Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Progressives threaten to derail Biden’s $1.5 trillion budget over COVID-19 funding – Washington Times

Progressive House Democrats are threatening to derail President Bidens $1.5 trillion bipartisan budget deal over what they see as inadequate funding for combatting the coronavirus.

Far-left lawmakers, particularly those from the Midwest, say the $15.6 billion earmarked for COVID-19 vaccines, testing centers and new treatment options is not equitable. They argue, in particular, that Democratic leaders undercut the bill by acquiescing to Republicans demands that the coronavirus funding comes from unspent money already appropriated for the pandemic.

This is going to impact midwestern states the hardest, said one Democratic aide, who requested anonymity when discussing the topic. Our communities have spent money tackling the pandemic and now this budget wants to claw it back, while some states havent spent a penny.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, is working to allay those concerns. In a letter to colleagues, Mrs. Pelosi said that while some of the initial coronavirus money would be clawed back, states will get at least 91 percent of the state funds that they expected to receive.

Republicans resisted this deeply needed funding demanding that every cent requested by the administration be offset by state and local funds scheduled to be released this spring, wrote Mrs. Pelosi. To offset these costs and ensure the omnibus will be enacted, the administration identified $8 billion from the American Rescue Plan programs that have expired with remaining funds available.

Progressives lawmakers, however, are not sold. They say the budget bill should not move forward if it penalizes states that have used federal coronavirus funds equally with those that have not.

Some of that money is being clawed back to use for Covid funding, but that money has already been appropriated by our state legislature, and its not like its unused funding, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat who chairs the 98-member Congressional Progressive Caucus.

To show their resolve, far-left Democrats forced Mrs. Pelosi to keep a vote open on a Republican motion to adjourn the House that was destined to fail. The delay angered some members of the Democratic leadership, who are eager to pass the budget before Friday, the deadline for Congress to approve a government funding bill or risk a shutdown.

Were not rewriting it, said House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat.

Last month, Mr. Biden initially requested $22.5 billion for coronavirus mitigation efforts. That figure was whittled down to roughly $15 billion during negotiations with Republicans.

For more information, visit The Washington Times COVID-19 resource page.

See more here:
Progressives threaten to derail Biden's $1.5 trillion budget over COVID-19 funding - Washington Times

MNW: Progressives changing the rules to retain control – The Bulletin

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read the original post:
MNW: Progressives changing the rules to retain control - The Bulletin

Progressive discrimination: Your kids matter, unless they’re Asian | TheHill – The Hill

In 2007, in a case involving school desegregation, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stated what some have always thought was obvious: The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

But when race is involved in the United States, its never that simple.

Cases involving schools and affirmative action historically have been about minorities on one side of the divide and white kids on the other. Minorities have been portrayed as victims; whites, as the privileged ones. But now were witnessing something new: disputes with minorities on both sides of the line Black and Hispanic kids on one side, Asian Americans on the other.

Its raising a question that must make liberals and progressives, who see themselves as the champion of racial minorities, uncomfortable. Is it fair to discriminate against one minority, Asian Americans, to increase enrollments at some of Americas top schools for other minorities, Blacks and Hispanics?

The answer to that question will have more than legal ramifications. Politics is deeply ingrained in the debate. Asian voters in this country long have supported the Democratic Party. As the authors of one study put it, Political differences within the Asian American community are between those who are progressive and those who are even more so.

But political loyalties now may be up for grabs. As a headline over an opinion piece in the New York Times puts it: Will Asian Americans Bolt From the Democratic Party?

And Thomas Edsall, a contributor at the Times, goes on to say, The question now is whether this party loyalty will withstand politically divisive developments that appear to pit Asian Americans against other key Democratic constituencies as controversies emerge, for example, over progressive education policies that show signs of decreasing access to top schools for Asian Americans in order to increase access for Black and Hispanic students.

Later this year, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving alleged anti-Asian discrimination at Harvard, where the admissions office set up subjective personality assessments to help decide which students Harvard would accept. And guess what: Those subjective assessments regularly rate Asian Americans as lacking in traits such as courage, leadership and likability. This lowers their admissions scores and makes it easier for Harvard to reject them and free up space for Blacks and Hispanic applicants.

