Mediaboss Marketing

This op-ed is aresponse to A Progressive Response to Ukraine, published by In These Times on March14.

On March 14, In These Times publisher Joel Bleifuss published an editorial headlined, A Progressive Response to Ukraine, in which he mischaracterizes what the two of us have written about this crisis and fails to acknowledge the positive contributions that many progressive groups are making to both explain the crisis and work towards asolution.

Bleifuss cites our articles in his assertion that certain elements of the Left rationalized Russias actions and preemptively blamed the United States for any forthcoming militaryoperations.

In our writings since last November, we certainly described U.S. provocations: the Wests broken promises on NATO expansion; NATOs ill-advised promise of membership to Ukraine; the U.S. role in the 2014 overthrow of the Yanukovych government, which we argue was acoup; the Trump administrations support for President Zelenskys failure to deliver on the Minsk II agreement; and the Biden administrations refusal to negotiate seriously with Russia over its security concerns after 30years of expansionist U.S. and NATO policy inEurope.

We did not use these to justify the Russian invasion but to explain our governments role in stoking tensions. Once the invasion happened, we immediately condemned it as an unjustified, brutal, illegal act ofaggression.

Bleifuss insists that progressives should not fixate on NATO, and says that NATO is only relevant because Putin uses it to cynically stir up Russian resentment. But if NATO had disbanded as the Warsaw Pact did in 1991, or if it had not expanded to Russias border, we doubt that Russia would have invadedUkraine.

If anything, progressives should fixate more on NATO, an aggressive military alliance that has ahistory of illegally invading sovereign states, such as Afghanistan and Libya. It promotes avicious cycle of militarism by insisting that all 30 members spend 2% of their GDP on preparations for war instead of on the real needs of people and the planet. It is an alliance in constant search of new enemies to justify itsexistence.

Regrettably, the Ukraine crisis has given NATO an enormous boost. Right now, our call should be for no NATO expansion. But as soon as this crisis is over, we should join with our progressives colleagues in Europe and elsewhere to call for the disbanding ofNATO.

Bleifuss main point that progressives should be able to criticize the U.S. empire without denying that other bad state actors exist is precisely what most anti-war groups have beendoing.

On February 24, the very day of the Russian invasion, RootsAction, aprogressive group, condemned Russia and said that the world desperately needs asingle standard of accountability to prevent the crime of wara crime that the Russian government is now committing in Ukraine and the U.S. government continues to commit elsewhere as part of the ongoing war onterror.

Veterans for Peace, an anti-war organization, put out an excellent statement that begins: Just as Veterans For Peace condemned U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, we strongly condemn Russias invasion of Ukraine and grieve for all those who have lost their lives in this horrific war. Numerous other progressive groups put out similar statements condemning both the Russian invasion and U.S.policies.

Right now, progressives should put their efforts into opposing the no-fly zone that Zelensky has been calling for. We must help people understand that this would trigger adirect U.S. confrontation with Russia and the real possibility of another world war, as well as anuclear confrontation. We should be pushing the White House and Congress to hold fast on their rejection of this request, and push them to give full support to the ongoing negotiations between Russia andUkraine.

This crisis should also make it crystal clear to progressives that we must get serious about building amassive global movement to support the UN Treaty to ban nuclearweapons.

Without condoning or excusing Putin, who bears the direct and immediate responsibility for the invasion of Ukraine, progressives need to push our government to stop fueling the war, and instead do everything it can to bring the war to anend.

And rather than fueling divisions among progressives, In These Times should be rallying progressives to do everything they canget out into the streets, make congressional calls, write op-eds, hold teach-insto end this war and to lay the foundations for amuch stronger and more effective U.S. anti-warmovement.

See the original post:
A More Progressive Response to the Ukraine Crisis - In These Times

Russias invasion of Ukraine and its bombardment of civilian populations has put usually dovish progressives in the odd spot of backing a forceful U.S. response.

The left wing of the Democratic Party has generally been skeptical ofAmericanmilitary involvement overseas and has been criticalofrising defense spending.Nearly two decades ago,manycondemned theU.S. war in Iraq, whichliberalsbroadly saw as an unnecessaryconflictmotivated by oil that tookthegovernment's eye offproblems at home.

For many progressives it has been challenging because we arent used to being in this position, where the U.S. isnt the one doing the invasion, said Alexander McCoy, a co-founder of the left-wing veterans organization Common Defense.

