Mediaboss Marketing

Douglass remained optimistic about the future despite the reality that in 1852, the overwhelming majority of Black Americans were enslaved. President Barack Obama gave a speech on June 30, 2008, called The America We Love.It wasn't about the meaning of America for Black people as a community, but what our country meant to him as an individual. Colbert I. King of The Washington Post compared Obama's remarks with those of Douglass. King noted that Obama, even while running for president and having his patriotism questioned, did not whitewash America's history by ignoring its misdeeds. Although as a boy he had expressed a childlike love of our country, his patriotism remained strong even as he learned more about and gained a fuller understanding of our past:

King then neatly summarized the differences between Douglass'and Obama's speeches:

My guess, especially given his hopeful conclusion, is that if Douglass were alive today he would speak about America in a way that resembles Obama's depictionin the body of his public remarks over more than a quarter-centuryin the broadest sense.

Neither would ignore the horrific crimes of the past, nor the way the legacy of those crimes continues to resonate. Neither would shrink from highlighting the continuing, fresh injustices being visited on African Americans. These injustices range from the killings by police officers of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and, most recently,Patrick Lyoya, along with so many others, to continued discrimination in areas like home-buyingthe primary way households build wealthto those carried out by the Trump administration as well as by local authorities.

Neither Douglass nor Obama would ignore the systemic racism that permeates our institutions. Both would, however, present a nuanced narrativeone full of struggle and loss, yet also one highlighting hope and the gradual progress toward a goal for which we continue to strive. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama asserted that on civil rights "things have gotten better," yet he added that "better isnt good enough." Both of those points are key. (Note: Although this post focuses on the struggle against racism, the horrifically unjust Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, certainly presents a new set of challenges that intersects with gender, race, and class. On the abortion rights front, things have gotten significantly worse than they were only a couple of weeks ago, although it appears, hopefully, that safe and legal abortions will remain available to a far greater percentage of American women than was the case on the eve of the Roe decision in 1973.)

We face serious, urgent problems today because of the white supremacy and anti-Blackness that still hold sway throughout our society. But to deny that things are better for African Americans in 2022 than they were a century agoduring the depths of Jim Crow, an era when hundreds could be massacred and great wealth destroyed by white rioters and murderers with impunity in Tulsa over a single 24-hour period, to name one out of countless brutally violent examples; or two centuries ago, when millions were in bondageis not only incorrect, it is an insult to the people who fought, bled, and died over the decades in order to make things better.

In June 2020, as Black Lives Matter protesters marched through the streets of our cities and even smaller towns for days on end, the 44th president offered this take as part of a larger post entitled How to Make this Moment the Turning Point for Real Change:

I recognize that these past few months have been hard and dispiriting that the fear, sorrow, uncertainty, and hardship of a pandemic have been compounded by tragic reminders that prejudice and inequality still shape so much of American life. But watching the heightened activism of young people in recent weeks, of every race and every station, makes me hopeful. If, going forward, we can channel our justifiable anger into peaceful, sustained, and effective action, then this moment can be a real turning point in our nations long journey to live up to our highest ideals.

President Joe Biden, Obamas one-time running mate and second-in-command, spoke in similarly balancedyet hopeful terms about our nations centuries-long struggle to overcome our own racism in light of the historic events taking placethat summer:

The history of this nation teaches us that its in some of our darkest moments of despair that weve made some of our greatest progress. The 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments followed the Civil War The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 came in the tracks of Bull Connors vicious dogs. To paraphrase Reverend Barber its in the mourning we find hope.

And heres Bidenin his inaugural address, where he rightly emphasized that we may never convince every American to come over to our side, but we can still prevail if enough of us do:

Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, and demonization have long torn us apart.

The battle is perennial. Victory is never assured. Through the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War, 9/11, through struggle, sacrifice, and setbacks, our better angels have always prevailed. In each of these moments, enough of us came together to carry all of us forward.

Meteor Blades is right to identify Frederick Douglass as a hero. Along a similar vein, Michael Lind characterized him in The Next American Nation as "perhaps the greatest American of any race, of any century." It's highly appropriate in 2022 to remember Douglass' 1852 speech, especially on July 4.What I am also doing here is using Meteor Blades' post about Douglass as a jumping-off point for a relatedbut differentdiscussion.

