Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

What American progressives should learn from France’s Macron … – Washington Post

By Neera Tanden and Matt Browne By Neera Tanden and Matt Browne May 9 at 3:45 PM

Neera Tanden is president and chief executive of the Center for American Progress. Matt Browne is a senior fellow at the organization.

The landslide victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French presidential election will be met with a sigh of relief among many across the Western democracies who feared the advance of ethno-nationalist populism. Many commentators, trying to discern lessons for the United States or elsewhere, may well focus on the rise of Macrons new party. Others will likely emphasize how the French media was far more discerning in its handling of emails hacked by a foreign entity than, say, the American media was in 2016, ensuring that it did not impact the election.

Both are important elements of the story, but in an age of anti-establishment politics and reduced trust in politicians, it is perhaps Macrons vision of political reform, and his pledge to put the French back at the heart of political life, that provides lessons for all Americans, but particularly progressives.

In France, as elsewhere, lack of trust in the political establishment has never been greater. This is in part because the French Parliament has been too slow to act and often produces poor laws that are not easy to understand. But the French Parliament and government have also been unrepresentative of the population at large. Ninety percent of the ministers of the Fifth Republic so far have been men, while 40 percent of deputies in Parliament have served for well over a decade, according to Macrons campaign.

Macron set out to challenge the status quo in French politics. He has vowed to take steps to get a new generation into politics, on the basis of skill and ability rather than connections, and will make this renewal a condition of future party funding. Similarly, he has promised to gradually eliminate the old practice of French politicians holding more than one office and to keep intact legislation to prevent politicians from serving more than three consecutive terms.

Macron also has a plan to make politicians more accountable. Parliamentarians would be prohibited from hiring members of their families as parliamentary assistants or advisers, a position that drew a sharp contrast with the predicament of the conservative candidate Francois Fillon in the first round of voting. The generous personal allowances made to French parliamentarians would be subject to taxation. And those with serious criminal records would be prevented from running for office.

Finally, Macron has set out a bold agenda for institutional reform. He has pledged to concentrate the governments energy on key priorities and to limit governmental and parliamentary bureaucracy. He plans to limit the number of months that issues can be debated in Parliament and reduce the number of parliamentarians in each chamber. He also embraces the promise of digital democracy, pledging to introduce an electronic vote to broaden participation, reduce election costs and modernize the image of politics.

(Adam Taylor,Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)

In short, his program directly addressed the fact that, in a democratic society, government should be responsive to citizens equally, irrespective of wealth. Macron understood that to challenge the rising tide of ethno-nationalist populism, political leaders must also challenge the status quo. Asking voters to choose between the status quo and nationalist populism leaves supporters of liberal democracy too insecure. Macron provided the French people two visions of change his and Marine Le Pens. And they chose wisely.

For progressives in the United States, this is a critical lesson. In 2016, when Democrats held the presidency, it may have been hard for them to argue against the status quo. But now, shut out of control of the presidency and the two chambers of Congress, Democrats can and should campaign on an agenda that challenges the status-quo politics of Washington. They should campaign to truly drain the swamp. That means offering reforms of our public corruption laws to ensure that we truly end pay-to-play politics, advancing campaign finance reforms that end the practice of dark money flooding elections and closing the revolving door between lobbyists and the government. Real reforms should show progressive leaders on the side of people instead of a political system that seems rigged against them.

Just as in France, an aggressive agenda for political reform in the United States can demonstrate to the public that progressive candidates dont accept a status-quo politics that isnt delivering. And it can be a strong rebuttal to ethno-nationalist populism, whose wave may have finally crested in France.

Read the original here:
What American progressives should learn from France's Macron ... - Washington Post

Progressives mount opposition to Amul Thapar’s 6th Circuit nomination – Washington Examiner

The progressive Alliance for Justice group is opposing Judge Amul Thapar's nomination to join the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ahead of a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting to consider Thapar's nomination on Thursday.

"Judge Thapar fundamentally misunderstood and misapplied the law in a key case involving campaign ethics and finance, and he has repeatedly ruled to deny citizens' access to justice and weakened critical legal protections," said Nan Aron, the president of Alliance for Justice. "We believe Judge Thapar should not be confirmed to sit on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and urge senators to oppose this nomination."