McCoy said part of the challenge for the left is figuring out exactly what it supports and does not support in the context of helping Ukraine fend off Russias aggression.

Much of the progressive movement has built our foreign policy reflexes around trying to stop the U.S. from doing bad things, going back to perhaps the Vietnam War or earlier, he said. But things are changing now, and progressives need to start defining ourselves by what we are for, not just what we are against.

Progressives have sided with President BidenJoe BidenEx-Trump personal assistant appears before Jan. 6 panel Defense & National Security Russia sends warnings to the West On The Money Feds propose new disclosure rule for public companies MORE in declaring Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinDefense & National Security Russia sends warnings to the West Biden tells CEOs they have 'patriotic obligation' to guard against Russian cyberattacks Russian chess grandmaster suspended for publicly supporting invasion MORE a war criminal.

They havebackedhis decision to spend nearly $14 billion in emergency aid to protect the sovereign nation against morebloody escalation.

And there is a push to accept Ukrainian refugees that fits previous calls by progressives to helpmigrants from other countries in times of political peril.

But for all of the support toward the administrations response,liberals are also worried about how rising gas prices exacerbated by the war on international sanctions imposed on Russia will affect poor and middle-class people in the United States.

Liberal Reps. Ilham Omar (Minn.) and Cori BushCori BushFar left, far right find common ground opposing US interventionism Rep. Bush explains vote against Russian oil ban The 17 lawmakers who voted against the Russian oil ban MORE (Mo.) were the only two Democrats to vote against a House measure blocking an end to oil imports from Russia.

Omars vote in part reflected her views that blocking Russian oil could lead the U.S. to rely more on and strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia. Progressives are critical that the Biden administration has not more forcefully pushed human rights in the kingdom out of concern it would harm U.S. and Saudi security and energy cooperation. This includes holding off sanctions on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the killing of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018; the jailing of dissidents and political opponents, in particular women; and Riyadhs role in civilian deaths in Yemens civil war.

Progressives also see humanitarian differences between how the U.S. and allies are responding to the deadly conflict in Ukraine and the ongoing strifein the Arab world. Liberals have for years called for an end to Americas rolein a Saudi-led coalition's military campaign in Yemen.

The Biden administration has rightly and forcefully condemned Russias invasion and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalThe Hill's 12:30 Report: Judge Jackson in the hotseat Daylight saving change faces trouble in House Progressive Caucus presses Biden for executive action on student loans, immigration MORE (D-Wash.) told The Hill. As we reflect on the perils of relying on autocratic governments for fossil fuels, there is no better time for the president to fulfill his commitment to end the United States' military involvement in the Saudi war in Yemen, she said.

Broadly speaking, while progressives haveembracedBidens actionsagainst Russiato date including mounting harsh financial sanctionson the country they are frustrated over what they contend is Americas deeply rooted reliance on fossil fuels and foreign oil.

Climate activists are especially concerned that the war is devastating the environment. They are calling for Biden to lean more heavily on renewable energy sources to decrease Russias grip on internationalenergy supplies.

They acknowledge thats at odds with how the U.S. has traditionally acted in times of conflict but see Bidenssanctions as a promisingopportunity for other measures they thought werent previously possible. Some liberals privately contend that they were surprised that the president moved so quickly to curb the oil flow.

Its great to ban the import of Russian oil, but thats just the beginning, said Keya Chatterjee, executive director of the U.S. Climate Action Network. Relying on corrupt oil states for energy is not an approach thats doable.

Liberals like Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWhy you shouldn't expect profit margins to fall when prices rise Former Bernie Sanders press secretary: US should 'more holistically' fight climate change Gas prices lead to tensions within Democratic Party MORE (I-Vt.) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House are imploring Biden to use the Defense Production Act to increase energy production at home.

This is a moment for us to do things we havent done before, Chatterjee said, referencing using the law to spark more renewable resource production. What weve been doing has brought us a climate crisis and war.

Progressives are also seeing the Russian invasion as a way to mount a broader critique on structures theybelieve arepropping up an outdated foreign policy establishment view aroundthe military.They want more left-wing lawmakers in key posts to provide new perspectives.

In Congress, progressives are greatly underrepresented on the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee, McCoy, of Common Defense, said. Too few progressive organizations have invested in developing members who are impacted by foreign policy into leaders with deep policy expertise and the credibility and platform to counter the unrepresentative hawkish voices that dominate cable TV.