From a strategic perspective, politicians and public figures on the left have to be wary of allowing their rhetoric over an extended period of time to focus solely or overwhelmingly on feelings of alienation from this country. Im not trying to tell anyone how they should feel. No one should do that. This is about what people publish and proclaim, and the strategic value thereof. What liberals cannot do, what Douglass himself did not do (as seen in aforementioned conclusion to his 1852 speech), is cede patriotism and an embrace of America toFuck a LOrange and his right-wing minions. This is a crucial point I've written about previously:

Lind wrote further about the importance of embracing an inclusive, singular national narrative of our country's history with which Americans of every background can identify:

Even in writing this, I want to be crystal clear about what I'm saying so that nothing is misconstrued. I'm emphatically not saying that Meteor Blades or anyone else should tone down their criticisms of this country's flaws or injustices, whether in the present or the past. To be more specific, I am not saying that Black or brown or LGBTQ+ Americans, or anyone who is marginalized, should keep their thoughts to themselves because they might scare the straight, white, Christian folks. Im talking primarily about what progressive politicians and campaigns should say, what message they should emphasize.

We must find a way to do what needs doing, to shine a light on the problems and injustices in our country, while still publicly embracing a commitment to the whole country, the whole community. We have to do both of those things at the same time, over and over again, in order to get our point across and persuade people to join our movement. If we don't do that, we can't solve those problems and fix those injustices because, over time, well lose elections and be shut out of power.

Democrats cannot win elections and make the changes that need making if the only people our broad vision of Americas story speaks to are liberals (let alone left-progressives). Although the percentage of Americans who identify as liberals rose steadily from the early 1990s through the mid-2010s according to Gallup, it has remained stuck at around a quarter since then. We must craft a story that resonates enoughnot necessarily 100%, but enoughto earn the support of most moderates along with liberals, two groups who together constitute a decisive 60% majority. Again, this isnt about policy, or even compromise at all. We have to talk about our country in a way that doesnt alienate people before they even hear the first word about our policies.

As politically engaged progressives, we know that this country can and must do better on a whole host of different fronts, that we need to enact systemic and fundamental change, and that in order to do so we need to understand our history in full. A history, however, that emphasizes only our crimes and ignores the progress is but the mirror image of one that does the oppositeone that, as Trump did at Mt. Rushmore on July 4, 2020, solely bathes our history in glory and righteousness. And if those are the only two options, many middle-of-the-road Americans, in particular whites but others as well, are likely to be more attracted to the Pollyanna-ish view simply because it sounds more familiar and makes them feel better.

As survey data from the Public Religion Research Institute makes clear, Donald Trump certainly appeals to those who are likely attracted to such a view, those who see America as having veered away from what once made it great. As Ronald Brownstein explained in 2016, Trumps emergence represents a triumph for the most ardent elements in the GOPs coalition of restoration, voters who are resistant to demographic change. This is certainly just as true now as it was six years ago. Why else would Trump have presented himself as the most powerful defender of Confederate monuments?

Progressive politicians and campaigns have to make sure to present a balanced and truthful picture. Thats the most effective way to get those people who sometimes forget about the crimes our country has committed to remember them and to work toward reversing their effects, rather than dismiss liberal criticisms as somehow "anti-American" because liberals supposedly talk only about the negatives. Progressives have to present our case as representing the true American values, and contrast them to the values of those whom we oppose, as Obama and Joe Biden did in their condemnations of Trumps family separation policy, for example. Inclusion, equal rights, and a strong sense of national community that nurtures bonds connecting Americans of every background is what makes America great, not fearmongering about immigrants.

The Man Who LostAn Election And Tried To Steal It had his ridiculous July 4 event at Mt. Rushmore in 2020, but we must not allow his twisted definition of American greatness to go unchallenged. (And please check out Meteor Blades post on that eventwhich he brilliantly characterized as our corrupt and conniving president, who has so many times proved he despises American Indians, showing up to fluff his patriotic feathers at a commercial enterprise built on land stolen from the Lakota nearly a century and a half ago using starvation tactics and gunpowder.)