Its not only at Harvard where this kind of thing allegedly is going on. The ideology of progressive educators has made its way down to lower levels of public education, too.

Two years ago, the school board in Fairfax County, Va., changed its admission standards at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, one of the top public schools in the country. Standardized testing requirements were eliminated and replaced by subjective criteria for admissions.

We could sugarcoat this in a number of ways, but it became apparent to everyone that the goal was to bring down the number of Asian American students admitted to the school and increase the number of Blacks and Hispanics.

And it did. After the changes went into effect, Asian enrollment in the schools freshman class dropped from around 73 percent to less than 50 percent. Parents filed a lawsuit claiming racial discrimination against their children, and a federal court recently ruled that the school board acted improperly, that the changes they made, as the parents claimed, were unconstitutional.

In San Francisco, Asian American parents led the drive that ousted three progressive school board members, in part because, like parents in Virginia, they were angry that the board changed admissions standards at a top high school in the city a change that benefited Blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asian students.

And there are similar uprisings involving prestigious public schools in New York City and Boston, where according to progressive thinking, Asian students are overrepresented, even if they dont say so in so many words.

In the past, anti-Asian bigotry took the form of direct assaults. These reflected claims that Asian Americans were inferior, incapable of assimilating or stealing jobs. But today many Asian Americans are learning that the progressive form of discrimination may be the most insidious of all, is how William McGurn put it in the Wall Street Journal.

Whatever their intentions, it sure appears that were witnessing a new kind of discrimination based on race these days, one created by woke progressives, the same people who keep telling us how much they care about minority children apparently as long as those children arent Asian kids who do too well in school.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Read this article:
Progressive discrimination: Your kids matter, unless they're Asian | TheHill - The Hill

Williams and Lander Start Presenting United Progressive Counterweight to Adams – Gotham Gazette

Jumaane Williams & Brad Lander as members of the City Council (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)

All three of New York Citys citywide elected officials Mayor Eric Adams, Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, and Comptroller Brad Lander are Democrats from Brooklyn. But their respective victories in last years elections signified different things to their supporters and political analysts. Those who backed Adams saw his win as a rejection of left progressive politics that they believed had gone too far in the city, while Williams and Lander supporters celebrated what they saw as triumphs of progressive politics at the citywide level.

Those complicated dynamics are now playing out in the balance of power in the city. While the three officials are aligned in spirit and cause, and have repeatedly emphasized their collaborative relationships, the public advocate and comptroller have begun to gently present a united progressive front to the more moderate mayor on several issues.

Williams and Lander have been pushing, questioning, or contradicting Adams on issues including lifting covid vaccination requirements, administration appointments, policing policies, and climate action. But both the public advocate and comptroller have taken pains to compliment Adams and lead with common ground, often the shared vision on outcomes, if not strategies to get there.

There are natural tensions between the mayor and his fellow citywide electeds. Both the public advocate and the comptroller are crucial parts of the citys system of checks and balances and have duties that bring them inevitably in conflict with the mayoral administration something Adams has acknowledged and even encouraged as he vows a more accountable and effective city government. Its within Williams purview to speak out on behalf of the public when the city is failing New Yorkers, and Landers job involves auditing city agencies then upbraiding their failures while recommending changes.

Overall, Adams is a moderate with a nuanced set of policy plans who has ingratiated himself with the citys business elite and powerful real estate industry while Williams and Lander are avowed progressives who have spent years criticizing corporate power and outright rejected real estate donors in recent runs for office. But even on housing and development, there may be more alignment than broad stroke characterizations allow.

On the hot button issues of policing and public safety, there has been both alignment and opposition. Adams has an all-of-the-above approach, with a blend of more expansive and assertive policing as well as police reforms for justice and accountability; he has rejected calls to defund the police but also outlined planned investments in what he calls upstream crime-prevention measures to improve socioeconomic conditions for those most at risk.

