the Civil War, of course, but three decades earlier. That was no small achievement. It was, indeed, the ultimate achievement of the founding fathers and the generation that followed them. Contemporary progressives, however, apparently see little to celebrate in such achievements. And if Jackson has fallen out of popular favor among the elites, well, the University of Virginia among others should be growing uneasy, because its only a matter of time before Jefferson, Madison, and many others also fall from grace.

At the same time Democrats have abandoned Jackson politically, they have embraced a new hero, Alexander Hamilton. Hamiltonwho kept his place on the $10 bill thanks in part to a hit musical bearing his namemay be the founding father contemporary progressives are most likely to admire. Hamilton, unlike Jackson, was on the right side of the key issuesmost notably abolitionfrom the start. Unlike his arch-nemesis, Jefferson, he also understood that a strong federal government might be the best guarantor of civil liberties in a country whose history goes on to teach us that state and local governments can be just as tyrannical as the federal government.

(And it is here, for the sake of a neat argument, that I will note but quickly skip past Hamiltons championing of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Or the fact that we would likely classify Hamiltonunlike that godless heathen, Jeffersonas an evangelical Christian were he alive today.)

I have two small children and cannot afford to drop hundreds of dollars on theater tickets these days, but I read the Ron Chernow biography on which the musical was loosely based, and toward the end of the book, Chernow offers this warning for any would-be imitators of the first Secretary of the Treasury:

The stress placed upon the Adams-Hamilton feud pointed up a deeper problem in the Federalist party, one that may explain its ultimate failure to survive: the elitist nature of its politics. James McHenry complained to Oliver Wolcott, Jr., of their adherents, They write private letters to each other, but do nothing to give a proper direction to the public mind. The Federalists issued appeals to the electorate but did not try to mobilize a broad-based popular movement. Hamilton wanted to lead the electorate and provide expert opinion instead of consulting popular opinion. He took tough, uncompromising stands and gloried in abstruse ideas in a political culture that pined for greater simplicity. Alexander Hamilton triumphed as a doer and thinker, not as a leader of the average voter.

A recent poll found that, for all its domination of the educated classes, two thirds (two thirds!) of respondents think the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of Americans. Democratswho dominate the jokes on late-night television, have all the best podcasts, and had all the best policy papers in the 2016 president electioncurrently control not a single branch of the federal government and just 16 governorships. If you want to win arguments on principle, Hamilton is your guy. If you want to win elections, however well, maybe not so much.

Last weekend, I happened to be back in Jacksons Tennessee, and my wife and I used the opportunity to go to a church we have long admired. New City Fellowship in Chattanooga was founded by a young interracial couple who grew up in housing projects in Newark, New Jersey, and started a ministry focused on racial reconciliation in my hometown in the 1970s. Today, it is a vibrant cross-cultural ministry and was one of the few places I remember growing up (that wasnt a sporting event) where black and white Tennesseans would regularly gather together. I cannot imagine the courage it must have taken for a young white pastor and his black wife to have started that church just a few years after Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down on the other end of the state.

Like most Protestant churches still thriving in the United States, New City follows a pretty orthodoxin this case, Presbyteriantheology. Most of the men and women with whom my wife and I were worshipping would also probably identify as evangelicals, that same group of people who have been Trumps most committed supporters.

Now, may the Lord have mercy on me for this, but perhaps because I have lived in Washington, D.C., for the past several years, as I worshipped last weekend, I also saw something else in the pews: voters. These peopleGod-fearing Christians committed to racial reconciliation and social justiceshould be among the voters for whom a multicultural Democratic Party is competing.

But one thing that shines through among many evangelical votersas well as other, non-evangelical Trump supporters with whom I have spoken back homeis how turned off they are by the smug self-righteousness of contemporary progressive discourse.

Dont support abortion rights? Well, obviously you hate women (even if you happen to yourself be a woman), and the late-night comedians are going to be merciless with what is left of your reputation.

Still believe marriage is a Biblical institution between a man and woman for the purposes of procreation? Be prepared to be mocked relentlessly on social media and shunned by peers and employers.

Last week, the Democratic Party debated whether it was even still possible to be pro-life and a Democrat before Nancy Pelosithat arch-pragmatist who, so unlike her GOP successors, put a string of wins on the board for her party while speaker of the Houseput an end to the debate by affirming that the answer remained yes.

These debates over doctrine and policy positions are exactly what the party should be doing in the aftermath of its 2016 debacle. But when paired with the self-righteous tone so characteristic of contemporary progressive discourse, it is potentially toxic to attempts to broaden the electorate for which the Democratic Party is competing. It replicates the mistakes of Alexander Hamiltons own political writings before his own party collapsed.