Compare what the twice impeached former guy said on that July 4 to what the man who ultimately beat him by 7 million votes said on that same day, remarks that Daily Kos Jessica Sutherland aptly called the presidential' Fourth of July address America deserves.Bidenshowed how progressives can define celebrating the July 4 holiday in a way that, hopefully, works for all Americans, including members of marginalized groups.

The video is only about 90 seconds long, and I urge you to listen to the whole thing, both for the content and for the passion with which then-Vice President Biden delivered it. At the heart of the statement is how we talk about our history. Again, Biden didnt tiptoe around the uncomfortable truth. For example, he cited Jeffersons ownership of human beings, and our countrys discrimination against womenwhile also emphasizing that putting those all-important words all men are created equal down on paper provided support for those fighting to help America become the place we have long aspired to be.

Through it all, these words have gnawed at our conscience and pulled us toward justice. American history is no fairy tale. Its been a constant push-and-pull between two parts of our character: the idea that all men and womenall peopleare created equal, and the racism that has torn us apart.

As for how that history connects to our future, Biden added: We have a chance now, to give the marginalized, the demonized, the isolated, the oppressed, a full share of the American dream. We have a chance to rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country. We have a chance to live up to the words that founded this nation.

On our countrys birthday in 2020, only one of the two candidates for president gave us a story of our past that will enable us to craft a viable journey forward, because only one of their stories told the truth. Biden acknowledged our struggles to put into practice the worthy ideals our founders laid down in 1776, and demandeda future where we make them fully and finally real for every American. The results of the 2020 electionprovide evidence that Bidens position is one that far more Americans can identify with than Trumps.

Ultimately, as a people, we require for our survival a story of our country that reflects the full, balanced truth of our past, one that Americans of every background can feel includes them. President Barack Obama has offered that sort of historical narrative throughout his public life, and Biden has been doing the same thing, in particular since he began his 2020 campaign. Trump, on the other hand, offers nothing but hatebecause hes the one who seeks indoctrination. Historian Jill Lepore wrote about the danger of leaving the crafting of a unifying national narrative to those who would use history to divide us. Theyll call themselves nationalists, she wrote. Their history will be a fiction. They will say that they alone love this country. They will be wrong.

People need to feel a sense of belonging, a sense of identity, something that connects them to a purpose larger than themselves. A progressive concept of Americannessa progressive patriotismthat can connect Americans to one another across boundaries is crucial to countering Trumpism broadly, and white nationalism specifically. Ive written previously about women of color like Nikole Hannah-Jones, Rep. Ilhan Omar, and our countrys first youth poet laureate, Amanda Gorman, who have spoken about their concept of patriotismone that connects powerfully with progressive values on matters such as racial justice. Look at how Hannah-Jones talked about our history in her Pulitzer Prize-winning introductory essay to The 1619 Project, where she summed up so much in a short paragraph:

Black people suffered under slavery for 250 years; we have been legally free for just 50. Yet in that briefest of spans, despite continuing to face rampant discrimination, and despite there never having been a genuine effort to redress the wrongs of slavery and the century of racial apartheid that followed, black Americans have made astounding progress, not only for ourselves but also for all Americans.

Those who have fought for equality have long sought to connect that idea to America's fundamental principlesto our own history. Douglass did it, even in the speech discussed above, as did the Black abolitionist David Walker a generation earlier, who called on us to "[h]ear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776." The Declaration of Sentimentsthe manifesto signed by those who gathered in Seneca Falls in 1848 to demand equal rights for womenbegan by taking the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which eloquently declares the equality of all men, and modifying it by adding two key words: and women.

Martin Luther King Jr. also rooted the principles for which he fought squarely within, rather than in opposition to, basic American ideals. We see this in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail,where he predicted that the civil rights movement would succeed because "the goal of America is freedom," and in his I Have a Dreamspeech, in which he proclaimed that the dream he described that day was "deeply rooted in the American dream." So did Harvey Milk when he said: "All men are created equal. Now matter how hard they try, they can never erase those words. That is what America is about. So did Barbara Jordan, who noted: "What the people want is simple. They want an America as good as its promise."

