Mediaboss Marketing

These days, Republican leaders are labeling most ideas or policies that Democrats advocate as socialist. This is a decades-old attack but it is losing its punch according to a new Axios/Momentive poll. In 2019, 58% of Americans ages 18-34 viewed capitalism favorably. Now it is 49%. Back then, 39% of all adults reacted positively to the word socialism. That has grown to 41%. This increase is driven by African Americans and women.

Interestingly, 66% of all Americans say the federal government should pursue policies that try to reduce the gap between the wealthy and the less well-off (up a bit from 62% in 2019). Most provocatively, 56% of Republicans ages 18-34 want to reduce the wealth gap now when only 40% of them favored such policies in 2019.

Felix Salmon of Axios says: The pandemic has caused millions of Americans including many younger Republicans to re-evaluate their political and economic worldview. Thats likely because of two factors: a renewed focus on deep societal inequalities and the tangible upsides of unprecedented levels of government intervention.

Billionaires have increased their wealth by $1 trillion during the pandemic. Meanwhile, rents and student debt have soared. Many jobs became much more precarious and dangerous. As a result, more people are attracted to alternative ways of running society.

Salmon concludes: Politicians looking to attack opponents to their left can no longer use the word socialist as an all-purpose pejorative. Increasingly, its worn as a badge of pride.

Historian Maurice Isserman observes that the U.S. House of Representatives has more self-described socialists than at any time in history. Theres Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York District 14), Rashida Tlaib (Michigan District 13), Cori Bush (Missouri District 1), and Jamaal Bowman (New York District 16). They are members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and ran as Democrats.

Of course, theres Bernie Sanders in the Senate, who is an independent but caucuses with the Democrats and is a crucial member of the Partys national leadership. He isnt a member of DSA.

DSA is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with over 92,000 members and chapters in all 50 states. In the 2020 elections, at least 36 DSA members were elected.

Recently, there was an unexpected surprise in New Yorks second-largest city. DSA member India Walton won the Democratic primary to become mayor of Buffalo. She is a 38-year-old single mother who is a registered nurse and union organizer. She has never run for office before. She beat Byron Brown, a four-term incumbent who is close to Gov. Andrew Cuomo. There was no Republican in the race.

After she won, a TV anchor asked Walton what a Democratic Socialist is. She explained: That means that we put people first. That means that we prioritize the working class, the marginalized, the often unseen, unheard people over profits, corporations and developers.

Brown has vowed to run as a write-in candidate. In a hysterical McCarthyite message, he said there is tremendous fear among voters who are afraid about the future for their children and their families. He said, They do not want a radical socialist occupying the mayors office in Buffalo City Hall. You know, we know the difference between socialism and democracy. We are going to fight for democracy in the city of Buffalo.

After Browns write-in announcement, the chair of the Erie County Democratic Party issued an unambiguous statement about India Walton, to strongly affirm once again that we are with her, now and through the general election in the fall. It added: Last Tuesday, India proved she has the message and the means to move and inspire the people of Buffalo. It was a historic moment in Western New York politics. The voters heard her message and embraced her vision for the citys future, and we look forward to working with her and her team to cross that final finish line on Nov. 2.

New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg found Walton to be quite politically savvy. Walton said her early adopters were white progressives like the Working Families Party and DSA.

But the surge in violent crime has hurt progressive politics.

She told Goldberg, The challenge of the left is that we use our jargony activist language and dont take time to fully explain what we mean to those who may not be as woke as we are. Polls show that both black and white voters dont care for the defund the police slogan.

Instead of defund, Walton said, we say were going to reallocate funds. Were going to fully fund community centers. Were going to make the investments that naturally reduce crime, such as investments in education, infrastructure, living-wage jobs. Nothing stops crime better than a person whos gainfully employed.

She has an exciting platform which includes a tenant bill of rights, a public bank to finance investment in city priorities and a comprehensive land use policy that sets aside 50% of city-owned vacant parcels for public good.

We need to break from traditional politics and dream.

This opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.