In doing so, however, many on the left continue to say Biden is on the right path with the crisis, a sentiment that is also reflected in recent polling amongDemocratic, Republican and independent voters alike. They acknowledge that while there are additional climate and humanitarian measures that the White House can act on, its imperative to show a united response against Russia.

The world has rightfully been horrified and outraged by Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine and the devastation it has wrought on the Ukrainian people, Jayapal said.

Progressives will continue to advocate that this administration act on its values and bring the same clarity regarding war crimes and human rights abuses in Ukraine to end U.S. military participation in Saudi Arabias war and relieve the suffering of the Yemeni people.

Laura Kelly contributed to this report.

View post:
Progressives in odd spot on Russian war | TheHill - The Hill

Now top liberal groups and figures including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), the Working Families Party and Indivisible are looking to oust the 13-year incumbent from Congress. Theyve lined up behind Jamie McLeod-Skinner, a school board member from central Oregon whos challenging Schrader from the left, in what could become the next marquee Democratic House primary to watch.

In this Aug. 6, 2018 photo, Democratic congressional candidate Jamie McLeod-Skinner speaks during an interview in Redmond, Oregon.|Andrew Selsky/AP Photo

After a year of bitter legislative feuds between progressives and moderate Democrats, the contest in Oregons 5th Congressional District is the latest example of high-profile liberal groups targeting centrists who they believe undermined President Joe Bidens agenda. There are signs that McLeod-Skinner could have an opening: Her campaign has conducted an internal poll, first shared with POLITICO, that shows her trailing Schrader by only 3 percentage points. But in a race that will be judged as a test of the lefts strength, Schrader also has considerable advantages chief among them, his enormous financial lead over McLeod-Skinner.

Kurt Schrader has turned his back on what the majority of the American electorate needed and wanted, which is a functioning, competent government, said Natalia Salgado, treasurer of the Working Families Partys political action committee. Progressives across the country are really looking and chomping at the bit to very much go after incumbents that are not reflective of the values that we espouse.

The May 17 primary in Oregon comes as liberals are looking to mount a comeback after a series of losses across the country last year. In the first congressional races of 2022, which took place in Texas, the left saw mixed results. Toppling a centrist Democratic incumbent would be a significant morale boost for the progressive movement.

In a twist for liberals, who have made gains in recent years by challenging Democratic incumbents in deep-blue areas, the primary race in Oregon is for a newly-redrawn battleground seat Schrader is on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees list of frontliners in competitive districts. Moderates are worried that McLeod-Skinner would lose a general election, and the race could attract outside spending by centrist Democratic groups looking to protect the seat.

Its a terrible idea. You couldnt have picked a worse year to be putting an at-risk incumbent even more at-risk and putting a district out of reach if he loses the primary, said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way. A far-left candidate is not going to win a D+1 district.

There is evidence of some dissatisfaction and unfamiliarity with Schrader among Democratic voters. About half of the redrawn district is new. McLeod-Skinner has been endorsed by four county Democratic Parties, including in Schraders home county of Clackamas. Two of the counties backing McLeod-Skinner are not currently represented by Schrader. Some local Democratic committee people who were just added to the district have said they dont view Schrader as an incumbent.

A number of unions have also gotten behind McLeod-Skinner, including the Oregon Education Association, Service Employees International Union Oregon and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 555.

Schrader angered organized labor when he voted against the PRO Act, which would boost the rights of unions, in 2020. He later voted for the bill, though he said he would take a close look at any changes made in the Senate before committing my vote if it returned to the House for final passage.

He was very much initially against the PRO Act until protesters had to demonstrate outside of his offices in Oregon City and in Salem, said Michael Selvaggio, UFCW Local 555s political director. Were not just looking for someone who can get to yes. Were looking for someone who comes in as a champion.

Liberals have also targeted Schrader because they believe he helped tank Bidens Build Back Better agenda. Schrader was part of a group of moderate lawmakers who threatened to derail the Democrats budget last year unless the House first passed bipartisan infrastructure legislation a strategy that progressives think helped kill Bidens social spending policy. Schrader voted against a piece of that plan that would have let the government negotiate prescription drug prices as well. He said his problem wasnt with the pharmaceutical policy, but the size and process of the larger proposal.

In a statement, Schrader said his votes in the House prove that he supports organized labor and Bidens priorities. As for his lynching comments, he quickly apologized at the time, saying my words were wrong, hurtful and completely inappropriate.