Finally, Obama did something very similar in Selma at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March, when he identified those who walked and bled on that bridge as the ones who truly represented what America is supposed to be:

Progressives must criticize. That is crucial. We must also tell the truth, both about the present and the pastasBiden did speaking to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the aforementioned Tulsa Race Massacre. Additionally, we must inspire, because inspiration is how we motivate action. We can and must use the story of our country, which above all is one of brave people fightingoften against more powerful people and institutions in our countryto make this a better, fairer, more just place for all Americans. That fight to make America truly great inspires me, and I hope it inspires you as well on this Independence Day.

[This is a revised and updated version of an essay I have posted previously on July 4, with some material revised and added from a post that discussed Bidens speech from July 4, 2020.]

Ian Reifowitz is the author ofThe Tribalization of Politics: How Rush Limbaugh's Race-Baiting Rhetoric on the Obama Presidency Paved the Way for Trump(Foreword by Markos Moulitsas)

Read more here:
How progressives talk about July 4 and our national history in the post-Trump presidency era - Daily Kos

Furiously watching the Supreme Court dismantle what for almost 50 years was a constitutional right, Democratic operatives and activists have been begging the White House to do everything in its power to ensure people still have access to abortion.

They view President Bidens announcement last week that he supports a carveout to ending the Senate filibuster to codify abortion rights at the federal level was a step in the right direction, but it hardly quieted their anger.

Youd genuinely think this decision hadnt even leaked because it seems very clear there has been no real planning from the White House, said Max Burns, a progressive strategist working on down ballot races ahead of the midterms, referring to the leak earlier this summer of a draft of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade. I dont know how you get caught by surprise on a pre-announced decision!

Every senior official who speaks about our post-Roe nightmare seems to have a different narrative, he went on, which is a sign there is no narrative at all.

Sorry, Burns concluded, this is a point of immense fury.

Burns is not alone. The sense of frustration that the Biden administration hasnt done enough to protect women during this crucial, precedent-unraveling the court overturned the landmark abortion rights decision.

Hours after the decision, Biden gave an impassioned speech about the ruling, in which he lambasted it as a tragic error.

This decision must not be the final word. My administration will use all of its appropriate, lawful powers, but Congress must act, Biden said.

But the speech didnt mollify many. And the progressive reaction has been particularly loud.

Lawmakers and activists on the left have urged Biden and his entire White House to present a clear message of urgency to Americans about the significance of the ruling and provide a unified roadmap of practical options to help people maintain access to the full range of reproductive health care.

On Thursday, the president seemed to pivot in a new direction.

During a global news conference, Biden called for the narrowly-controlled Democratic majority in the Senate to amend its longstanding filibuster rule in order to protect Roes status. That would allow Democrats to pass a bill without any Republican votes.

I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that, he said from a NATO conference in Madrid, Spain. If the filibuster gets in the way, its like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this.

Finally, outspoken liberals declared, a step in the right direction. Some acknowledged that the president and his administration appeared to be getting the message.

Now were talking! Ocascio-Cortez tweeted after Bidens statement. Time for people to see a real, forceful push for it. Use the bully pulpit. We need more.

The administration also received praise after the Department of Health and Human Services launched a website devoted to helping people find contraceptives and abortion services.

I think we are starting to see some more concrete steps and we definitely more of that, said Bethany Van Kampen Saravia, a senior legal and policy adviser at the global reproductive justice organization Ipas.

I definitely wouldnt necessarily say they are flat footed, she added, referring to the administration.

But the anger isnt likely to go away. Progressives have warned that the decision could cause Democrats to lose the House and Senate if they dont mobilize accordingly, and many believe more steps need to be taken in the short-term to speak to voters. In recent days, theyve raised concerns about everything from privacy on health data-sharing apps to abortion centers closing down in critical states.

Absent an urgent enough national response from the White House, in the eyes of some on the left, progressives have been bringing new attention to polling and advertisements to amplify the issue.