Here is the original post:
India Walton and the promise of democratic socialism - Boulder Weekly

If a history professor asserted that black holes dont exist, would anyone pay any attention to him? What about an English professor who advocates Lamarckian evolutionary theory over Darwin? How about a sociologist who believes in alchemy?

What if these folks didnt just have weird beliefs, what if they taught these ideas in their classes? What if they wrote articles and books and gave public speeches extoling them?

The answer is obvious. They would be dismissed as kooks.

And much more. On a typical university campus, the physics department would probably demand that the history professor stop spouting fake physics or be fired. The biology department would react the same way to the espousal of fake biology.

In fact, on most campuses almost every academic discipline would try to protect its turf a well as the scientific integrity of its discipline.

With one exception: economics.

Over my long experience with the academic world, I have often marveled at the fact that people who had never had a course in economics, had never read a book on the subject, who wouldnt know what to do with a supply and a demand curve if they saw themnonetheless feel free to speak with authority on economic topics.

If you search the economics departments of our nations colleges and universities you would be hard pressed to find a real socialist. Thats because economists know a lot aboutsocialism. They have been studying it and thinking about it for over a hundred years.

Outside economics departments, things are different. It has often been humorously estimated that there are more Marxists on the faculty of American universities than there are in Russia or China today.

How is that possible? I blame the economists.

Economists have not only documented the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union and China, they know why the Cuban, North Korean, and Venezuelan economies are basket cases. It isnt complicated. When people at the top design a plan in which everybody who is needed to carry it out has an economic self-interest in not doing so, the plan never succeeds.Good economics is often plain common sense.

Serious scholars have also documented the human costs of concentrating economic and political power. Socialist hellholes have produced imprisonment, torture, starvation and mass murder on a scale never before imagined in human history. In the 20th century, almost170 million peoplewere killed by their own governments. These people were not killed in wars. They were the victims of genocidal murder.

The vast majority were murdered by socialist governments. The Russian communists were the worst (62 million) followed by the Chinese communists (35 million) and then the Nazi national socialists (20 million).

Although socialists claim that workers are exploited under capitalism, no greedy capitalist has ever begun to match what socialists have done.

Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chvezlived like kings and accumulated vast fortuneswhile their own people often faced starvation. Kim Jong-un and the current rulers in Cuba and Venezuela are following in their footsteps

Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung was the greatest mass murderer in world history, causing at least45 million peopleto be worked, starved or beaten to death. When he died, he was worth an estimated$1 billion.

The worlds second greatest mass murderer, Josef Stalin,killed 20 million, many by forced starvation. Some regard him as one ofthe wealthiest people of all time.

Fidel Castros former bodyguardJuan Reinaldo Snchezsays that the communist leader lived like a king and ran the country the country like a cross between medieval overlord and Louis XV. While ordinary Cubans stood in breadlines, Castro had his own private yacht and his own private island. In Havana, he lived in an immense estate with a rooftop bowling alley, a basketball court and fully equipped medical center.

The puzzle is: Why arent these facts better known? The answer seems to be: In the classes where students should be learning them, the teachers arent doing their jobs.

While students are getting a daily dose of socialist propaganda from economic know-nothings in the other social science departments, what have the economists been saying about the subject in their classes? Nothing. Well, almost nothing.

Pick up just about any introductory economics textbook and you will find very little about socialism. And what you do find will never be front and center. It will be stuck at the back of the book in case the instructor has time to cover it at the end of the semester.

The reason for this is understandable. Most economics teachers consider socialism to be so completely dysfunctional, they see no reason to spend any time on it.

Here is what the economics departments are missing. Given the economic nonsense that is being spewed out all over the rest of the campus, the first things students need to study in introductory economics is socialism. In fact, I believe the entire first semester should be devoted to socialism.

What starts on the campuses doesnt take long to spread. Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood celebrities dont think they need to know anything about economics in order to have strong opinions on the subject.

When is the last time you heard Streisand quote Paul Samuelson or Milton Friedman or any economist? With increasing frequency, in a very large part of the national public policy conversation, professional economists are considered completely irrelevant.