Williams and Lander want all of those socioeconomic investments and more, and have been outspoken about wanting to divest significant sums from the police department budget to fund programs to alleviate root causes of crime. While both acknowledge a role for police, they tend to focus more on housing, health care, and economic opportunity.

Adams, Williams, and Lander have shown unity on several recent occasions. In October, after each of the three had won their respective Democratic primaries, they held a joint get out the vote rally just ahead of the start of early voting in the general election. At that rally, Adams urged Williams and Lander to hold him accountable if he should become mayor. I'm asking Jumaane Williams as the public advocate to find every policy that we fail on and hold our feet to the fire if we are the mayor, Adams said.

I sat down with Brad Lander and had breakfast, and I said, Audit the hell out of my agencies. Audit them, look at them, find the problems, because I know we are dysfunctional, he added. I know we are blocking progress. I know we are failing and betraying New Yorkers. I know we can deliver services better.

In November, after Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder, the three spoke collectively in favor of stronger gun laws. And they planned to hold a joint January inauguration event in Brooklyn before it was canceled because of the Omicron surge.

Adams and Lander have also made several joint announcements where their roles converge. They worked together with the citys pension funds to divest from Russian assets in the wake of Russias invasion of Ukraine. The announced reforms to city contracting based on a joint task force they assembled even before taking office (first announced in a joint op-ed) and a $1 billion bond issue to fund city infrastructure.

Williams has been a presence at several of the mayors announcements and news conferences early on. He appeared at City Hall when Adams announced an expansion of the citys Summer Youth Employment Program. They both spoke at a community response event hosted by SAVE East Harlem in January. That month Williams also stood behind Adams after two officers were shot and killed in Harlem.

But on several occasions over the last few months, as Adams began laying out plans, making appointments, and taking positions on key issues, the gulf between him and Williams and Lander has begun to grow. The two have been opposed to, if not outright critical of, several of the mayors policies and appointments, and they have at times coordinated their responses to Adams choices.

The expected type of coordination the two longtime allies have shown was relatively rare during the de Blasio administration, when Comptroller Scott Stringer and Public Advocates Letitia James then Williams mostly operated individually.

Last week, Williams and Lander appeared with climate activists at a rally in Midtown Manhattan to call on the mayor to put his full weight behind the citys Green New Deal law that aims to curb emissions from the citys largest buildings. Activists have pointed out that Adams has repeatedly questioned the penalties imposed by the law, an echo of concerns from the powerful real estate industry.

Earlier last week, as Adams considered easing covid restrictions in the city, Lander and Williams sent him a joint public letter in which they advocated for continued precautions against the spread of the virus and plans for any potential future outbreaks.

As the case numbers, hospitalizations and deaths associated with Omicron drop, we agree it makes sense for the City to move forward with easing COVID-19 restrictions, they wrote. However, as you yourself have said, those efforts must be grounded in public health data, with systems in place to detect future variants and surges early, to respond to them rapidly, to increase vaccination rates, and to protect our most vulnerable communities.

In late February, Adams faced considerable criticism when he appointed three pastors with a history of anti-gay and anti-abortion views to his administration. The appointments quickly invited a joint rebuke from the public advocate and the comptroller. We are deeply concerned about the message that the mayor is sending by appointing leaders who have histories of disparaging the rights, and even the humanity, of LGBTQ New Yorkers and of working to criminalize abortion, they said in joint statement. (Williams has in the past faced criticism around his stances on some of these same topics, and has professed something of his own progressive evolution.)

Its not just Adams that Williams and Lander have trained their eyes on. In January, Williams and Lander appeared together outside the New York Public Library with housing and tenant advocates in a protest calling on Governor Kathy Hochul, a moderate and Adams ally, to support the good cause eviction bill gaining momentum in Albany.

Williams, with Landers support, is running against Hochul and other candidates in this years Democratic primary for Governor. Williams and Lander have long supported each others electoral bids, with each endorsing the other for office, as in 2021, when Williams backed Lander for comptroller and Lander endorsed Williams reelection as public advocate. Lander backed Williams 2018 bid for Lieutenant Governor against Hochul.