In a poll conducted by MoveOn, obtained exclusively by The Hill, likely voters in four battleground states Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin overwhelmingly support access to abortion and disapprove of the decision to overturn Roe, a proof point that Democrats are circulating to show how the ruling can work to their advantage at the ballot box.

In Arizona, one of Democrats biggest targets in the midterms and one that Biden won in 2020, 60 percent of likely voters surveyed said they think abortion should be allowed legally.

In another sign of the rulings potential significance on the campaign trail, a number of liberal pro-choice organizations launched large-scale ad buys in major swing Senate states including Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

That work on the outside is meant to supplement areas where the administration could come up short, some say.

The president cant make anyone do anything, Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright said.

The executive branch plays a role. The legislative branch, and the judicial [branch] plays a role. The judicial [branch] is clear about their role. Its to disrupt, he said.

Now we have to do the clean up at the legislative branch, in particular in the United States Senate.

Still, some Democrats say the impulse to blame the Senate from inside the White House on down has become something of a crutch in the debate. While its true that two moderates, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) have complicated much of Bidens agenda by failing to budge on the filibuster, some say Bidenworld needs to be more forceful in its planning and response.

The White House can rightfully blame Manchin and Sinema (and 50 GOP senators) for the logjam in the Senate, Burns said, but that doesnt go an inch to explaining why the White House doesnt seem to have any clear narrative or action plan of its own.

They keep sending Kamala Harris out to be embarrassed in front of national audiences with messaging the White House then seems to abandon entirely, he said.

Earlier this week, Harris, who has struggled to gain solid footing during her time as vice president, said not right now when asked on CNN if administration officials are contemplating the option of providing access to abortion services on federal lands, a line that put her at odds with progressives like Ocasio-Cortez who called it one of several baby steps that could be taken, including in Republican-controlled states.

Others defending the administration, however, described much of the discontent among progressives as online noise that doesnt necessarily ring true for many Democratic voters.

Those voices take solace in knowing that voters indeed chose Biden out of other contenders to lead the country away from Trump, and believe that the president deserves some breathing room during his first term.

They find themselves lining up or dancing to the tune of the activists, Seawright said about progressives. And yes thats important, but thats not always most important because governing and campaigning can be two different things.

To be sure, the anger is not confined to the left-wing.

Even some Republicans have wondered aloud why the opposing party hadnt already taken steps to codify the ruling over the past five decades.

Democrats, what were you doing all these years, not codifying Roe? said Rina Shah, a GOP operative who started Republican Women for Biden during the last election.

While some far-right GOP candidates and lawmakers on Capitol Hill cheered the SCOTUS move, others have expressed private shock that Democrats are finding themselves in this position now.

I have no respect for these justices because they didnt have to do this, she said.

Read the original here:
Biden moves on abortion havent quieted progressive anger - The Hill

As U.S. companies and executives balance publicly addressing hot-button political topics, Palantir CEO Alex Karp said many still struggle with figuring out when they must speak out and when they shouldn't.

"Companies have a problem that it's very hard for them to tether what they're producing to a higher mission, and therefore they cannot exactly adjudicate where they have to speak out and where maybe they don't have to speak out," Karp told CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin at the Aspen Ideas Festival this week. "Then there's just general issues of, if you're going to use our product for things we don't support, we feel like we have to speak out."

The call for companies to take a stand on social issues has only increased in recent years, most recently around abortion following theU.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last week.

Karp, who noted he is pro-choice, said that Palantir has always" provided for people to leave states or go to places where their rights are protected, and we pay for people and their families to move if they need access to medical treatment or abortions."

Karp also addressed how differing views have played out in his own company with Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, one of the largest donors to Republican candidates in recent years. Thiel was also on the executive committee of the transition team for President Donald Trump, who Karp has both publicly and privately criticized.

"One of the problems in this country is that there are not enough people like Peter and me; we've been fighting about things for 30 years," Karp said. "You have to take the political dialogue, and then the business dialogue we tend to have similar assumptions but not always the same interpretation. I really enjoy my discourse with Peter on areas where I think he's the best in the world, and we don't agree politically."

Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir arrives ahead of a "Tech For Good" meetup at Hotel Marigny in Paris on May 15, 2019, held to discuss good conduct for technology giants.