To use a military analogy, the economists have left the battlefield, leaving the students behind to fend for themselves. The nation is paying a heavy price for that less-than-honorable retreat.

This article was also published inTownhall

See more here:
Where Have All The Economists Gone? (Socialism) OpEd - Eurasia Review

Charles C. Milliken| The Daily Telegram

Last time, I listed five characteristics which all socialist systems share, if they are to be truly socialist. There are, obviously, systems which share one or more of these characteristics, but all must be present to represent Socialism with a capital S.In summary, they were 1. Communitarian, 2. Based on class distinctions, with oppressed being liberated from their oppressors, 3. Universally compulsory, 4. Leveling, and, 5. Hierarchical.

Contemporary advocates of Socialism are faced with the intractable fact that every Socialist attempt in the past few centuries has been a dismal, impoverishingand deadly failure. From the French Revolution (before the term was invented), through Russia, China, Germany, North Korea and every People'sRepublic littering the ash heap of human suffering, right down to Venezuela today, Socialism has never delivered on its utopian dream of a selfless society where everyone happily works to the best of their ability, and in turn are supplied with their needs.This notion, a Christian heresy of bringing an imaginary heaven down to a real earth, undoubtedly springs from Christian monastic practice. For nearly two millennia monks and nuns have labored selflessly in their convents and monasteries living the socialist dream, although they would hardly put it like that. Sowhy and I have personally been asked this question couldnt all of society function the same way?

Here is where the dreamworld of Socialist utopia hits the real world of human nature. Although religious orders have been around for a very long time, they are a pale shadow of what they once were. For all their success in living a selfless life, this life was always based on orthodox faith in Christ and in His Church, not on some theory of class struggle. The 16th century saw the destruction of Catholic universalism, the 19th the destruction of the rest of Christianity, at least in the West. We now live in the rubble of that beautiful edifice for all its flaws and have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Religious vocations are a vanishingly small number.

Utopian communities were tried in the U.S. in the 19th century. All failed. Hippie communes tried the same lifestyle in the 60s, with the addition of drugs and free sex, but also all failed.

In the face of this miserable track record, why do todays advocates for Socialism think it will work this time? The reason Ive heard the most is Socialism has failed because of poor leadership. They say, in essence and sometimes in fact, If I had been running Russia instead of Lenin or Stalin,all would have been well. They do not deny that Socialism requires leadership, it's just that, for whatever reason, circumstances have just tossed up bad leaders, without acknowledging that Socialism absolutely requires bad leaders. The lovely world of the monastery is compulsory on its members, but a member is free to joinand free to leave. In short, people self-select. Nothing like that is possible in a Socialist polity membership is compulsory and all must obey. Obedience requires discipline. Monks and nuns self discipline. General members of any society mostly dont, and therefore coercion is required of varying severity.

The Bolsheviks in Russia tried a workaround by asserting that severe discipline was only temporaryand the New Soviet Man would emerge, who would selflessly and unstintingly work for the common good. Meanwhile Revolutionary Justice would weed out the intractable. Despite millions thus being eliminated, the whole thing lasted 75 yearsand then collapsed with a whimper. Human nature is a very intractable thing, and running an entire society on the basis of volunteerism simply does not, and cannot, work. Incentives, alas, matter. Variable paychecks are much more efficient incentives than firing squads.

The concept of equity, of everyone getting about the same income, is much beloved by our vice president, at least based on her campaign ads. The average wage in the U.S. is about $60,000. Some would be ecstatic. Would you?

Charles Milliken is a professor emeritus after 22 years of teaching economics and related subjects at Siena Heights University. He can be reached at milliken.charles@gmail.com.

Read the original post:
The inevitable failure of socialism - The Daily Telegram

Media top headlines July 13

ESPN's Stephen A. Smith admitting he 'screwed up' on his Shohei Ohtani comments, reporters and Democrats blaming US embargo for protests in Cuba, and an MSNBC host claiming 'there's a lot' national Democrats can learn from fleeing Texas Democrats round out today's headlines

DALLAS - Conservative Latinos pushed back at an MSNBC contributor's claim that Latino voters are in a "crisis" because so many have distanced themselves from the Democratic Party and voted for President Donald Trump in 2020.

