Mediaboss Marketing

This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

The union movement and the progressive movement just suffered a crushing loss at the Boeing plant in South Carolina yesterday. As Julie Johnsson and Josh Eidelson detailed in this Bloomberg story, the 3000 Boeing workers faced a massive, coordinated assault by not only Boeing management but the whole political class in South Carolina.

And the almost complete progressive media and political leadership apathy to the fight at Boeing enrages me. Despite a Presidential campaign during and after which everyone said you need to pay attention to working class industrial workers, workers in a right-to-work state like South Carolina stood up to megacorp Boeing-- and were left largely on their own as not only Boeing but the whole business and political class threatened them with retaliation and destruction if they voted yes for the union.

Unsurprisingly, in the face of threats of retaliation and jobs being sent to China and a half million dollar advertising barrage treating them as economic traitors to the state, most of the workers got scared and voted no in the end.

Here you had a company using threats of moving jobs to China-- a perfect opportunity to mobilize nationally and demand Trump put up or shut up and tell Boeing to stop such threats -- and you had mostly crickets among progressive media and activists.

And I have serious rage at everyone who endlessly talked about how Obama was the candidate of business and didn't help workers. You know who cared about union workers at Boeing? Obama. When Boeing first tried to move operations to South Carolina, the Obama NLRB filed unfair labor practices against Boeing and tussled with then-governor Nikki Haley over promoting the move as an anti-union attack. (The administration would drop the charges later at the urging of the IAM union based on settling overall contract negotiations-- and in the face of worries about hostile court actions).

I give props to the twelve U.S. Senators, including Bernie Sanders, who sent a letter to Boeing condemning the anti-union campaign- see here -- but where were the legions of Bernie-supporters who endlessly lectured Clinton for her supposed silence on labor issues during the campaign?

National support for the campaign would have mattered since workers voting on the union needed to know that if they got a union, they would have national support in what would be ongoing battles not just with Boeing but with their own state government. Boeing is a federal contractor and has to worry about public opinion, so that national support matters.

But instead, they were left largely on their own, mostly in a national silence.

Having a 3000-person labor beachhead in anti-union South Carolina would have made a big difference, not just for those workers, but for workers throughout the region. As Josh notes in the linked story, other workers were looking to the Boeing vote on whether to try forming unions themselves.

And politically, it's a statistical fact that the higher the union density in the state, the higher percentage of workers, especially white workers, who end up voting Democratic at election time. That is first because local unions supply a lot of the cash to support local progressive candidates but it's also because they help frame local politics in terms of working class issues and concerns and drive the debate in ways that help progressive candidates.

You can't just love the working class when it serves rhetorical purposes, but ignore all the day-to-day fights that matter. This was indisputably one of the labor fights that mattered and most of the progressive media and progressives on social media just downplayed it or ignored it altogether.

This is just a massive political fail for the whole progressive movement.

Read the rest here:
Progressives Let Boeing Workers Down - Huffington Post

Perimeter Progressives, a new political group formed in response to President Trumps election, will hold its first meeting Feb. 28 in Dunwoody.

The group has a left-wing name and support from several of the states notable Democratic elected officials, including Senate Democratic Leader Steve Henson and House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, who may attend the event. Its Facebook and Twitter accounts promote Democratic causes and criticize Republicans. But the groups founder, well-known Dunwoody bicycling advocate Joe Seconder, said its open to anyone skeptical of the Trump era and who may not necessarily agree with either party.

The Perimeter Progressives logo.

The group will aim to hold nonpartisan political education events, Seconder said. It remains to be seen how many people will join, but the current list of those interested is in the hundreds, he said.

Seconder, who is widely known as the leader of advocacy groups Georgia Bikes! and Bike Walk Dunwoody, was careful to say that Perimeter Progressives welcomes centrist Republicans and independents. He pointed to the century-old history of the term progressive in a political party formed by former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt. The groups meeting announcement says it will be a conversation on how we can set a balanced, inclusive and progressive agenda for positive change in our community.

But he also said the new group will let fellow Democrats know they arent alone in the heavily Republican top end Perimeter between North DeKalb and East Cobb. The desire for more connection came from social media conversations, he said, after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton did surprising well against Trump in local vote totals.

When you saw Hillary won Dunwoody, there were some eyes popping, Seconder said. Im coming out of the closet. I am a Democrat.

