The Progressive Times Edition 01

1

Masthead Founder Hayden Suarez-Davis Editor in Chief Pranay Somayajula Managing Editor Dave Mahler Cover Design Nicholas Busman Marketing Consultant Alli Rowe Education Correspondent Sammy Kayes Judiciary Correspondent Stephen Scapelliti Business Correspondent Michael Haskins Foreign Affairs Correspondents Krishna Hammond Robert Zappa, Jr. Reporters Nick Ramacciato Joe Breslin, Jr. 
 Joe Breslin, Sr.
 Cover: Derivative of "Face of freedom" by Juan Luis Rocha G, used under CC BY-SA 3.0 ES. This image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 US.

1

Contents 3 4 5 7 9 12 14 17 20 22 24 26 28

Letter from the Editor

Sparks from the New Colossus Why Keith Ellison Should Chair the DNC Election Polling: What It Is and Why It Failed Remembering Pearl Harbor, 75 Years Later The Sentiment for Change Principles of a Modern Progressive Movement The Pain Behind Trump’s Victory Here’s the Truth: There’s no such thing as “fake news” The Compassionate Case Against Private Charity A Fragile Democracy Another Brick in the Wall Russia and the Election: Unpacking the Hacking

2

Letter from the Editor Last year was a tough one for the press. The proliferation of fake news and the numerous accusations of unfair bias have seriously undermined the credibility of many of the nation’s largest news sources, and millions of people have been left disillusioned by what they see as a corrupt and misleading media.

However, now is not the time to give up on journalism. Journalists, like activists, have always been the first ones to hold power accountable. Were it not for the work of journalists, many of the most shocking and appalling scandals in the history of our nation would have gone unexposed. The power of words and information has often been the only thing to stop the elite few from getting away with corruption, exploitation, and oppression. None of this would, however, have been possible without the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.

Unfortunately, we are at the beginning of four years under the leadership of a man who poses a serious threat to that precious freedom. From acts as simple as refusing to answer a reporter’s question to those as extreme as pledging to “open up libel laws” and make it easier to prosecute journalists, President Donald Trump has proven time and time again that unless we remain vigilant, our First Amendment right to freedom of the press is in danger of being seriously curtailed. Especially in light of the many conflicts of interest surrounding the President and those around him, we need journalism now more than ever to speak truth to power and ensure that misconduct does not go unreported.

However, this will not be accomplished with mainstream media alone. While large, established media sources must undoubtedly play a role in the efficient dissemination of information, it also falls upon dedicated, ethical citizen journalists to ensure that news reporting and analysis represents the interests of the people. Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, the path our country takes over the next four years ultimately comes down to the actions of ordinary Americans and their decision to either stand up for what is right or watch from the sidelines as corruption and abuse of power quickly take root. As an independent, digital news magazine run entirely by volunteers, The Progressive Times is dedicated to providing the public with insightful citizen journalism from a progressive viewpoint while simultaneously maintaining the highest possible ethical and editorial standards. As we grow and establish ourselves, our readers can rest assured that we will not waver in our commitment to this mission.

The political revolution is far from over, and millions of people are beginning the tireless march towards a brighter future. We’ll be marching alongside them every step of the way.

Pranay Somayajula Editor in Chief 3

washed away. It follows that this wave could be transformed into a torrent of change, used to flood and inundate D.C. The Presidentelect has promised to address these insidious issues plaguing our nation. To stop them before the roots go too deep. To drain the swamp, as he put it.

But as we can see with his cabinet and advisory nominations, that is not going to be the case.

Corruption will continue to grow, actions will continue to bear no consequences, and promises will continue to be bandied around. The man towering on the crest of the wave barreling towards Washington just rolled the tide away. So the underbrush grows.

Millions of Americans feel the time has come for the un©Trent Yarnell derbrush to burn. That it is time For those unfortunate enough to for corruption and complacency lose their seats, a high-salaried to feel an unrelenting heat as millobbyist position is the only lions of Americans hold Washingpenance they must pay. So the unton’s feet to the fire. When milderbrush grows. Advisors jump lions of us stand up, we become from campaigns to administrations the agents of change. The voiceto cabinet positions to media less grow in their silent accord. posts, all the while ferrying a trail Human nature allows us to be opof special interest policies and potimistic; American nature demands sitions in their wake. So the unit. I, along with millions of others, derbrush grows. Headline-grabhave a fire burning inside. It is a bing personalities can amplify fire that comforts us in this dark their voices because we value Qand surreal hour. The fire Lady Scores higher than IQ scores.

Liberty holds as her beacon of Members of Congress will say freedom. A fire that beckons and whatever garners the most attenwarms the tired and the poor and tion in an attempt to become a the huddled masses yearning to household name. Those who wish breathe free. It is a fire that needs to become politicians follow suit. to spread. Lucky for us, a single The more shocking, or as was the spark is all it takes. case of 2016, the more vile, the more their cause is served. So the underbrush grows.

Donald Trump rode a wave to the Presidency. It was a wave of fear, uncertainty, and economic hardship. It was a reactionary wave, and yet not without merits. It seems reasonable to assume that through this wave, the corrupted foundations could be

Sparks from the New Colossus

by Robert Zappa, Jr. A single spark is all it takes. The underbrush has been growing for the past few decades as Republicans have followed a strict slash-and-burn playbook.

Slash regulations, slash expectations, slash vital funding, and slash all congressional responsibilities to the point where the President has eclipsed Congress in authority.