The two officials are darlings of the progressive left, illustrated by the fact that both were the number one choice of the Working Families Party in their respective primary races last year. In contrast, in the Democratic primary for mayor in which Adams emerged victorious, the WFP supported former counsel to the mayor Maya Wiley as its top pick (after ranking her third behind Stringer and Dianne Morales, dropping one then the other after their campaigns faced scandals). The WFP did not endorse Adams in the general election.

Williams joined the WFP and other progressives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who got behind Wiley toward the end stretch of the mayoral primary last spring, expressing deep concerns about how Adams and other more centrist candidates were talking about policing. Lander stayed out of the mayoral primary altogether, pointing to the comptrollers important role as a check on whomever the mayor is. Williams indicated he had planned to do the same, but that he opted to back Wiley based on the rhetoric in the race.

Under the City Charter, the job of the Comptroller is to work together with the Mayor on a core critical set of tasks to help the city run effectively, and also to be an independent elected official who holds the mayor accountable, Lander said in a phone interview. And that's what I'm committed to do.

Obviously Jumaane and I are proudly progressive elected officials and have been for a long time and have stood together on a lot of issues that are about trying to confront the inequities in the city, stand up against inequality and systemic racism, push hard for climate justice, and policies that genuinely work for all New Yorkers, he added.

The mayor, the public advocate, and the comptroller have been friends and colleagues for years and have a strong working relationship, said Fabien Levy, an Adams spokesperson, in an email. Both Public Advocate Williams and Comptroller Lander have joined Mayor Adams for major policy announcements at City Hall and at other events across New York City, and we look forward to their continued partnership as we work to make New York City a better place to live every day.

Williams and Lander have been close political allies for nearly a decade, previously serving together in the City Council. As Council members, they most notably spearheaded the Community Safety Act of 2013, which banned discriminatory profiling by the NYPD to put an end to abuses of stop-and-frisk policing. The act, passed over a veto by then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg, also established the citys office of NYPD inspector general, and catapulted both Council members further into the progressive spotlight.

Now they find themselves facing a mayor who was a former NYPD captain and touts the importance of stop-and-frisk as a policing tool, but says his police department can and will use it without the rampant abuses that disproportionately harmed Black and Latino New Yorkers, mostly young men. Adams has also touted his record as a police reformer from within the department, joining efforts to end the abuses of the stop-and-frisk era, protesting police killings of unarmed civilians, and more a history that both Williams and Lander have given him credit for.

In an appearance on the Max Politics podcast in July last year, Williams stressed that he has had a good working relationship with Adams, particularly on tackling gun violence in Brooklyn, even as he expressed some concern for Adams tough-on-crime campaign rhetoric.

My hope is that the Eric Adams who shows up is the one that I've worked with on all these issues, and the one who was talking about the holistic approach, and not the one that I heard some things said that I'm hoping were said in the moment of a campaign and now as we get ready to govern, will go back to the things that Ive worked with him on for a number of years, Williams said.

Camille Rivera, a progressive political consultant as a partner at New Deal Strategies, said under former Mayor Bill de Blasio, Williams and Stringer were not as closely in lockstep. This however is the most I have seen there being real coordination, Rivera said in a text message. I think both of them understand that there are real distinct ideological differences between these two and Adams and because of that they have now become a real check for the Mayor.

The things theyre criticizing the mayor on are substantive, as much as Eric Adams has wanted the red carpet rolled out for him when some of the things he's doing are deeply unpopular and frankly just bad for people, said Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change (and Riveras husband), a progressive advocacy group that backed both Williams and Lander and opposed Adams in the 2021 election.

Westin said both Williams and Lander have solidly been on the side of progressive working people and will mount a pretty big challenge to this incoming administration, which might want to try and railroad folks, especially progressives. Theyve been outright hostile towards progressives.

Indeed, soon after winning the June primary last year, Adams again signaled his displeasure with the progressive left, reclaiming the term progressive for himself, as he had repeatedly attempted to do during the primary.

I have made it clear over and over again: I am the original progressive voice in this city, Adams said, at a joint news conference with then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, a fellow moderate Democrat who has battled with his partys left, and who was under investigation at the time for multiple scandals that led to his resignation weeks later.