"What we're seeing right now is a cultural identity crisis that we are undergoing as a community that is completely splitting and dividing Latinos," MSNBC contributor Paola Ramos said earlier this week.

Mercedes Schlapp asked a group of conservative Hispanic leaders to respond to Ramos' charge during the panel, "Common Values, Common Interests & Common Culture: How Conservative Latinos Will Influence the Future of American Politics" at last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference.

Is it true their community was facing a "crisis," Schlapp wondered.

MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR COMPLAINS OF CRISIS AS LATINOS MOVE AWAY FROM DEMOCRATS

"No, absolutely not," said Betty Cardenas, the Republican National Hispanic Chairwoman. "We are waking up. I think the Latinos are finally waking up."

Maria Salinas Miller and Bianca Gracia of Latinos for America First were also quick to refute the MSNBC contributor's assertions.

"Yes, it's a crisis for the Democrats," Miller told Fox News, turning around Ramos' argument. "Because we're coming for those votes."

"There's the misconception or the myth that just because we're minorities that we're supposed to vote Democrat, and we're trying to tell them that's not what we align ourselves withWe base our vote based off of our value system," she continued. "Those tend to be most aligned with Republican candidates."

FLORIDA LAWMAKER, CAMPOS-DUFFY BLAST MSNBC GUEST WHO SAID GOP HISPANIC VOTERS HAVE IDENTITY CRISIS

Consistently, the conservative leaders cited socialism, abortion, and education as the top policy issues for their demographic. Cardenas urged Hispanic parents to start making inroads in their local communities, as many are concerned about what children are learning in government-run, union-controlled schools.

"The education our kids are not our values," Cardenas explained. "The same educationis not what our children are getting now. Social studies has completely been discontinued. And now they put some programs that are completely against our values and its teaching our kids more on sexuality."

The only way they can make a difference, she said, is to "go and vote" and take back their local cities.

Gracia spoke to socialism specifically as a reason Latinos are fleeing the Democrats, noting that struggling countries like Venezuela and Cuba, where protests recently erupted amid a burgeoning economic crisis, are an important lesson for the U.S. to protect freedom at all costs. President Trump took his anti-socialist message to Hispanic communities in the 2020 campaign season while progressive lawmakers like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. promoted socialist progressive policies.

"The Democrat Party is pushing a message of socialism and communism which do not resonate with our communities at all," Gracia explained. "They have fled communism and socialismand they don't want it here in this country."

"The Democrat Party has left us," she concluded.

"Fox & Friends Weekend" co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy joined in slapping down Ramos' argument in a recent segment, calling the narrative "racist."

"The Hispanic voter is getting more sophisticated and more nuanced," Campos-Duffy said. "And they're not responding to the, 'they're all racist,' thing that the Democrats are trying to say."

"Hispanic voters are looking and saying which party is going to protect my wages, protect my neighborhood, protect my family and my Christian values, my pro-life values," she added.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Despite his eventual loss to President Joe Biden, Trump won 38 percent of Hispanic voters in 2020, a 10-point bump from 2016, according to analysis from the Pew Research Center.

"Were done with the pandering," Cardenas said. "We don't want fake politicians that come and lie to us and just come every election cycle. We're holding them accountable. President Trump promised something, and he kept his promises, and we saw the results."

Read the rest here:
Conservative Latinos push back on MSNBC claim they're in 'crisis': 'No, we are waking up' - Fox News Latino

This year, New York Citys Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) chapter faced its first real bout of adversity after an astounding post-2016 resurgence. The democratic socialists chose to endorse six candidates for the City Council and only two will end up winning, a setback thats already causing a bit of schadenfreude among the career Democrats who root against their success.

For socialists, the losses in the 2021 Democratic primaries sting because last year was such a success. In 2020, during the state legislative primaries, all four DSA-backed Democrats won, dethroning incumbents or establishment-backed candidates. DSAs first state legislator, Julia Salazar, won reelection, and new political stars were minted. A fifth insurgent who ran without DSAs backing joined their socialist caucus in Albany after winning.