Senate hearings on Thapar's nomination prompted many questions from Democrats about the judge's connections to the right-leaning Federalist Society, as a result of Thapar's inclusion on President Trump's shortlists for the Supreme Court vacancy filled by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Three of Trump's nominees to federal appellate court seats were first considered by the president for the Supreme Court vacancy and increased opposition to their nominations from Senate Democrats is expected. The Alliance for Justice has already prepared a dossier on Thapar as part of its effort to block Thapar's confirmation.

See the original post here:
Progressives mount opposition to Amul Thapar's 6th Circuit nomination - Washington Examiner

Lynchburg progressives plan anti-Trump protest – Lynchburg News and Advance

While Liberty University opens its arms wide to President Donald Trump, one group of Lynchburg-area residents is planning a non-welcoming demonstration.

Trump, a Republican supported wholeheartedly by Libertys President Jerry Falwell Jr., will speak at the schools commencement Saturday, and the Seven Hills Progressive Society plans to demonstrate its distaste across the busy Wards Road.

At the same time, the Lynchburg Democratic Committee plans a day of action focused on community service.

Honestly, we have deep ideological differences with Donald Trump and with Liberty University to be honest, said Nick Castanes, Seven Hills de facto chairman and a Montessori school teacher. We want to make sure there is a voice of dissent to at least send a message through the media.

The group expects to set up along Wards Road near its intersection with Harvard Street. The Lynchburg Police Department said final details will not be publicly available until Thursday.

On the Trumps Non-Welcoming Committee Facebook event page, Castanes said demonstrators will be allowed to park at Central Virginia Community Colleges lower parking lot.

The parking area generally is open when LU holds graduations and other larger events, according to CVCC Police Chief Russell Dove.

The campus will not be offering space for people to organize or protest on campus, he said.

If they park there as an individual, theyre an individual parking there, Dove said.

Link:
Lynchburg progressives plan anti-Trump protest - Lynchburg News and Advance

California senator gets strident after leftists protest measured initial statement – LifeZette

President Donald Trumps abrupt firing of FBI Director James Comey pitted Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calf.) against herself.

The ranking Judiciary Committee member on Tuesday issued a milquetoast statement after the news.

Anytime a significant controversy comes up, both sides play their base for the most part.

President Trump called me at 5:30 p.m. and indicated he would be removing Director Comey, saying the FBI needed a change, she said in the statement. The next FBI director must be strong and independent and will receive a fair hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

It did not take long, as politics rushed into the matter, for Feinstein to strike a harder line. She released a follow-up statement Wednesday calling for a special counsel to investigate possible Trump campaign collusion with Russian agents during the 2016 presidential campaign.

If Director Comey was fired to stifle the FBIs Russia investigation and the timing of this action makes that a real possibility that simply cant be allowed to happen, she stated.

Feinstein added that Americans must have faith inthe Justice Departments independence.

I cant yet say whether what the president told me is all there is to this, but I can say the Russia investigation was broad and far underway, and it must be allowed to continue, she said.

Feinsteins about-face came after progressives expressed frustration with her original statement.

One Twitter user wrote, The honorable Dianne Feinstein.. do you care to revise your BS statement on FBI Director Comey getting fired by president Trump. MAGA.

Another tweeted, Feinsteins lost it. THIS is her statement???

One progressive took to Twitter Wednesday to praise Feinsteins new tone: Yesterdays statement was embarrassingly weak. This is better.

Christopher Devine, a political science professor at the University of Dayton in Ohio, said Feinsteins initial and revised reactions indicate that left-wing activists are in no mood for moderation toward Trump.

Anytime a significant controversy comes up, both sides play their base for the most part, he said. Maybe she was holding off and waiting to see what the reaction was. Weve seen what the reaction is.

Feinsteins statement contrasts sharply with Californias junior Democratic senator, Kamala Harris, who immediately renewed her call for a special prosecutor.

What we see is somebody whos not going to run for higher office again and somebody who wants to run for president, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson told San Franciscos PBS station, KQED News, on Tuesday.

Levinson added: We see someone whos winding down her career and may have to wind down because shes been so unemotional about things people want to see her fired up about.

Devine told LifeZette that it is puzzling that both Feinstein and the Trump administration apparently misjudged the reaction among Democrats.