Weve allowed the term being progressive to be hijacked by those who do not have a track record of putting in place real progressive changes, Adams added, sounding much like Cuomo. I am not going to surrender my progressive credentials.

Soon after, he broadened his criticism. Im no longer running against candidates. Im running against a movement, he reportedly said at a fundraiser hosted by Republican City Council Member Eric Ulrich, who Adams would go on to appoint as a special advisor in his administration. All across the country, the DSA socialists are mobilizing to stop Eric Adams, he said, referring to the Democratic Socialists of America, whose New York City branch did not endorse in the mayoral race but whose members were critical of Adams and appeared to be in favor of other candidates like Wiley or Morales in the primary and socialist Cathy Rojas in the general election.

Though he is often quick to rebuke critics, Adams has not yet hit back at Williams or Lander, perhaps indicative of how carefully they have gone about criticizing or disagreeing with the new mayor.

There is undoubtedly much on Adams agenda that Williams and Lander will support, the new mayor had many policy proposals that could easily be called progressive, from a significant expansion of child care to improving health food options in low-income neighborhoods to upzoning wealthier areas for more affordable housing. Both Williams and Lander have applauded Adams for announcing additional investments in summer youth employment and the Fair Fares program of discounted Metrocards for low-income New Yorkers.

But theyve also both expressed concerns on several matters, including Adams approach to his first budget plan, where he outlined cuts to several departments but not the NYPD.

I do want to see more evidence-based investment in supportive housing and mental health outreachgiven the public safety challenges, Lander said last month on the Max Politics podcast, among other questions about Adams spending priorities.

I think the key differences revolve around the corporate spheres influence in government where Eric Adams has pretty openly embraced the real estate industry, corporations, and really given them a seat at the table many times ahead of regular people, said Westin. Jumaane and Bradhave really opposed taking real estate money, taking corporate money, allowing these corporations to influence where they stand on policy.

Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic consultant, said the differences between Adams on one hand and Williams and Lander on the other have been minor so far. Its going to be more pronounced once Williams gets off the road from his ridiculous governor's race and Lander gets himself much more oriented, he said. At some point, ambition will take over and competition. Both of them have one goal, to be the next mayor and to make Adams life miserable when they can.

Whats less predictable is the breakthrough moment when the situation will become much more adversarial, Sheinkopf said. The cut line will probably be on law enforcement related issues for Williams and who knows what it'll be on for Lander, but he'll find his moment.

Politicians, he insisted, may be friendly but arent friends. This is like boa constrictors who try to eat mice. Theyre all friends until the thing goes down its throat, he said. Politicians have no friends. They are all in competition with each other for both credit claiming and for the ability to raise money.

See more here:
Williams and Lander Start Presenting United Progressive Counterweight to Adams - Gotham Gazette

How the left sees Russias war in Ukraine and Americas role – Vox.com

The Wests response to Russian President Vladimir Putins invasion of Ukraine has been swift, unified, and wide-ranging, and brings military, economic, and political tools to bear. But during a global outpouring of support of Ukraine, scholars and activists on the left have pointed out what they see as a glaring inconsistency the world doesnt rise up in a similar collective rage every time other countries are attacked, invaded, or occupied.

So, what are progressives for, in a moment when there are constant appeals for the West to do more to stop Putins war in Ukraine? People on the left are not just putting forward specific policies. They are calling on America to reckon with its conduct in recent wars. In short, to reevaluate its role in the world.

Progressive members of Congress share a consensus that Putin has pursued an illegal and malicious war. They are pressing the Biden administration to support refugees and humanitarian aid. They want Biden to pursue diplomacy even if it seems impossible and that Putin isnt interested in diplomacy. But that doesnt mean you stop diplomacy, because you never stop diplomacy, Matt Duss, a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), told me.

Progressives are divided about the effects that sanctions could have on ordinary Russians, the long-term dangers of arming Ukrainians, and how the Ukraine war relates more broadly to the role of the US in the world.