My record shows I have voted with President Biden 96 percent of the time, including voting for the American Rescue Plan to support families, schools, and small businesses through the COVID-19 crisis, and the PRO Act to protect workers rights and strengthen unions, said Schrader. Im also proud to have the backing of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37, and Progressive Turnout Project, among others.

Both moderate and progressive Democratic strategists interviewed for this story said McLeod-Skinner is a serious primary challenger. Her campaigns poll, which was conducted in early February by Patinkin Research Strategies, found 37 percent of likely Democratic primary voters backed Schrader and 34 percent supported McLeod-Skinner. Thirty percent were undecided.

But a major question hanging over McLeod-Skinners campaign is whether she will be able to compete financially with Schrader. He had $3.5 million on hand at the end of last year, according to his latest campaign finance report, compared to McLeod-Skinners $208,000.

Schrader has already used his war chest to beat McLeod-Skinner in the race to get on television. He began airing commercials in early March, which tout his background as a veterinarian and paint him as a fighter taking on pharmaceutical drug companies and big money in politics getting ahead of McLeod-Skinners biggest criticisms of him.

He brings such incredible baggage. Its everything from his vote against Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices. Its where he takes his money from, the Koch Industries and Big Pharma and fossil fuel, McLeod-Skinner said in an interview. All of these policies are things that people across the political spectrum care about.

Schrader has the benefit of familiarity with left-wing challenges: He easily defeated Mark Gamba, mayor of Milwaukie and a Bernie Sanders supporter, in the 2020 Democratic primary. And he can point out that McLeod-Skinner does not live in the district.

Ive been proud to call Oregons 5th Congressional District my home for over 40 years, Schrader said. I raised my children and grew organic crops on my farm in Canby as I built my veterinary practice from scratch.

Asked about the money gap between them, McLeod-Skinner said she is planning to raise $1 million for the primary and pointed out that she brought in $1.3 million in her previous race for Congress in 2018 in a different district. She lost that election in November to the Republican nominee, though she performed more strongly than the Democratic candidate in 2016.

Though she was ultimately unsuccessful in that race, as well as in a primary run for secretary of state in 2020, McLeod-Skinners supporters see in those results a path to victory for her this year. Every time she was on the ticket, she won Deschutes County, which is home to the liberal city of Bend and part of the new district.

The second that folks saw what this district was going to look like as the legislature started passing maps, folks were like, Oh, this is Jamies race, said Hannah Love, an Oregon-based Democratic strategist who is not working for either candidate in the primary. People knew immediately that she was going to be a really formidable challenger for Schrader.

Another Democratic consultant in Oregon disagreed with that analysis, arguing that the geography of the district is an advantage to Schrader because voters in Portlands suburbs are moderate and increasingly frustrated with progressive politics.

Theres a lot of anger about the homelessness issue and safety issues in downtown, said the person, who declined to be named. And when youre in the suburbs, thats where folks are the most upset about it.

See the original post here:
Progressives find a new takedown target in the House - POLITICO

Im asking myself, What the hell is going on? said Gavin Newsom to the assembled cameras, It looked like a third-world country. Californias progressive governor was in his states largest city because of a piece of viral content: images of railway tracks in East Los Angeles strewn with thousands of emptied Amazon packages.

Its easy to see why the images of the debris, a very pandemic-era combination of online shopping and urban lawlessness, received heavy play on local news and spread far and wide across the web. So bad was the litter problem caused by systematic robbery, with criminal groups pilfering packages, ripping them open and running off with the most valuable goods that a cargo train had derailed just a few days before Newsoms late-January visit. And so here was the state governor, in jeans and a t-shirt (and a cloth mask outdoors) in a litter-picking photo-op: an irresistible visual to add to the thick dossier on Democratic misrule in California.

But the bluntness of Newsoms reaction as well as comparing his own state to a third-world country, he explicitly blamed organised criminals was a revealing sign of this safely Democratic states changed political landscape.

Put simply, such statements might have been a political headache for a California Democrat only 18 months earlier. With the country in the throes of its post-George Floyd reckoning dominated by a mood of hypersensitivity around anything relating to crime, policing, race and any combination of the three references to the third world, as well as daring to be seen to be tough on crime, might not have gone down well. But Newsom received only fringe pushback.

In Californias two biggest cities, the signs of progressive retreat are everywhere. The extent of that retreat, and the question of exactly what comes after years of Leftwards shift, will define the political future of Americas most populous state.

