Mediaboss Marketing

The Democrats are rolling out a counterintuitive new messaging strategy in anticipation of the 2022 elections: Republicans are defunding the police. Its an attempt by Democrats to counter attacks from the GOP about being weak on law enforcement; liberal lawmakers hope they can flip the right-wing narrative and argue that the legislative record shows the Democratic Party is in fact the fiercest ally of the police.

Liberal lawmakers hope they can flip the right-wing narrative and argue that the legislative record shows the Democratic Party is in fact the fiercest ally of the police.

Unfortunately this playbook is too cute by half to work well. In all likelihood it won't have the power to change minds. And by giving credence to what has always been a bad faith line of attack from the Republicans, it could make future internal debates over the scope of criminal justice reform all the more difficult.

Akela Lacy reported in The Intercept on Wednesday that Democrats have already started embracing the narrative that the GOP is to blame for defunding the police because every Republican in Congress voted against the American Rescue Plan the massive coronavirus relief bill passed in March that provided billions of dollars for funding local police departments. Democrats are also arguing that the GOPs attempt to avoid responsibility for the Capitol riot an attack that resulted in brutal injuries and death for Capitol Police officers reflects apathy toward law enforcement.

Democrats have accused Republicans of hypocrisy on defending police funding in the past, but the messaging is looking increasingly systematic. Several Democratic members of Congress like Reps. Ted Lieu of California, Val Demings of Florida and Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania have been pushing this new message, as has the Democratic National Committee.

Republicans have spent an entire year essentially lying about what Democrats support and what Democrats have voted for, a Democratic aide told The Intercept. The fact that Democrats have really settled on a line here to push back on it, and to really go on offense, excites Democrats.

But as the Democrats prepare to double down on their new line of attack on Republicans, they should ask themselves two questions: Will this work, and is it worth it? On both fronts, there is good reason for skepticism.

The notion that Democrats can wrest the pro-police mantle from Republicans is far-fetched. The contours of the debate right now have little to do with staffing levels during economic recessions or how much police officers lives are respected or honored as they navigate their very difficult jobs. In reality, the debate is about what role the police should play in our society and what communities they're meant to be protecting.

The heart of the matter is a racialized culture war over law and order a reactionary concept with deep roots in American history that was popularized by Richard Nixons 1968 presidential run. Under the law-and-order ethos, aggressive policing represents a bulwark against social change and struggles for racial equality, and is seen as a way to deal with poverty and social dysfunction through imprisonment and surveillance. The law-and-order ethos was a critical tool in the Southern Strategy toolkit, an electoral strategy that sought to win over white voters in the South by appealing to racism against Black Americans.

Democrats simply cannot win the whos more aligned with the police debate unless they want to lean into the kind of white racial resentment politics that Republicans have mastered to monopolize the white conservative vote. That would mean giving up any ambition of reforming policing, dropping their commitment to multicultural democracy and turning their backs on anti-poverty programs as a way to deal with inequality. Fortunately, the Democrats are not going to do that. But thats bad news for this new pro-police pivot.

The other reason the Democrats strategy is unlikely to be effective is the fact that Republican narratives about liberal positions on policing were never grounded in reality in the first place. Its unclear how countermessaging or accusations of hypocrisy can overcome such an entrenched partisan mythology.

After the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, the Democratic establishment called for reforms but swiftly disavowed any association with defund the police movements, and as an analyst for Data for Progress noted in The Appeal, the movement to defund the police went essentially unrepresented at the ballot box. In fact, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., implied that police should be given more funds.

But that had no bearing on the messaging surrounding the presidential race: During the run-up to the 2020 elections, then-President Donald Trump and the Republicans consistently lied about the Democrats position on policing and portrayed them as radical police abolitionists. In other words, its hard to see Democrats changing Republican voters minds when the GOP and right-wing media conflate any criticism of police with abolitionism.

In addition to all this, though, the Democrats should consider the potential costs they could incur by playing this game.

In addition to all this, though, the Democrats should consider the potential costs they could incur by playing this game. While its understandable that mainstream Democrats wanted to avoid being associated with the defund slogan in the run-up to the election, the ideas the movement stands for reallocating some funding from the police to other social services and delegating many police duties to other agencies are good ones that have already been adopted to some extent by the growing left wing of the Democrats. And its safe to say these ideas are going to keep coming up each time viral incidents of police brutality spur debates about how policing should change.