But those ideas around policy have been obscured by accusations of American duplicity. There is no contradiction between standing with the people of Ukraine and against Russias heinous invasion and being honest about the hypocrisy, war crimes and militarism of the US and NATO, Jeremy Scahill, editor-at-large and co-founder of the Intercept, tweeted last week.

Though it seemed that for every person who affirmed his tweet, there was an accusation of whataboutism or an attack on Scahills credibility. You should go to Ukraine, retorted NPR reporter Frank Langfitt. This rejoinder taps into a bigger debate. Centrists and hawks have accused the left of moral relativism.

Yet the conversations Ive had with activists and policymakers on the left show that you can highlight Russian war crimes and find a nuanced way to explain that America is not a neutral party in the world. These dynamics are connected, many progressives say, and that thinking about conflicts comparatively can lead to a deeper understanding of how the US sees the world along with better policy solutions.

As this geopolitical conflict tests the conventions and assumptions of US foreign policy since the beginning of the war on terrorism, the left is advocating for a new, consistent, and rights-based approach to global affairs.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) says that the application of human rights across countries and conflicts including in Ukraine is central to how progressives see foreign policy.

The misconception of the center is that progressives somehow have a frame of moral relativism or appeasement, and the moral relativism here is in Saudi Arabia, and the catastrophe of whats going on in Yemen, he told me. The moral relativism is the lack of recognition of human rights with Uyghurs or in other parts of the world.

US President Joe Biden has framed the fight against Russia at last weeks State of the Union address as freedom against tyranny, yet US partners like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates would fall into the latter category. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has regularly invoked international law, something we rarely hear mentioned when Palestinians face Israeli occupation. The tactics the Biden administration has implemented to counter Russia boycotts, sanctions, and divestment (BDS), naming war crimes, cooperating with the International Criminal Court are not considered in other contexts.

The plight of Ukrainians is a struggle on the side of human rights and, as one writer put it, solidarity with the oppressed. Yet it is not an apologia for Putins viciousness to say that the US participates in shadow wars, and that those who die outside Europe rarely get primetime coverage. Nor is it any justification of Putins actions to examine his use of violence within recent history and international relations, or to say that US policies may have made this war more likely.

There is a well-earned skepticism among many on the left around Washington and war, Duss told me. What progressives are trying to push for is a less stupid and possibly even smart conversation about foreign policy, and the uses of American power, and the limits of American power.

Global and American leftists argue, in fact, that such questions are crucial to the development of a coherent, ethical, and effective response to Russias invasion. Its so infrequent that wars grab the attention of an American public, which largely avoids international news, and people on the left have found an opportunity to point out the fact that US policies have often been militaristic and dont have to be.

Progressives say critiques of US military engagement and concern for human rights have guided suggestions for how the US responds to Russia. We dont want to just be against things anymore. We want to be assertively creating the alternative solutions to the war machine itself, said Pam Campos-Palma of the Working Families Party.

Progressive lawmakers have come out against a no-fly zone, which the Biden administration and NATO have also unequivocally ruled out because it would escalate the conflict into a larger war with a nuclear-armed country.

For many progressives, a switch to green energy is urgent because fossil fuel-driven economies empower autocrats like Putin. Our dependence on natural gas and fossil fuels is a national security issue, Khanna said.

There are also parts of a progressive response woven into the Biden administrations response. The crackdown on dirty money is central to the Biden administrations targeted sanctions on Russia. Progressives in Congress have spearheaded such anti-corruption efforts in the Democratic primaries, and Biden adopted some of these policies even before Putin invaded Ukraine.

Progressives also note the shortcomings of Bidens approach. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has emphasized that sanctions are a weapon of war that unfairly affect civilians in repressive countries like Iran, Venezuela, and now Russia. In a recent statement, she supported sanctions targeted at Putin, his oligarchs, and the Russian military and opposed broad-based sanctions that would amount to collective punishment of a Russian population that did not choose this.

Similarly, many activists and scholars stand against the American policy of sending weapons to Ukraine. There is something very hypocritical about all of these external powers who have fanned this conflict, and who are not going to fight in Ukraine, flooding the country with weapons to make sure it continues to be a war zone, and then calling that support, Tony Wood, the author of Russia Without Putin, said on The Dig podcast in February.