Joe Seconder, founder of Perimeter Progressives.

The groups host committee includes several prominent Democrats. Besides Henson and Abrams, others include: Clarkston Mayor Ted Terry; state Senators Mary Margaret Oliver and Elena Parent; state Reps. Scott Holcomb and Sam Park; former state Rep. Taylor Bennett; Chamblee City Councilmember Brian Mock; and Matt Gephardt, son of former congressman and presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. None of the officials could be reached for immediate comment.

The host committee members have not donated a dime, instead lending their names and contacts to the effort, Seconder said. Several of them are expected to attend and speak briefly at the Feb. 28 meeting.

The group already held a private organizing meeting. Among those involved in that meeting, according to social media posts, was former state Rep. Sally Harrell, who briefly threw her hat in the ring in the areas 6th Congressional District election.

Perimeter Progressives is incorporating as a nonprofit and likely will not endorse candidates for office, Seconder said. He envisions it meeting monthly with speakers offering information on such topics as how a state bill becomes law or who is running for various local political offices.

I do not have any particular platform or agenda, he said. We want to help people be knowledgeable about whats going on in their ZIP code.

The Feb. 28 meeting will include comment cards for attendees to suggest ideas for the groups activities.

The socializing is an important goal for the group as well. Seconder said its about the simple power of seeing people in person rather than just chatting in Facebook groups, and a reminder that not every day has to be spent in screaming and protesting in angst.

The debut Perimeter Progressives meeting is scheduled for Feb. 28, 6-8 p.m., at Caf Intermezzo, 4505 Ashford-Dunwoody Road in Dunwoody, with RSVPs requested by Feb. 26. For more information, see perimeterprogressives.org.

Go here to see the original:
New 'Perimeter Progressives' political group debuts Feb. 28 - Reporter Newspapers

I

n a recent poll conducted by The Washington Post, 25 percent of adults said they plan to get more involved in politics. Among Democrats, the rate was even higher, at 35 percent.

That resolve was on display in Raleigh Saturday, as the eleventh annual Moral March drew what organizers claimed to be more than eighty thousand peopleif they're right, the march's largest crowd yet, though Republicans and a News & Observer analysis have disputed that countmany of whom picked up picket signs for the first time.

Cardes Brown, religion chair for the state NAACP, says there was "more unity and ubiquity" to this year's march. Participants marched for many causes: repealing HB 2, bringing awareness to systemic racism, protecting immigrants' rights, extending access to health care. From a stage in front of the state Capitol, at the end of the march route, speakers gave out phone numbers for North Carolina representatives and urged marchers to call them with their demands.

But in the face of a Republican-dominated legislature, can the energy of 160,000 (supposed) feet be translated into actual change?

Jen Jones, communications manager for the nonpartisan group Democracy NC, thinks so. This movement, she argues, is not a flash in the pan. North Carolina has been dealing with "regressive policies" since the GOP took control of the General Assembly in 2011. Now, with a Democratic governor and attorney general, the state can be a blueprint for progressives in a nation under President Trump.

Effecting change will require a twofold attack, she saysand some time.

The next step, Jones says, is to get the people attending marches to go to local government meetings and run for local offices, creating a grassroots push that "ultimately rises to the General Assembly." At the same time, advocacy groups need to get people engaged in votingand fighting to preserve voting rightsto usher those new candidates into office.

"Groups are pouring in asking for help registering and mobilizing voters," says Kate Fellman, program director for the People's Alliance Fund. "People who have never really done anything before, folks who have never been activists are wanting to play a role and asking about training in voter engagement and support from us. It's been kind of overwhelming."

"It matters that you made the call the first time," Jones says. "If you make the call, you're more likely to go to the meetings. If you go to the meetings, you're more likely to run for office. If you run for office, you're more likely to be politically engaged for the rest of your life."

Read more:
Can Progressives Turn the Moral March's Energy into Political Action? - The Independent Weekly

As we all know by now, President Donald Trumpnominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia last September. Gorsuch is a conservative originalist (read: reactionary with intellectual pretensions) and he will move an already conservative court further to the right. Twitter went ablaze with progressive outrage and, a few minutes after Trumps announcements, protesters were out in the streets. Democrats promised to mount a spirited opposition to Trumps nominee, in part as retaliation for the GOPs unprecedented yearlong obstruction of President Obamas pick, Merrick Garland. As encouraging as the reaction to Gorsuchs nomination might be, all of this fanfare from the left begs the question: where was all this passion when it actually could have changed the makeup of the judiciary? At Trumps urging, the Senate is likely to employ the nuclear option, eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and rendering all Democratic efforts to block Gorsuch moot. The filibuster for appointees to the lower court is already a thing of the past, thanks to Harry Reid. Thus, the sound and the fury of the left will likely amount to nothing. A generation of conservative dominance of the judiciary is at hand. It didnt have to be this way.