Democrats dont have to adopt any defund-type slogan, but they should take the ideas seriously if they want to eventually create a more humane criminal justice system. Theyll be best-positioned to do that if they stake out a real progressive position on policing instead of replicating the GOPs bad faith playbook in an unconvincing style.

Read more from the original source:
Democrats want to flip 'defund the police' on Republicans. It could backfire. - MSNBC

Just as striking as the officers testimony today is GOP lawmakers refusal to engage with it.

All along the hallways of the Capitol complex today, members of the Capitol Police stared at their phones and nearby TV screens. Four of their fellow officers were testifying before Congress for the first time about the treatment theyd endured on January 6. They described being beaten with metal flagpoles, sprayed in the eyes with wasp repellent, and shocked with their own Tasers. One of the men cried while he spoke; a colleague patted his back. Their hands shook as they took careful sips of water.

This mornings testimony was the first time Americans have heard such a vivid and agonizing account from the front lines of the attackthe officers growing panic as the mob surrounded them, how the rioters called them traitors and threatened to kill them with their own guns, the realization that they might die right there on the marble steps of the Capitol. But just as striking as the officers testimony is Republican lawmakers refusal to engage with it. The GOP response has been to minimize or even scoff at what occurred.

Early in the hearing, the officers who testified watched as the select committee chair, Bennie Thompson, played a compilation of footage and police recordings that stitched together the days events: the frantic calls between officers; the ominous sound of rioters banging on the glass outside the east entrance of the Capitol; Officer Eugene Goodman urging Senator Mitt Romney to flee the mob. A few minutes into the video, the C-SPAN camera panned away to capture Officer Daniel Hodges looking at himself on the screen, which showed him crushed against a door and struggling for air as a rioter pried off his gas mask. While he watched, Hodgess face was inscrutable, but his cheeks were flushed.

Read: How a rising Trump critic lost her nerve

As Hodges was preparing to relive what was perhaps the most traumatic day of his life, the Republican House conference chair, Elise Stefanik, was outside hosting a rival event: a press conference during which she blamed the January 6 violence on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It is a fact that the U.S. Capitol Police raised concerns, and rather than providing them with the support and resources they deserved, she prioritized her partisan political optics over their safety, Stefanik said. (Pelosi does not oversee the operations of the U.S. Capitol Police.)

Stefaniks was only one excuse of many. Shortly after January 6, Donald Trumps allies spun up a story accusing antifa of infiltrating the mob and instigating the assault. In May, the GOP lawmaker Andrew Clyde of Georgia described the riot that threatened the lives of his colleagues as a normal tourist visit. Just this morning, a contributor to the far-right American Greatness magazine characterized the testifying officers as crisis actors, playing victims for liberal political ends.

Republicans would like nothing more than to stop talking about this day. Its why they voted to oust Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, a fierce Trump critic, from her leadership position earlier this summer, and its the reason so many GOP lawmakers voted against establishing an independent committee to investigate January 6. In a recent interview, the freshman Republican Nancy Mace offered a tidy summation of her partys broader feelings: I want to be done with that, she told me. I want to move forward.

Read: Republicans meet their monster

But the GOPs sweep-it-away approach will be difficult to sustain. According to Cheney, the select committee plans to investigate every phone call, every conversation, every meeting leading up to, during, and after the attack, which will keep the issue in the headlines for the coming weeks or months. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthys decision to pull his appointees from the committee after Pelosi refused to seat Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana seems like it might have been a political miscalculation. Now the GOP has no one on the panel to counter or challenge the investigation. The only two Republicans on the panel are Trump detractors appointed by PelosiCheney and Adam Kinzinger of Illinoiswhich will underscore that there are still members of the party who hold the former president and many of their colleagues responsible for the insurrection.

During the hearing, the officers took turns recounting the days events. Sergeant Aquilino Gonell said hed been more frightened on January 6 than he was during his entire deployment in Iraq. Officer Harry Dunn said he was called the N-word. Officer Michael Fanone recounted being dragged into the crowd of rioters, beaten, and tased: Im sure I was screaming, but I dont think I could even hear my own voice. Hodges described how a man had hooked his finger into his right eye and tried to gouge it out.