The difficult task for progressives is to propose constructive solutions that are centered around diplomacy and humanitarian concerns without falling into the worst tendencies of American military power.

Im very uneasy about the degree to which support for the Ukrainian resistance can turn into support for continuation and then escalation of this war, Wood said. The solidarity of Ukraine is one thing, and supporting the continuing escalation of the war is another thing we should try and stop that.

Contextualizing Putins aggression is not the same as buying into Russias fallacious pretexts for the invasion or being a tankie. To be sure, those people exist, and some ostensibly left-wing podcasters have been funded by Russian entities. Yet explanations of how policy and historical dynamics factor into Putins strategy have been downplayed by many authoritative voices. In discussions online about Ukraine, former Ambassador Michael McFaul, a regular contributor to the liberal MSNBC, has complained about BS whataboutism, or the technique of deflecting criticism by retorting with a similar accusation.

Russia and other autocratic governments have used whataboutism as a tactic to avoid answering for their crimes against their civilians, but this epithet has also been leveled against progressives nuanced questions and criticisms.

Something similar happened after the September 11, 2001, attacks, when stepping back from the war on terror to consider its broader implications was painted as anti-American. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) urged restraint and voted against the Afghanistan war, because, she said, military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. Lee, the only member of Congress who stood against the war, was derided by some as unpatriotic and a communist.

At the time, progressive thinkers, like Noam Chomsky, called for strategic empathy in discussion of the terrorist group Al-Qaedas worldview and in thinking through the American response. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators, he wrote. But the George W. Bush White House instead launched a misguided invasion that turned into a two-decade US military presence in Afghanistan, to few strategic ends.

A nuanced understanding of NATOs role can hold multiple truths at once: that many former Soviet countries wanted to join NATO; that welcoming them into the alliance had geopolitical consequences, even if the West painted the move primarily as a decision of democracy versus dictatorship; and that Putin nevertheless chose war, violating another countrys sovereignty and fomenting a humanitarian crisis. Several journalists, including myself, have documented how the enlargement of NATO on Russias border has antagonized Putin and perhaps recklessly advanced militaristic policies.

It is also important to examine not just NATO expansion but NATO itself, a military alliance that has been involved in the invasion of countries. Putin and Russia have decided effectively to mimic the West. Its an awful act of mimicry, said Tariq Ali, the author and scholar who writes for the London Review of Books.

Ali dismisses the mainstream American perspective that NATO is purely a defensive or peace-keeping organization. This argument just doesnt wash if you look at all the wars NATOs fought, not just Afghanistan, but parts of Africa, Somalia, for instance. For Ali, who is active in the European antiwar movement, you cant isolate Russias aggression in Ukraine from its attacks in Syria and Libya, or the way the US has violated international law in Afghanistan and Iraq.

American administrations across parties and with the endorsement or complacency of Congress have pursued policies that deteriorated global norms. Presidents have advanced intensive drone strikes abroad and the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. And backed by Congress, civil liberty-defying surveillance, like that allowed by the PATRIOT Act, wore away at protections for human rights at home and abroad.

The US has also actively concealed, and in the process normalized, the deaths of civilians in many conflicts. So far, according to reports, the killing of civilians [in Ukraine] is nowhere near what it was in Iraq, or Syria, or the Yemen, or Libya, where human lives didnt seem to matter, said Ali.

A firm commitment to human rights is not whataboutism; its consistency. The left isnt raising issues with the war in Yemen to deflect criticism from Putin; its doing so to show that US military policies have unintended consequences for civilians. This, progressives say, is a lesson worth heeding as the US sends lethal aid to Ukraine and reportedly makes plans to support an insurgency.

As for pointing out past US violations of international law or its own support for tyrants?

If folks had been listening to progressives, then these cries of the US being hypocritical would be a lot less true, because the US would have not done many of these things in the first place, said Stephen Miles of the advocacy group Win Without War.

See the original post here:
How the left sees Russias war in Ukraine and Americas role - Vox.com