I remember once cheering on Jon Stewart as he skewered CNNs Crossfire for the corrosive effect it was having on political debates, but surely Stewart deserves some blame himself for the way he encouraged an entire generation of progressives to greet conservative values and policies less with well-reasoned policy evangelism than with self-assured mockery that preaches to the converted. No wonder Trumps voters feel condescended to: Theyre not in on the joke; theyre the butt of the joke.

And for some progressives, reaching out to voters who might otherwise share progressive values even as they cling to what might be perceived to be archaic religious doctrines or other traditions might be hard to stomach. Its easier to stay in bubbles of their own design, reassuring their friends. But building a bigger tent is better, I would argue, than losing elections and watching other progressive achievements rolled back.

Trump, it seems clear, strongly identifies with, but actually knows little about, Jackson. But what little he knows helped get him elected president of the United States of America. What the Democrats forgot about Jackson, meanwhile, is partly why theyre in the wilderness.

Follow this link:
What Trump Gets Rightand Progressives Get WrongAbout Andrew Jackson - The Atlantic

Progressives Stand with Teachers and Their Families – vtdigger.org

News Release Vermont Progressive Party May 4th, 2017

Contact: Josh Wronski Executive Director, Vermont Progressive Party 802-229-0800

Montpelier, VT Last night Progressive House Legislators stood unanimously opposed to a thinly veiled attempt to undermine workers rights in Vermont.

Governor Phil Scotts proposal to negotiate a statewide health insurance plan for teachers was rejected on Wednesday by a tie vote in the Vermont House. The plan would have stripped teachers and support staff of their right to negotiate health insurance with their local school boards. Gov. Scott claimed that the plan would save the state 26 million dollars. Progressives argue that the savings in the Governors plan are unproven, and that the amount and use of any savings should be negotiated between local employees and their communities. They say that the savings will happen through negotiations with educators and their school boards as school boards transition into less expensive health benefit plans in accordance with Affordable Care Act regulations.

Gov. Scotts plan to attack teachers health insurance and collective bargaining rights was supported by a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. House Progressives stood unanimously opposed to the measure. Our caucus unanimously opposed this measure because it would have upended decades of labor practice with virtually no vetting, said Progressive Caucus Chair Robin Chesnut-Tangerman. We are confident that we can achieve savings without undermining the right of teachers to collectively bargain. Robin went on to say that a single payer healthcare system would avoid this issue completely and save money.

Progressive Party Director, Josh Wronski, stated that The Beck Amendment should have easily failed in a Democratic-controlled legislature. One must ask how dedicated Democrats are to organized labor with such a close outcome. Progressives respect educators right to bargain, especially over bread and butter issues like health insurance. Our Progressive caucus unanimously opposed this measure and proved again that we are the party of working people and their unions.

More:
Progressives Stand with Teachers and Their Families - vtdigger.org

Progressives’ ‘People’s Budget’ Becomes ‘Roadmap for the … – Roll Call

With the subtitle A Roadmap for the Resistance, the Congressional Progressive CaucusPeople's Budget,isn't shy about its purpose in the Trump Era.

As Rep. Barbara Lee summarized it: In stark contrast to President Trumps cruel poverty budget, our progressive proposal is a plan for resistance and a roadmap to a safer, healthier and more prosperous America for all.

While Democrats and Republicansfighting to claim victoryin the deal on thefiscal 2017 spending plan, progressive Democratsare dreaming bigger.

The People's Budget is a yearly wish list of the Congressional Progressive Caucus meant to show what their priorities would beif the left wing of the Democratic Party was in power. Since that is far from the case, the proposalsin the budget are unlikely to become policy in the near future.

But the budget nonetheless provides one of the clearest pictures available of progressivespreferred policies. Unsurprisingly, they differ quite a bit from the deal reachedbetween congressional Democrats and Republicans.

The Peoples Budget includesspending on job creation to reach full employment as aprimary aim, which hasn't changed from previous CPC budgets. It includes $2 trillion in spending on infrastructure and other direct job creation over the next several years, with $281 billion in the rest of calendar year 2017 and about $710 billion over 2017-2018. An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute(EPI), which releases an analysis of the CPC budget each year, found it would increase Gross Domestic Productby 2 percent and employment by 2.4 million jobs in the near term.

CPC co-chair Rep. Keith Ellison said in a statement that the budget would also implement debt-free college, fund universal child care, ensure equal pay for equal work, expand Social Security, and fight climate change.

As the Trump Administration attempts to gut the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the Labor Department, and countless other essential services, the Progressive Caucus is providing an alternative vision one that will help working families, he said.

The People's Budget also contains provisions for increasing government revenue, largely through measures that are aimed at reducing income inequality, like raising marginal tax rates on millionaires and billionaires, raising tax rates on capital gains and large estate inheritances, closing corporate tax loopholes, and creating a financial transaction tax.