By late morning, theyd finished making their statements, and the question-and-answer portion of the panel was about to begin. Televisions across the Capitol complex flashed with hearing coverage. A CNN reporter asked Clyde, the Republican whod described January 6 as a normal tourist visit, what he made of their testimony. I have not heard anything yet today, he responded.

With reporting from Christian Paz

Read the rest here:
The GOP Ignored the Hearing on the Capitol Attack - The Atlantic

Gov. Gavin Newsom outside Tommys Mexican Restaurant in San Francisco on Thursday. Courtesy of the Governors office

Gov. Gavin Newsom may be fighting for his political life amid afourth wave of COVID, adrought without modern precedent,another horrific fire season, aspiking murder rateand anincreasingly credible-seeming recall.

But at least he has a lot of really rich political allies.

At last count, the main committee tasked with defending the governor against theSept. 14 recallhasraised some $39 million. Another allied committee and Newsoms own 2022 campaign account, which state law allows him to draw upon this year, add another $4 million to that war chest.

Thats more than double all the cash raised by the committees campaigning for his ouster and the46 candidates hoping to replace him, combined.

It also represents the generosity or perhaps the strategic expenditure of a broad coalition of some unlikely allies.

They include Californias largest teachers union and its most vocal charter school advocates; nurses and the hospitals they sometimes clash with; Realtors, developers, building trades unions and corporate landlords who havediffering views on the housing crisis; defense contractors; abortion rights advocates; new car dealers; and the financier-turned-liberal-megadonor George Soros. All have found common cause in keeping Newsom in his job.

A new CalMatters analysis of the donors to the main anti-recall committee found that organized labor threw Newsom the largest financial lifeline roughly 45% of the total, including $1.8 million from the teachers union and $1.75 million from the prison guards this week.

Companies and individuals hailing from the states business community coughed up another 36% of the $39 million. The remainder came from an assortment of ideological interest groups, tribal governments, the California Democratic Party and small-dollar contributors. t

If political contributions are a vote of confidence, the votes of the well-heeled, powerful and influential are overwhelmingly in the incumbent governors camp.

Newsoms current haul isnt quite the$58 millionthat he raised during the 2018 race. And its dwarfed by recentcorporate-backed ballot measure fightsthat have hit the 9-digit mark.

But if donations were votes, Newsom would defeat the recall in a landslide. But the political reality could be far different.

Anew UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies pollfound pro- and anti-recall sentiment in a virtual dead heat among likely voters. That could provide Newsoms allies with fresh incentive to pony up and his campaign more reason to solicit money for the campaign ahead, especially to increase awareness and enthusiasm among Democrats.

The governors campaign seems to be taking the threat seriously. In a TV spot that hit the states airwaves Wednesday night, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a progressive icon, implored the electorate to vote no to protect California and our democracy.

Neither a boatload of money nor a crowded roster of well-financed supporters, however, is a sure recipe of electoral success. Last year, a campaign torepeal state restrictions on affirmative actionoutraised the opposition nearly 17-to-1, while racking up endorsements from every corner of California power and influence. It failed by 14 percentage points.

But theres another, even more important reason for many to give, said Dan Schnur, former chairpersonof Californias Fair Political Practices Commission and a past strategist for Republican politicians: This is a relatively painless way to strengthen your relationship with an incumbent governor.

Californiacampaign finance regulationscap the amount of money that gubernatorial candidates can raise at $32,400 per person a limit that covers the challengers seeking to replace Newsom. But no such limits apply to committees raising money for a general cause like the one defending Newsom against the recall. That difference is allowing individuals and groups to write million-dollar checks to help the governor.

Just as the news of the surprisingly grim Berkeley poll was percolating through the California political universe, two more public employee unions both political forces in their own right and conspicuously absent from the governors campaign finance filings announced thisweek that they were opening up their coffers.

First, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association threw in $1.75 million. Then came the California Teachers Association with $1.8 million.

Just days after the check from the teachers landed in Newsoms campaign account, he gave the closing keynote speech today at the unions summer digital meeting. He applauded the unions hard-fought legislative accomplishments, which, incidentally, served as a reminder to the teachers that the governor had helped secure them.

Though the teachers were the largest funder of Newsoms 2018 campaign, that relationship got complicated last spring as Newsom and the union sparred first over when teacherswould get vaccines, thenhow quickly schools should reopen.

But now, Newsom is facing opponents who are funded by a network that wants to dismantle public education. The choice is stark and clear, union president E. Toby Boyd said in a statement Wednesday.