Perhaps they thought that Comey was so controversial and discredited on both sides of the aisle that it would be greeted as welcome news, he said.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the upper chambers most conservative Democrat, downplayed the significance of Comeys firing on Tuesday. He told CNN, To call it a massacre, I don't think you do that.

On the very day he offered that reaction, though, he drew a primary challenge from the Left. Paula Swearengin, a coal miners daughter and environmental activist, announced plans to run against Manchin in the Democratic primary last year. A supporter of universal, government-run health care and free tuition for public university students, she has the backing of Brand New Congress, a group formed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermonts self-described democratic socialist.

It is a reminder that even moderate Democrats perhaps even especially moderate Democrats have as much or more to fear from the Left as they do from the general electorate.

Visit link:
California senator gets strident after leftists protest measured initial statement - LifeZette

Lobbyists and Superdelegates Corrupt DNC Unity Commission … – Observer

TheDemocratic National CommitteesUnity Commission, which conducted its firstmeetingon May 5, is yet another symbolic gesture from the Democratic Party thats meant to manufacture consent without adoptingmeaningful reforms. The commissions 21 members are biasedin favor of the party establishment; Hillary Clinton selected nine members in addition tothe chair and vice chair of the commission.NewDNCChairTom Perez, a Clinton campaign surrogate, selected three committee members.

This committee ispredicated on Clinton supporters false belief that party unity can be achieved by courting the factions of the party equally, when in truth, Sanders supporters are disenfranchised from the party and their support must be earned. Party unity wont be accomplishedby symbolic diplomacy in which the Democratic establishment reverberates the mantra Democrats are united without making concessions or changingthe fundamentally corrupt mechanisms that enabled the DNC to cheat Sen. BernieSandersout of the Democratic presidential nomination. If theDemocratic Partywas genuinely striving for unity, it would admitwrongdoing and discuss possibilities to rectify the situation and ensure that it never happens again.

The commission wasfoundedin response to Sanders supporters persistent demands that the superdelegate system, a corrupt and undemocratic tool created by theDemocraticestablishment torallysupport for their preferred candidate, becompletely abolished. Its unlikely that many of the committee members who were selected by the establishmentfive of which were Clintonsuperdelegatesthemselveswill outright abolish thesuperdelegatesystem. These superdelegates include Rep. Marcia Fudge, Yvette Lewis, Elaine Kamarck, James Roosevelt Jr. and Jan Bauer. Notably, Kamarck was on the initial commission thatcreatedsuperdelegates in 1982. Sanders superdelegate Larry Cohen is also serving on the commission. Most likely, the superdelegate system will be minimally reformed in amanner that pacifies progressives but maintains the totalitarian power that superdelegates yield forDemocratsto prevent any future grassroots nominees from winning the primaries. The likely outcome from this commission is a few mostlymeaningless changes that will be cited to suppress progressives pushes for reform.

Several of the members on theDNCUnity Commission are examples of why unity within theDemocratic Partycannot be achieved by a commission of opposing sides. Sanders supporters ideological litmus test forwho should be making important decisions within theDemocratic Partyis overtly violated by several of the committees members. Jeff Berman, aClintonloyalist and commission member, is aformer lobbyistfor the private prison company the GEO Group and theKeystone XL pipeline. Berman was alsohiredby theClintoncampaign to whip superdelegates in her favor. Committee member Charlie Baker, former Clinton Campaign chief administrative officer, co-founded the Dewey Square Group, which lobbied on behalf of the health insurance industry during the initial Obamacare debate.The Interceptreportedthat Baker has also been aregisteredlobbyist on behalf of the drug firm Medicines Company. The Democratic Party cant be united by lobbyists and their positions on this committee proves that corporate and wealthy interests run the party.

The Unity Commission also has little authority to re-enact the ban onlobbyistsand PACs making donations to the DNC that was struck down byDNCmembers in February 2017. Rep. Ro Khanna respondedto the vote by saying that every DNCmember who voted in favor of it should resign. TheDemocratic Partyhas no chance for unity while it integrateslobbyists into leadership positions and simultaneously feigns support ofthe interests of working and middle class Americans. These interests are diametrically opposed to one another. Tryingto achieveunity among these opposing forces, one against lobbyists and one that views partnerships with lobbyists as vital to theDemocratic Party, is as futile as trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Read the original here:
Lobbyists and Superdelegates Corrupt DNC Unity Commission ... - Observer