Spending cuts would come in the form of replacing sequestration cuts to the Defense Department with similarly sized, but longer-term, cuts that would slow the growth of defense spending.

Even considering that the People's Budget would increase the deficit in the short term, EPIs analysis estimates that its measures to increase employment would put the government on track to a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in a matter of years.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

View post:
Progressives' 'People's Budget' Becomes 'Roadmap for the ... - Roll Call

Why won’t Democrats let antiabortion progressives under their tent? – Washington Post

Christine Emba edits The Posts In Theory blog.

Is it possible to be a good progressive and oppose abortion? This long-simmering question was brought to the fore recently when Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced their support of Heath Mello, a candidate for mayor of Omaha who is also, inconveniently, antiabortion.

Under pressure from abortion rights groups, Perez quickly walked back his support for Mello and said that being pro-choice was not negotiable for Democrats. That reversal was in turn rebuked by a chorus of high-ranking Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.). In the end, Perez walked back his walk-back, announcing there was no litmus test after all.

But is there? Should there be? Increasingly, abortion opponents hear a resounding yes. The message they get from progressive activists and commentators, if not from Democratic Party leaders, is increasingly hostile: As much as the party professes to be a big tent, those who oppose abortion rights arent really wanted.

This is a mistake and not only because it limits Democrats ability to keep or expand their voter base. It also reduces the core values of the progressive movement to a single symbol and constrains the debate on how to best achieve broader goals of social and economic equality. The associated contempt for antiabortion activists often relies on outdated assumptions about their aims and origins and fails to take into account the complexity of most Americans views on abortion.

Ironically, restricting abortion was once a progressive cause. Early defenders saw protecting the unborn as an extension of societys responsibility to shield the poor, weak and otherwise defenseless. Many were wary of abortions eugenic potential and of how it allowed men more leeway to exploit or abuse women without consequence.

But after the Supreme Court established the right to abortion in 1973, the issue became more and more a matter of left-right divide, and the antiabortion cause was folded into a broader portfolio of social conservative goals. Yet recent years have seen the emergence, or perhaps reemergence, of activists who oppose abortion from a divergent and sometimes frankly left-wing perspective secular humanists; consistent life ethic activists who oppose abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia with equal fervor; and antiabortion believers otherwise fed up with the Republican Party.

Democrats, and progressives more broadly, should be welcoming such people rather than disdaining them. Assuming bad faith on the part of anyone who opposes or is even willing to accept limits on abortion rights makes it too easy for the left to embrace a narrow perspective when deciding how best to pursue progressive goals.

Equating non-support of abortion to a total abandonment of womens rights, the way a pointed headline in New York Magazine did last month, ignores the reality that womens rights should include far more than that from an end to pervasive sexual harassment to broader support for mothers. And yes, economic factors may play a role for many women deciding whether to obtain abortions. But suggesting, as did ThinkProgresss Bryce Covert in a recent New York Times op-ed, that an unyielding abortion rights stance is the only way to ensure womens ability to achieve financial security confuses cause and effect.

Equating progressivism with being pro-abortion rights assumes that providing a single, simple solution making it easier to terminate pregnancies is worth more effort than addressing the root causes of the problem. An equally if not more progressive strategy might focus instead on addressing the lack of maternal leave and child-care policies, demanding a living wage, and pushing back against an economic system that penalizes women for having and rearing children in the first place. And while one might argue that Democrats are already doing all of the above, the willingness to excommunicate those who disagree with one strategy even if they adhere to all others makes it clear which issue matters the most.

Of course, even if progressive successes made it possible for every woman to care for an unexpected child, there would still be women who didnt want to continue an unwanted pregnancy. And this is where enforcing cut-and-dried allegiances supporting abortion in all circumstances is the only possible Democratic stance is at odds with the conflicted way that most Americans, even those who would by and large support progressive policies, approach the issue.

According to Gallups 2016 polling, 47 percent of Americans think that abortion is morally wrong, but a full 50percent believe it should be legal, though the circumstances in which they would allow it vary. Attempting to neatly slice these shades of gray in order to most perfectly define a true Democrat would leave many thoughtful Americans out in the cold.

Movements need defining tenets to unite around. From there, individuals within the community can debate the best ways to achieve their goals. But the Democratic Party, and the progressive movement more generally, should be wary of replacing the goals of social and economic justice with the proxy of being pro-abortion rights. Flatly writing off antiabortion progressives alienates potential supporters of the larger cause, while narrowing the spectrum of discussion to the perspectives of a purist few.

See original here:
Why won't Democrats let antiabortion progressives under their tent? - Washington Post