Many of thetop Republicans vying to take Newsoms placein the governors office support bolstering charter schools, allowing families to spend publicly-funded vouchers on private education and making it easier to fire teachers deemed to be underperforming.

The teachers and correctional officers join a financial field fighting the Newsom recall that is crowded with other organized labor groups, including other public employees, construction workers, nurses and other health care workers and food pickers and processors.

Service Employees International Union California, one of the states most influential organized labor groups, has kicked in $5.5 million through its various locals. The largest single contribution came from Local 2015, which represents nursing home employees and other long-term care workers.

Local president April Verrett declined an interview request, but emphasized in a statement that the unions support is more than just financial: We plan to mobilize our predominantly Black, brown, and immigrant caregivers, who have been on the front lines of this pandemic, to make their voices heard as we go door to door, over the phone and online encouraging a vote against the recall.

For many labor groups, supporting Newsom in his time of need is an investment in the future. One of the governorslongstanding health policy goalsis to implement what he has called a master plan on aging to beef up the states patchwork system of elder care. The idea is still in blueprint form, but the promised overhaul would require a massive increase in state funding for health care and long-term care programs.

For other unions, supporting Newsom now looks a bit more like a thank you card. Prison guards, for example,arent reliable Democratic allies. But earlier this year, they scored amajor pay hikefrom the governor and lawmakers over theobjections of the states Legislative Analysts Office.

And the alternatives to Newsom on the recall ballot? For most labor groups, there are few appealing options: When he was mayor of San Diego, Kevin Faulconer madeoverhauling the pension systemfor former city employees a top priority. John Cox has repeatedly railed against the political influence of prison guards. And conservative radio show host Larry Elderopposes the minimum wage.

But unions make up less than a majority of the contributors to the Newsom cause. The rest of the list is full of regular largedonors to California political campaigns, includingspecial interestsand more than a few billionaires.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings a notable charter school advocate whosupported Antonio Villaraigosa over Newsomin the first half of the 2018 campaign gave the governors committee its largest single contribution of $3 million.

Other titans of Silicon Valley have lined up to back Newsom. In a public letter published in March, Laurene Powell Jobs, founder of the Emerson Collective and widow of Apples Steve Jobs; prominent Bay Area angel investor Ron Conway; and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt were among executives and venture capitalists to close ranks behind the governor. Since then donors from the tech sector have given nearly $1.4 million.

Another $1 million came from George Marcus, a Bay Area real estate mogul with a history of backing moderate Democrats and opposing rent control measures. More than $500,000 was donated by hedge fund heir Liz Simons, who in recent years has contributed millions to criminal reform justice efforts and progressive prosecutors, including Attorney General Rob Bonta.

And whatever Newsoms conservative critics might say about his anti-business policies, there are plenty of proud capitalists on his roster of defenders. That includes typical big spenders such as the California Realtors, dentists and the building industry.

Unlike other sectors, which havelargely consolidated in one camp or the other, developers are divided. While individual real estate titans includingGOP mega donor Geoffrey Palmersupport the recall, the California Building Industry Association, which lobbies in the state Capitol, is backing the governor.

Association President Dan Dunmoyer, who served as cabinet secretary to Arnold Schwarzenegger after he became governor in the 2003 recall, said that on policy, the governor has saidmany of the right things. Even if he hasnt beenable to deliver on those lofty goals, Dunmoyer said he wants to give the governor another year to prove himself before the next regularly scheduled election in 2022.

He said his groups support for Newsom is also partly about timing. When so much is uncertain in California, a little stability might do developers good, he said.

Removing a governor, he said, is just not really logical, especially in the middle of a pandemic, fire, housing, homeless crisis.

CalMatters data reporter Jeremia Kimelman and editorial intern Danise Kuang contributed to this story.

CalMattersis a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how Californias Capitol works and why itmatters.

Show comments

See the original post here:
Newsoms Allies Raise Nearly $40 Million for Battle with Recall Republicans - Times of San Diego

The current assault on voting is a backlash, in part, to the greater access that marked the 2020 presidential election. More mail-in and greater early voting helped push turnout to modern highs. In the same way, the turn against universal manhood suffrage came after its expansion in the wake of the Civil War.