The 2016 presidential election afforded progressives an opportunity to usher in a generation of liberal jurisprudence. But the Supreme Court did not motivate liberals and progressives to vote in the same way it motivated conservatives. An ABC exit poll reveals that of the 21% of voters who claimed the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision, 57% supported Trump while 40% supported Hillary Clinton. Pew polling from shortly before the 2016 election showed that 77% of conservative Republicans, compared to 69% of self-described liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners viewed the Supreme Court as important to their vote. Polls of liberals and conservatives in previous elections reflect a similar disparity, with liberals consistently placing less value on Supreme Court appointments than conservatives. There is no way to guarantee that, had liberals cared more about the judiciary, we wouldnt be confronting the prospect of a Justice Gorsuch today. But in a close election, every percentage point equals millions of votes and it is therefore possible that the issue of Supreme Court appointments played a crucial role in voter turnout on both sides. In particular, it likely contributed to the decision of Republicans-particularly social conservatives-initially skeptical of Trump to >vote for him anyway, because he promised to appoint originalist justices to the Supreme Court that would quash gun control and overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why didnt even the prospect of a more liberal Supreme Court prove similarly motivating for the left? The lack of weight progressives place on Supreme Court appointments is a puzzling phenomenon considering the far-reaching impact of the judiciary on progressive priorities. Take, for instance, the top priorities of millennials according to Pew in which only 45% of millennials considered Supreme Court appointments very important to their vote. Perhaps this factor, along with a lack of enthusiasm for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, goes some way towards explaining the low turnout of a demographic considered reliably progressive on a range of key issues.

2016 Issue Importance Amongst 18-29 Year Olds

Supreme Court appointments: 45%

Social Security: 57%

Terrorism: 68%

Health care: 66%

Foreign policy: 70%

Trade policy: 50%

Immigration: 68%

Education: 67%

Gun policy: 71%

Economy: 80%

Abortion: 46%

Environment: 54%

Treatment of racial and ethnic minorities: 75%

Treatment of gay, lesbian and transgender people: 50%

Percent of registered voters saying each is very important to their vote in 2016. (Chart courtesy of Ball State Daily)

Millennials relative lack of concern for the Supreme Court is baffling considering that a conservative judiciary will have a detrimental impact on the issues they claim to value most. Gun policy (85%) is now a lost cause for liberals on a national level (the bluest of blue states may be an exception), with federal and state legislatures, along with the judiciary, enthralled with the NRA. On treatment of ethnic minorities (75%), Trumps judicial appointments will likely rule in favor of travel bans and actively work to disenfranchise minorities. A conservative judiciary is also likely to rubber stamp Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions inhumane immigration (68%) policies, just as it stalled into oblivion President Obamas effort to shield the family members of DREAMERS from deportation.

As for the environment (54%), a matter of particular importance to progressive millennials, the judiciary has the power to stay and strike down climate regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions, as it did under President Obama and will likely continue to do under future Democratic presidents long after President Trump departs the White House. And, although only 46% of millennials listed abortion as very important to their vote, they will not take kindly to the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, which would deprive millions of disproportionately poor and/or minority women of their reproductive rights.

A Trumpian judiciary is unlikely to limit executive overreach on foreign policy (70%), including the growth of the surveillance state, more drone strikes, renewed use of black sites and perhaps even a resumption of enhanced interrogation techniques (read: torture). By ruling against financial regulations and allowing big banks to operate unchecked, the Supreme Court will place the economy (80%) at great risk. And, of course, the Supreme Court can and will oppose campaign finance reform (not listed in the Pew survey, but a priority for many young progressives), as it did with Citizens United and a series of related rulings that opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in elections.