Bertrand Guay | AFP | Getty Images

Karp acknowledged that while he "got in trouble" for some of the things he said about Trump publicly, it was also insights gained from speaking with people like Thiel that made him believe Trump was going to win in 2016.

"I think that's a huge problem in our society; I'd like to hear what someone else thinks, and by the way I kind of think I'm right so if you have your argument we can argue about it," he said. "I think a lot of my progressive friends have a little bit of an inferiority complex if you're right, why do you care that you're having a dialogue with someone that's wrong? I like that."

"I have pretty strong opinions; prove me wrong, I'd love to hear it," he said.

As companies come under fire from politicians for sharing views they don't agree with, such as in the case of Disney and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a company like Palantir that has much of its business with the public sector and governments could potentially face similar blowback.

While holding government contracts has not stopped SpaceX CEO Elon Musk from being critical of a standing president, Karp said that part of the issue has stemmed from companies who speak out on issues that aren't in their general focus.

"We have all these people that tell me I shouldn't speak publicly on lots of issues, and I speak pretty freely on all sorts of things that could get me into trouble and I think our clients are very tolerant of that," Karp said. "But they also know that I'm in the business the most important issues of the time right now are issues I have some modicum of expertise."

Karp said those issues are: "What will the world look like if our adversaries win, or if we win? Under what conditions will software be implemented? Will that software rob us of our civil liberties? How can that software protect our civil liberties?"

"On those issues, I speak out all the time," he said.

Disclosure: NBCUniversal News Group is the media partner of the Aspen Ideas Festival.

Link:
Palantir CEO Alex Karp on the difference between fighting with Peter Thiel and progressives - CNBC

John B. Hymes| Special to The Record

The last few weeks of June were bad for the socialist/progressives in America. On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that normal New Yorkers could carry weapons to protect themselves from the mayhem New York lawmakers unleashed in that state. The next day, the Court struck down Roe v. Wade, the most notorious, shoddily argued, and unconstitutional law since the Dred Scott decision in 1857.

Then on June 27, the Court agreed that football coach Joe Kennedy could pray with his players on the field. These three decisions are important moves for regaining personal rights lost, but Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization upending Roe, is the most notable for advancing the personal rights of a cohort ignored and unrecognized for 50 years…the unborn.

Unfortunately, the perfectly sound reasoning of the Dobbs case will be met with hysteria. Democrat elected officials are inciting the people with fears about the end of democracy and the failure of the Supreme Court. However, in deciding against Jackson Health, the Court found that the1973 Roe decision ignored three important themes: the obvious humanity of unborn children, leading to the extraordinary violation of the XIV Amendments equal protection clauseand the shameless usurpation of states rights against the principle of federalism.

Taking the last theme first, Democrat elected officials and media are doing the people a disservice by continually describing our form of government a democracy, America is a republic. The founders could have established a democracy, but, as John Adams wrote, …democracies never last long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. Democracies rule by how the majority feels about things; a republic is rule by law. The SCOTUS justices recognized that the Roe decision silenced Americans on the issue of abortion, so Dobbs returned their voice. This is a victory for federalism. The question can now be considered by the voters in the fifty states and they will decide just how much protection they are willing to accord the child in the womb.

In respect to that child, as poetically observed by the late Paul Ramsey, there is nothing we have genetically now that we didnt have when we were no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Nearly everyone intuitively knows this, anti-abortion and abortion-rights people alike. The science is perfectly clear, but we humans are amazingly adept in concocting language to support erroneous notions. It wasnt that long ago the unborn were described as blobs of flesh, clumps of cells, and nonpersons.

Recently, an educated man advised me that sentience, or the ability to feel something, determined human worth, and that the unborn child was only a potential person. The dialogue was instructive if the only thing I learned was that philosophy and ideology often trump medical science and common sense.

If the Dobbs Court had considered the humanity and individuality of the unborn child, they might have ruled that the 14th Amendment rightly grants them equal protection and then ban abortion nationwide. However, they did not: the Dobbs Court considered only the question of viability, or when a child can survive outside the womb.