In the past two years, London Breed, the Mayor of San Francisco, has performed a dramatic about-turn on crime and policing. In 2020, the city chief cut $120 million from the budget of the San Francisco police department. Yet a year later, she asked for emergency extra funding for the police and announced a crackdown on crime in the Tenderloin, the citys most lawless neighborhood which operates as an open-air drug market. It was time, said Breed, to end the bullshit. Now she is doing battle with the citys progressive forces to deliver on what, anywhere other than San Francisco, would be considered a reasonably common-sense clampdown given the scale of the citys drug overdose and crime problems.

And she is far from alone. The campaign to recall Chesa Boudin, the citys progressive prosecutor whose short time in office has been a disaster, was started by a group of local activists and quickly developed serious momentum. Campaigners secured enough signatures to force a citywide vote, which is scheduled for June, and look increasingly likely to triumph. A mid-February survey found that 68% of San Francisco voters planned to vote Boudin out of office. (That in a city where just 6.7% are registered Republicans.)

Campaigners in another recall push in the city found success last month when voters ousted three members of San Franciscos school board. 70% of voters opted to ditch officials who seemed more interested in what to rename the citys schools than figuring out how to reopen safely during the pandemic. (Among the names they hoped to erase from the San Francisco schools: George Washington, sitting Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and author Robert Louis Stevenson.) As part of her tack towards the center, Breed has supported the recall campaign.

A few hundred miles to the south, a group of Angelenos have taken inspiration from the anti-Boudin campaign and hope to oust LAs head prosecutor. The move to recall George Gascn is in its early stages, with campaigners recently given the all-clear to start collecting signatures. But things dont look good for Gascn, who is cut from a similar, hyperprogessive cloth to Boudin. Like Boudin, he has overseen a lethal slide towards lawlessness. And, like Boudin, he faces a furious internal revolt from his prosecutors. In a recently published internal survey by Los Angeles Association for Deputy District Attorneys, nine in ten prosecutors supported the recall effort. Over a year ago, Gascn began a massive social experiment by redirecting prosecutorial resources away from enforcing the law while simultaneously ignoring large portions of the legal code, said its vice-president Eric Siddall. The result is an emboldened criminal element that knows the DA will not hold criminals accountable. This experiment needs to end.

Even before a single vote has been counted, the anti-Gascn campaign has already changed policy in the city. In an effort to fend off the backlash, he has reversed two of his landmark policies: a ban on trying juveniles as adults and on seeking life without parole.

Meanwhile, in the crowded race to replace Eric Garcetti as the mayor of Los Angeles Joe Biden has appointed him as the US ambassador to India the mood is unmistakably moderate. Homelessness, crime and the cost of living dominate the debate. Karen Bass, a former congresswoman and the pick of the citys Democratic machine, has swerved Rightwards, with a policy platform that features clearing homeless encampments as a prominent promise. This has dismayed the citys progressives, who complain that she is pandering to affluent Westside and Valley voters at the expense of black, Latinx and working-class ones, as two Black Lives Matter activists put it in a recent column. (Needless to say, LAs working-class voters, whatever their race, are by no means as on board with a far-Left approach to criminal justice as the authors claim.)

Meanwhile, Rick Caruso, a billionaire former Republican, has thrown his hat into the ring. Caruso, a shopping mall developer, is a big beast in LA civic life: he is a trustee at the University of Southern California and has been a member of the citys Police Commission. In a statement confirming his switch from Independent to Democrat, he said that he wont be a typical Democrat Ill be a pro-centrist, pro-jobs, pro-public safety Democrat. Caruso has backed the Gascn recall campaign. (Bass has not.)

The counterrevolution in Californias cities may seem fairly mild by national standards: a shift in tone among the same class of Democratic politicians. But the backlash on Americas left coast demonstrates the outer limits of tolerance for radical progressivism in American politics. As the novelist Wallace Stegner noted, California is like America, only more so.

When it comes to experiments in far-Left urban politics in recent years, that has undoubtedly been the case. Now the question is whether Californian Democrats have learned anything but the most shallow lessons from the last few years. It is one thing to acknowledge that Defund the Police is political kryptonite and nudge public safety spending back up. It is another to face up to the grave problems facing your city.

Voters are watching closely as the likes of Breed, or whoever is chosen to replace Garcetti, try to clean things up. A nod to the centre might be enough to spare short-term political disaster. But it will likely take more than that to actually solve the problems that have voters so frustrated.

See the original post here:
California's progressives are in retreat - UnHerd

The right wing in America has spent the past 18 months waging an increasingly vocal war on education, banning books and restricting the discussions teachers can have in classrooms, usually when it comes to issues like racism or sexuality.