Why did DSA come up short this year? And, more important, does it matter? Critics of DSA many of them either members of the professional left or centrists who recoil at the idea of socialists taking office are hoping this portends a coming decline for the organization. But any prolonged losing streak is unlikely. New York Citys chapter, arguably the national flagship, continues to add members and expertise. Many of the young organizers are now seasoned. Next year, with another state legislative cycle in the offering, could very well lead to the election of even more socialists.

But 2021 did not go the way DSA wanted. Part of this can be blamed on the strength of the opposition the group encountered, and part of it can be attributed to choices DSA made: the candidates it recruited and the terrain they chose to compete in.

What sets DSA apart from every other organization that does politics in New York is that DSA does not widely endorse. They did not support any Democrat for mayor. For left nonprofit groups, organized labor, and the Working Families Party, this is a completely alien concept. The ultimate goal of DSA is to build a mass-movement socialist organization, relying on elected officials who will be accountable, fully, to rank-and-file members and the overall socialist agenda.

DSA does not care about sending more politicians with their seal of approval into government if they will behave like conventional Democrats, pivoting to the center and spurning socialist-supported legislation, like statewide single-payer health care, a right to housing, and public ownership of the electric grid. DSA chapters rightfully fret about capacity and only want to support campaigns to which they can lend a full volunteer operation.

Most other groups, while caring about building a greater progressive project, like to project clout particularly in the media. Claiming victory is extremely important to them. If thirty endorsements are issued and twenty candidates prevail, thats twenty politicians who can be celebrated in a press release. DSA is volunteer-run and faces no internal pressure to cater to donors or politicians who can secure them funding. Racking up wins therefore carries a lot less meaning, since there are no donors who need to be placated.

The slate of six candidates was the largest DSA had ever run in the post-2016 era, when socialists, for the very first time, became a force in New York politics. They were a diverse array of candidates in three different boroughs. One of them, Tiffany Cabn, nearly won the Queens district attorneys race in 2019. She was an overwhelming favorite for a Queens City Council seat that she went on to win with ease. A second front-runner, Alexa Avils, breezed to victory in Brooklyn with DSAs strong support.

The other four candidates faltered in various ways. The strongest of the four campaigns occurred in a stretch of eastern Queens that is suburban in character and not known as any kind of hotbed for leftist politics, let alone socialism. Jaslin Kaur, a young socialist organizer, finished a strong second in a crowded field to Linda Lee, a nonprofit executive running on a more moderate platform.

Kaur faced deep challenges in a district with a large number of middle-class and affluent homeowners. She campaigned hard on a few key issues, like bailing out immigrant taxi drivers, and cannily repackaged the more controversial elements of DSAs platform, including defunding the police. She stressed reallocating resources to nonviolent responses to mental health issues and homelessness, avoiding the sort of language that could alienate voters who ended up choosing her.

DSA, meanwhile, flooded the area with volunteers, door-knocking in neighborhoods without subway access. The enthusiasm for Kaur was quite genuine. She is a talented candidate who could end up representing the district one day, once Lee is term-limited, or seek another office nearby.

The Kaur campaign, from the get-go, was a well-intentioned long shot. DSAs support of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement likely hampered Kaurs efforts to reach out to older Jewish voters. In an area with fewer renters, DSAs traditional embrace of tenant issues would always have less resonance. It can be debated whether its worth DSAs while to pursue the struggle for socialism in eastern Queens, even with its growing immigrant population, but the campaign demonstrated that the future there may be much brighter than one would think.

The next toughest race was on terrain where DSA had succeeded greatly last year. Tenant organizer Michael Hollingsworth faced Crystal Hudson, a former staffer for several elected officials, including the outgoing councilwoman, Laurie Cumbo, in a gentrifying Brooklyn district that includes the neighborhoods of Crown Heights, Clinton Hill, and Prospect Heights. Hudson vs. Hollingsworth was the most pitched battle of the cycle not just for DSA but maybe anywhere pitting two young, black candidates against each other in an area where DSA just sent two socialists to Albany.