Given the Supreme Court impacts so many of the issues progressives claim to care most about, why do they consistently assign it less importance than conservatives? Perhaps progressives are inherently disinclined to pursue change through institutions, preferring grassroots organizing and various forms of activism. But alas, all the protesting in the world cannot prevent Donald Trump from stacking the Supreme Court and the lower courts with reactionaries (sorry, originalists) who, unlike legislators, remain in power for life. That means that if Bernie Sandersor some other progressive becomes president in 2020 or 2024, they may be hamstrung by a judiciary hellbent on blocking all progress. And they will have the authority to do it, no matter how many activists take to the streets in righteous (and justified) outrage.

As things stand, we have to hope Clinton, Obama and even Bush-era judges on the Supreme Court and the district courts can act as a bulwark against President Trumps most extreme, authoritarian impulses. But even in a best-case scenario (likely to resemble Paul Ryans Randian wet dream), progressives lose. Even assuming, to put it indelicately, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy live another eight years, Neil Gorsuch will maintain the right-wing status quo of a Roberts Court that has yielded no shortage of ghastly rulings over the past eight years. If even one of the liberal or moderate justices dies or steps down, that means President Donald Trumpcould further transform the courts in his imageor rather, the image of the conservatives who demand far-right justices as their pound of flesh from an ideologically amorphous populist demagogue. Votes, in addition to protests, are needed to avert this nightmare outcome, even if Democratic nominees of the future arent all the progressive saviors of our dreams.

Supreme Court rulings and jurisprudence may not be as sexy (or as comprehensible) as heartfelt activism, but they impact the issues we care most about. In many ways, the makeup of the court sets the horizon for progressive ambitions. And whether he holds the office of the Presidency for four years or eight, Trumps judicial nominees will remain to haunt progressives down the line. When the rising generation of millennials control the levels of power in the legislature, even the presidency, we may be forced to contend with far-right judges selected by and reflecting the values of Donald Trumpand the party that elected him. Our progressive ambitions may be stymied all because we didnt grasp the importance of seizing the judiciary at a pivotal moment in history.

In the years to come, historians will likely expound on the question of how a complacent majority of the population favoring liberal policies allowed a determined minority of the population favoring conservative policies to win a presidential election in a year when the Supreme Court hung in the balance. They will ask how millennials, with the numbers and inclination to shift the country decisively to the left, instead allowed the forces of reaction to emerge triumphant. The protests thus far and protests yet to come, while vital and historic, will not wipe the stain of this monumental error, this terrible missed opportunity, from the history books. It will not erase the devastating human impact of conservative judicial decisions on societys most vulnerable.

But perhaps the horrors of unconstrained conservative jurisprudence will serve as a cautionary tale. Perhaps if Trumps court strikes down Roe v. Wade, eviscerates the social safety net, removes financial regulations, rules against protections for LGBTQ individuals, further dismantles the Voting Rights Act and turns the planet into the carbon-desiccated cesspool of ExxonMobils dreams, progressives will learn to value the judiciary as much as conservatives do. Only by seizing control of institutions, including the judiciary, can progressive maximize the impact of their activism. Let this be a guiding principle in future elections.

Excerpt from:
Progressives Need to Care More About the Supreme Court When It Counts - Paste Magazine

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

From The Week:

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In the Democrats defense, [voting for the bank bailouts] was no easy choice: Either sanction the grossly unjust bank bailouts on the table from Bush, or risk an even more catastrophic collapse while a possible alternative was (maybe) worked out. But thatdoesnt change the factthat Democrats did pass the bank bailouts. And when Obama took over and continued to play ball with the banks, heassuredthe bailouts would be forever politically tied around the Democrats neck.

What the Democrats did next was even worse:The Obama administrationseffortsto provide relief to homeowners through the 2009 stimulus were paltry and fell flat. Nor did Obamareally pushthe Federal Housing Finance Agency to start rescuing underwater homeowners. The executive branchs law enforcersfailedto use charges of rampant mortgage fraud to force the banks to write down homeowners debt. And of course, theydecidedto forego prosecuting Wall Street executives.

Is it any wonder much of America thinks Democrats are in thrall to wealthy elites while ignoring the middle and working classes?

Bannon is right that the titans of finance who cratered the U.S. economy were never held accountable. Hes right that regular Americans were largely ignored in the wake of the crash. Hes right that much of this is Democrats fault. And hes especially right that millions of Americans are still mad as hell about it.

Read the rest here.

Go here to see the original:
The Week: How Steve Bannon Stole Progressives' Anti-Wall ...