Justice Alitos opinion points out that in 1973, none of the parties in the Roe case suggested viability, nor did they brief it, nor argue it; Justice Blackmun just made it up and it eventually became the heart of Roe. So, when todays justices considered the question of viability, there was no constitutional, logical, or scientifically based foundation, therefore, no federal constitutional right to abortion possible.

This Dobbs decision will hopefully cause American society to reflect and reexamine the effects of the hook-up culture, marriage, family life, morality, and ultimately the value of children. As to the undermining of democracy, we should be more concerned with urban terrorists masquerading as protestors, and politicians masquerading as representatives. Theres no warrant in our unique civil society for the President, Senate majority leader, and Speaker of the House to threaten justices, misrepresent their decisions, and stoke insurrection. This seditious behavior is the real threat to our republic and those people should be turned out of office ASAP.

John B. Hymes is a retired Stockton fire battalion chief and past Civil Service commissioner.

View original post here:
A few bad weeks for progressives, good weeks for the Republic - Stockton Record

This week brought some very welcome news for progressives in Illinois, while left candidates in New York saw more of amixed bag.

In Tuesday nights Democratic primary, state Rep. Delia Ramirez, co-chair of the elected officials chapter of United Working Families (UWF), defeated Gilbert Villegas in the newly redrawn 3rd Congressional District by capturing nearly 66 percent of the vote, capping off anight of victories for left-wing groups including UWF, the Illinois partner of the national progressive organization Working Families Party (WFP).

Ramirez, who was endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (DVA) and Elizabeth Warren (DMA) along with national progressive groups including WFP, the House Progressive Caucus and Peoples Action, will face Republican Justin Burau, who ran unopposed in his partys primary, in the November general election. She would be the first Latina congresswoman elected from the Midwest, and is almost certain to win in the deep-blue district, which stretchesfrom Chicagos West Side deep into the citysuburbs.

We just broke athick-ass glass ceiling, Ramirez said at avictory party Tuesday night, continuing, the entire state of Illinois has made it loud and clear: its time for progressive, authentic goodgovernment.

Villegas, her opponent, benefitedfrom major outside spending from anow-familiar player: Democratic Majority for Israel, which has used its financial heft against progressives in races across the country and spent $157,000 against Ramirez. Villegas also was supported by acharter school committee, the National Association of Realtors, and Mainstream Democratsa Super PAC foundedby venture capitalist and LinkedIn co-founder ReidHoffman.

At aJune 18 rally, Sen. Sanders saidRamirez, has been achampion of working families in Illinois. As astate legislator, she has expanded Medicaid for all seniors regardless of legal status, has secured millions of dollars for affordable housing, and defended reproductive rights by codifying Roe v. Wade in Illinois. Ramirez had previously co-sponsored the Reproductive Health Act, which guarantees abortion rights to Illinois residents, and ran on aplatform of Medicare for All, cancelling student loan debt, union rights and other progressivepriorities.

Ramirez rejected all corporate donations, and was heavily outraised by her opponent. But outside groups like WFP spent big in herfavor.

This was unquestionably agood night for United Working Families, Emma Tai, UWFs executive director, told In These Times. With only one exception, all of our contested candidates triumphed and beat their primarychallengers.

Further down the ballot, Anthony Joel Quezada, aUWF-endorsed member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), won his race for the Cook County Board of Commissioners, and will jointwo other UWF-affiliated commissioners, Brandon Johnson and Alma Anaya. The board, composed of 17 commissioners serving four-year terms, approves the countys budget and controls laws governing issues ranging from parks to public health andsafety.

For too long weve had absent leadership in the 8th district, Quezada said Tuesday night. Right now, in the midst of Covid, ahousing crisis, growing wealth inequality, and the threat of climate change, we said that we need to elect leadership that actually reflects our progressive values and is ready to fight for us. Quezada will be the first open democratic socialist to serve on the Cook CountyBoard.

Lilian Jimenez, who ran for Ramirezs statehouse seat, won the Democratic nomination for the 4th House District with nearly 80 percent of the vote in athree-person primary. Jimenez was endorsed by Ramirez, unions including the Chicago Teachers Union and Illinois SEIU, as well as the Chicago Tribunes editorial board, and she previously worked as alabor and immigration lawyer, directing the legislative fight to pass county-wide minimum wage and sick leavelaws.