Hudson narrowly won. She had the strong support of Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, who suffered a grievous loss last year when DSA defeated a local assemblyman who was his protg. In a bid to work with Jeffries, a potential successor to Nancy Pelosi, all of organized labor rallied behind Hudson, as well as many elected officials. Jeffries conscripted Maya Wiley, who was regarded as the progressive standard-bearer in the mayoral race, to campaign for Hudson personally. In addition, a super PAC supported by the billionaire real estate developer Stephen Ross, Common Sense NYC, spent more than $100,000 against Hollingsworth. The districts sizable Hasidic vote swung decisively against Hollingsworth, because DSA is critical of Israel.

There is little, truthfully, DSA could have done differently here. Hollingsworth was a formidable candidate in the mold of the socialists DSA recently elected, Jabari Brisport and Phara Souffrant Forrest. Unlike the Democrats DSA defeated a year ago, Hudson was far more capable. Her platform, on issues like education, policing, and even real estate development, did not differ much from Hollingsworths. She wisely distanced herself from Cumbo, who is reviled by leftists in the district for supporting a controversial development that did not create enough affordable housing. Combined with the heavy outside spending on her behalf and against Hollingsworth she was a force DSA could not overcome.

Hudsons victory demonstrates one looming challenge for DSA: the Democratic establishment is ready for them. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, once a DSA insurgent, was able to take a lazy Queens party machine by surprise in her race against incumbent Joe Crowley, and other socialists followed suit. After losing a pivotal race in his own backyard a year ago, Jeffries leaned in heavily this time, and DSA had to do far more to combat the combined might of labor, real estate, and outside Democratic politicians.

Ask anyone in DSA, and they will tell you that, for these reasons, the Hollingsworth loss hurts. Jeffries crowed on Twitter after the win: The most interesting take away from this years NYC elections may be the battleground city council races. Streets is watching.

Jeffries shouldnt get too comfortable, since his district is still fertile ground for socialists. Where DSA probably erred, though, was investing heavily in a neighboring Brooklyn district where their candidate, Brandon West, could not secure a victory. West ran in one of the citys wealthiest districts, which ropes in the neighborhoods of Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, Gowanus, and Kensington. Home to tony brownstones and many upwardly mobile progressives, the district is not one DSA needs the goal is to organize the working class, particularly nonwhites, and not the kind of people who own homes that can sell for $5 million.

West was a fine candidate, but he was outmatched by Shahana Hanif, a former aide to the term-limited councilman, Brad Lander. Hanif ran on a platform largely indistinguishable from Wests and will probably function, once in the Council, as a de facto socialist. Opposing her, given the contours of the district, did not make a great deal of sense.

Beyond Hollingsworth, the toughest loss for DSA was probably in the Bronx, where Adolfo Abreu fell well short of winning. Represented by a term-limited right-wing Democrat, Fernando Cabrera, the district nevertheless handed a victory to another left candidate, an Ivy Leagueeducated urban planner named Pierina Sanchez. Sanchez had the support of Congressman Adriano Espaillat, who has a record of backing winning candidates; the leader of the Bronx Democratic machine, Jamaal Bailey; and several large labor unions. It would behoove DSA to figure out why their candidate lost to another Democrat competing in the left lane of a primary in a working-class district. The billionaire-funded super PAC, Common Sense NYC, did spend almost $60,000 against Abreu, which was probably one factor.

There were other districts where DSA could have chosen to support candidates or back eventual winners. Two gentrifying districts in western Queens, home to many DSA members, were ignored entirely. A young activist named Chi Oss won in central Brooklyn, where DSA chose to back no one; if Oss wasnt an acceptable candidate, DSA could have found someone to run instead and maybe would have won. Finally, the outer-borough, overwhelmingly black working-class neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens had no DSA candidates this year. If socialists wont run there, they wont build power there. For next year and beyond, these communities should be a priority for the nations premier socialist organization.

See original here:
How DSA Won and Lost in New York City Elections - Jacobin magazine