That could be starting to change, however, as progressives have won a series of victories in some states, suggesting a backlash against education censorship could be on the way.

So far in 2022 the left has forced Republicans in Indiana to abandon legislation that would have placed severe restrictions on what teachers can say in classrooms, while in New Hampshire liberal candidates won sweeping victories against conservative anti-critical race theory candidates in school board elections. Critical race theory is an academic discipline that examines the ways in which racism operates in US laws and society, but it has become a catch-all buzzword on the right.

The progressive wins are a development that looked unlikely as the right wing, often through organizations with connections to wealthy Republican donors, has introduced bill after bill in states across the country. The campaign has successfully banned books, predominantly pertaining to issues of race or sexuality, from school districts, while some states have already banned discussion of the modern-day impact of historical racism in the US.

In Indiana, education advocates celebrated in late February after HB1134, a bill which the Indianapolis Star reported would have restricted how teachers could discuss racial inequality and sexual orientation, was defeated. The bill had passed the Indiana house in January, but amid concerted protests led by the Indiana State Teachers Association the legislation was watered down before it made it to the Republican-controlled senate, which ultimately said it did not have the votes to pass the bill.

Every day we had folks that came to Indianapolis, said Keith Gambill, president of ISTA. I think it was just that constant drumbeat from our organization and the other organizations that stood in solidarity with us that made the difference.

It helped that the Indiana senate had previously torpedoed its own version of the house legislation. In early January one Republican senator said teachers need to be impartial when discussing subjects including nazism and fascism, prompting national headlines and widespread backlash.

The death of HB1134 was an important victory for Indiana teachers, but Gambill said there had still been consequences.

What we are finding both in the state of Indiana and nationally is that we are losing educators at an alarming rate.

Some of that certainly is on pay, but thats not the only thing that is driving the exodus. When you have bills such as this that continue to just be this wedge issue, invading your workspace, folks start looking around saying: These other companies are hiring and I have all of the qualifications.

The Indiana legislation mirrored rightwing efforts in other states to drive honest discussion of race and sexuality from classrooms. PEN America, a non-profit organization that works to protect freedom of expression, said 155 bills that would censor what teachers can say or teach in classrooms were introduced in 38 states in 2021, while 2022 has seen a steep rise in the introduction of what PEN America calls gag orders.

In Florida a Dont Say Gay bill, which would ban discussion of sexuality and gender identity in schools, is expected to be signed into law by Ron DeSantis, the states governor. The bill would allow parents to file lawsuits against school boards if they believe policies violate the law.

A bill being considered in Kansas would change the states obscenity law, making it a class B misdemeanor for a teacher to use any material which depicts homosexuality in a classroom, while looming legislation in Arizona would allow parents to sue teachers and school districts for perceived violations of parental rights.

While the right wing has rallied around the issue of classroom censorship, there is little evidence that a majority of parents are demanding a crackdown on what their children can read, or be taught. In February a CNN poll found that only 12% of Americans believed parents should have the most sway over which library books are on the shelves and how American history is taught.

Far from there being a popular uprising against what teachers are imparting to students, the censorship efforts have frequently been pushed by conservative groups with ties to deep-pocketed rightwing donors.

Groups like Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education have been instrumental in book banning attempts in the US, often presenting themselves as small, grassroots efforts, while in reality they have links to prominent, wealthy Republicans.

Those groups have had success in several states by packing school boards, which have substantial say over what can be taught in schools, but there are signs that a shift may be coming.

In New Hampshire, teaching advocates celebrated a big win in March after progressive candidates swept to victory in school board elections around the state. Granite State Progress backed 30 candidates in the elections, with 29 of those successful, some in traditionally conservative districts.

Zandra Rice Hawkins, the groups executive director, said the group had been inundated with calls from organizations and school board candidates around the country who are keen to replicate the success. She is hopeful that there could be further victories, and a rejection of the right wings draconian censorship efforts, to come.

We think that what happened here in New Hampshire is a sign of things to come across our state and across the nation, Rice Hawkins said.

Public education is a bedrock of democracy, and so many people are aware of that and I think the things that are happening now, talks of banning books and other things like that, thats got a lot of people paying attention, and frankly this GOP strategy of trying to drive a wedge between parents and communities and their public schools is going to backfire in a major way.

View original post here:
Progressives are resisting rightwing book banning campaigns and are winning - The Guardian