Were in amuch more serious and rigorous phase of what it means to contest political power electorally, Tai noted. The upside of not having the element of surprise is that we have amuch deeper bench of people who know what it takes to contest seriously forpower.

It wasnt all good news for Illinois progressives, however. Kina Collins, the Justice Democrats-endorsed progressive who challenged longtime Rep. Danny K. Davis (DIll.), lost her race in Illinois 7th district. Davis received last-minute support from powerful establishment Democrats, including President Joe Biden and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who endorsedDavis last Sunday. Yet, despite the loss, Collins came far closer this round, claiming 45 percent of the vote as compared to the 14 percent she won in2020.

And incumbent progressive Rep. Marie Newman (DIll.) similarly lost her race to Sean Casten, after redistricting forced her into acontest with afellow sitting member of Congress. Newman also faced aflood of outside money which funded attacks on her campaign, as did Ramirez and other left-wingcandidates.

In New York, meanwhile, progressives saw both setbacks and victories in Tuesdays primaries. Aslate of seven insurgent challengers backed by the Working Families Party of New York and the New York Chapter of the DSA who ran against establishment incumbents in the New York State Assembly were mostly defeated, but no progressive incumbent lost their reelectioncampaign.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DNY) endorsed the challengers, while New York Mayor Eric Adams lent his support to the incumbents. Sarahana Shrestha was the one candidate on the WFPs slate who won their race. The first-time candidate beat13-term incumbent Assembly-member Kevin Cahill, who represented the Hudson Valley town of Kingston. Shrestha, afirst-generation Nepalese-American graphic designer, ran on aplatform that prioritized climatejustice.

When Iannounced my run for the State Assembly last year, Iasked the people of District 103 to choose hope over fear, to put our collective imagination into what we stand to gain, and not just what we stand to lose, Shrestha said in astatement. This is just the beginning. Next, we must build on our common ground and bring people into the right direction we need not just for the Hudson Valley, and not just for New York, but for the wholecountry.

Outside spending from corporate interests was, as has become typical in the Democratic Partys fight between progressives and moderates, amajor factor. Shrestha alone facedat least $80,000in attack ads funded in part by real estate interests channeled through apair of Super PACs, Common Sense New Yorkers and Voters of New York. In total, the two PACs raisedat least $1 million from corporate donors, and spent heavily on mailers attacking the WFP slate over their alleged support for defunding the police. One mailer described Jonathan Soto, who once worked for Ocasio-Cortez and ran against 10-term incumbent Michael Benedetto in the Bronx, as a dangerous, reckless, socialist who was too extreme for theBronx.

A mailer targeting Samy Nemir Olivares, who challenged incumbent Erik Dilanthe son of state Sen. Martin Dilan, who DSA member and State Sen. Julia Salazar ousted in her tumultuousinsurgent 2018 campaignaccused Olivares of threatening publicsafety.

And Jeff Coltin, apolitical reporter for City &State NY, noted on Twitter that areal estate investment firm appeared to be pouring money into targeted Instagram ads supporting the incumbents against their progressive challengers. Committee for aFair New York, funded by Arel Capital, spent at least $50,000 shoring up moderatesa sizable sum in local races where candidates rarely raise more than one or two hundred thousanddollars.

The reason theyre pouring money into these races is because theyre afraid, because they know that we can win. We can seize the reins of these institutions and direct them to more just and redistributive ends, and they are very scared of that happening, Tai said. Thats the story behind the money pouring into ouropposition.

The outcome of Tuesdays races show both the challenges faced by the progressive electoral movement, with corporate money flowing into the coffers of centrist Democratic incumbents, as well as the potential of amultiracial working-class politics to triumph in aturbulent politicalenvironment.

Thats how the aphorism goes, right? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win, said Tai. I think were definitely at the then they fight you phaseand we are, increasingly, in the then you winphase.

More:
"We Just Broke a Thick-Ass Glass Ceiling": Progressive Candidates Rack Up Some Big Wins - In These Times