A growing number of voters were foreign-born, the result of mass immigration and the rapid growth of an immigrant working class in the industrial centers of the North. Between 1865 and World War I, wrote the historian Alexander Keyssar in The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, nearly 25 million immigrants journeyed to the United States, accounting for a large proportion of the nations World War I population of roughly 100 million.

A vast majority arrived without property or the means to acquire it. Some were the Irish and Germans of previous waves of immigration, but many more were Eastern and Southern Europeans, with alien languages, exotic customs and unfamiliar faiths.

By 1910, noted Keyssar, most urban residents were immigrants or the children of immigrants, and the nations huge working class was predominantly foreign-born, native-born of foreign parents or Black.

To Americans of older stock, this was a disaster in waiting. And it fueled among them a backlash to the democratic expansion that followed the Civil War.

A New England village of the olden time that is to say, of some 40 years ago would have been safely and well governed by the votes of every man in it, Francis Parkman, a prominent historian and a member in good standing of the Boston elite, wrote in an 1878 essay called The Failure of Universal Suffrage.

Parkman went on:

but, now that the village has grown into a populous city, with its factories and workshops, its acres of tenement-houses and thousands and ten thousands of restless workmen, foreigners for the most part, to whom liberty means license and politics means plunder, to whom the public good is nothing and their own most trivial interests everything, who love the country for what they can get out of it and whose ears are open to the promptings of every rascally agitator, the case is completely changed, and universal suffrage becomes a questionable blessing.

In The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910, the historian J. Morgan Kousser took note of William L. Scruggs, a turn-of-the-century scholar and diplomat who gave a similarly colorful assessment of universal suffrage in an 1884 article, Restriction of the Suffrage:

The idea of unqualified or tramp suffrage, like communism, with which it is closely allied, seems to be of modern origin; and, like that and kindred isms, it usually finds advocates and apologists in the ranks of the discontented, improvident, ignorant, vicious, depraved and dangerous classes of society. It is not indigenous to the soil of the United States. It originated in the slums of European cities, and, like the viper in the fable, has been nurtured into formidable activity in this country by misdirected kindness.

Beyond their presumed immorality and vice, the problem with new immigrant voters, from the perspective of these elites, was that they undermined so-called good government. There is not the slightest doubt in my own mind that our prodigality with the suffrage has been the chief source of the corruption of our elections, wrote the Progressive-era political scientist John W. Burgess in an 1895 article titled The Ideal of the American Commonwealth.

The rest is here:
Opinion | Republicans Now Have Two Ways to Threaten Elections - The New York Times

The front-page-picture of the July 19th issue of The Forum, about the recall effort relative to four members of the Fargo School Board, says it all. Not one non-white face in the room; par for the course, for those folks working the recall effort, in terms of their complaint about teaching critical race theory in Fargo school classes, a complaint for which solid reasoning would dictate has no bearing.

The reality, of course, is that this particular recall effort is part of a nation-wide school-board drive by Republicans to attempt to lay the groundwork for the 2022 election, and beyond. Despite being unable to factually-define just what CRT is, Republicans are on record as labeling it a dangerous ideology, anti-American, and a blatant attempt to change the foundational principles of our nation.

CRT came to national prominence on Sept. 2nd of 2020 when Christopher Rufo appeared on Tucker Carlson, and spouted a three-minute segment of innuendo, which Der Gropemfuhrer seized on the next day by inviting Rufo to DC to help him write an executive order limiting how contractors providing federal diversity seminars could talk about race. In March of this year, Rufo admitted that his goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think critical race theory. We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans. White Americans, that is.

Which mean Republicans are harnessing all the subtle signs of white angst over Black America that are all there for anyone to see. One year after the murder of George Floyd, The Nation magazine reports that now, Black demands for full citizenship and equality are being treated as entitlement, calls for white racial accountability redefined as white persecution, and anti-racism falsely construed as anti-whiteness.

The magazine continues: In 1961, as white parents raged against integration, James Baldwin addressed what motivated their anger: They do not really know what it is they are afraid of, but they know they are afraid of something, and they are so frightened that they are nearly out of their minds . . . We would never, never allow Negroes to starve, to grow bitter, and to die in ghettos all over the country if we were not driven by some nameless fear that has nothing to do with Negroes.

So, white America, and the white people of the Fargo School Board recall effort, what nameless fear is driving you?

Stash Hempeck lives in Hendrum, Minn.

This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

See the original post:
Letter: What nameless fear is driving Republicans? - INFORUM