They have so effectively slashed progressive policies and positions, that they now control the House, Senate, the majority of States in our Union, and the Office of the Presidency. They have undercut the colossal meaning and power that comes with the title of President. And we now have a living embodiment of the Right’s slashing ways heading to the Oval Office. But there is a serious issue with their slash-and-burn game plan. There has yet to be a burn.

Not many members of Congress have to worry about job security while incumbency sits at 90%. So the underbrush grows.

Edition 01-February 2017

4

Why Keith Ellison Should track and field. As one of Chair the DNC youth only two elected Muslim members by the Political Revolution team

On November 14, 2016, Representative Keith Ellison formally announced his candidacy for Chair of the Democratic National Committee. With endorsements from progressives Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as well as establishment Democrats Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, Ellison finds himself poised to take control of a Democratic Party that is currently in freefall. After suffering defeats at almost every level of government, many progressives believe it is time for their party to ditch corporate interests and instead once again become the party of the working people. With his long record of standing up for minorities and labor unions, progressives believe that Keith Ellison can be a leader that will push their party in just that direction.

Following in the footsteps of his grandfather, a dedicated member of the NAACP, and his father, a social worker, Ellison graduated with a law degree from the University of Minnesota and went on to become a civil rights and criminal defense attorney based in Minneapolis. But his devotion to his local community stretches far beyond just that of his professional work. He has volunteered for years as the host of a local radio program about public affairs and coached for

predatory financial practices and housing foreclosures by modifying regulations on bankruptcy and the notorious subprime loan industry.

He has continually fought for efof Congress, Ellison has repeatedforts to increase spending on antily drawn parallels between the poverty programs. struggles of American Muslims Keith also successfully inand the plight of African Ameritroduced the Money Remittances cans, saying, “We understand Improvement Act, making it easier someone getting shot because they for the Hmong and Somali immiwear a hoodie and someone getgrant communities in Minnesota ting bullied because they wear a to provide support to their famihijab is the same thing.” When lies abroad. Throughout his career, addressing Muslim crowds and Ellison has been a strong advocate interfaith groups, Ellison has confor minority communities and sistently advocated for civic enworking-class citizens, communities that have otherwise felt abandoned by the Democratic Party.

Always willing to stand up and lead for his beliefs, even before his political career began, Ellison took charge as the executive director of the Legal Rights Center of Minneapolis, a nonprofit law firm that provides criminal defense and restorative justice legal services at no cost to low© Lori Shaull/ Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-4.0 income residents. In Congress, Ellison serves as the gagement as a path forward toco-chair of the Congressional wards greater social equity.

Progressive Caucus. When Ellison Minneapolis and St. Paul, became co-chair in 2011, the CPC the Twin Cities, are notably diwas reeling from the resurgence verse pockets within the mostly of Tea Party enthusiasm in the homogenous upper Midwest. RepRepublican Party. Eager to revitalresenting a district where newly ize the progressive caucus, Ellison, arrived Somali immigrants and alongside co-chair Raul Grijalva business people pass each other (D-AZ), connected the caucus to on the streets, Ellison has faced progressive labor and environthe challenge of simultaneously mental activist groups. The CPC serving the incredibly wealthy and soon became the leading voice those suffering from unemployagainst the Trans-Pacific Partnerment and poverty. As a member ship and became a stronger force of the House Committee on Fieven as the Democrats have seen nancial Services, he has defended their numbers in Congress drop. low-income Americans from Edition 01-February 2017

5

Keith Ellison has both the experience and the vision necessary to build a more inclusive and grassroots-fueled Democratic National Committee. Ellison has been a vocal advocate of increasing voter turnout, both by making it easier for all citizens to vote and by focusing on policies that voters care about. He understands and speaks of the challenges facing a Democratic party disconnected from its base: “There’s a distribution of labor. No member of the progressive community can introduce a bill because they’re not in Congress. No member of Congress can mobilize, educate, create the wave effect that grass roots do.” Recognizing the gap between activism and national politics, he has pushed for a more policy-focused and accountable Democratic Party — a party that draws its strength not from fundraisers at cocktail parties but from grassroots activism focused on working for the basic rights of all Americans.

©Pranay Somayajula

Edition 01-February 2017

6

Election Polling: What It Is and Why It Failed

by Nick Ramacciato Alf Landon was the more favored candidate compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt just a week before the election. Iowa native George Gallup, however, conducted a much smaller poll, wherein he sampled a demographically representative group of voters. Gallup went on to correctly predict FDR’s landslide victory.

Fast-forward to November 8, 2016. People all around the world were shaken to their core by a historic political upset accomplished by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Social media outlets were taken by storm, and many people began comparing it to the so-called “Brexit” vote of June 2016, where the residents of the United Kingdom also defied pollsters and voted to leave the European Union.

The consensus of national and state polls showed Hillary Clinton at a close, yet stable average distance of around 3+ points from her opponent just days before the election. Clinton was ex-

©Elliott Stallion

To anyone who has been paying attention to the developments of the 2016 presidential campaign, it is apparent that polling entirely underestimated Donald Trump’s performance on November 8th. Criminal investigations, data leaks, and lopsided media coverage have all contributed to this historic upset, which defied almost every poll and expert prediction. To analyze the potential causes of this upset, it is important to have a basic understanding of the history and intricacies of election polling.

The first known instance of election polling dates back to 1824, in a local poll conducted by The Harrisburg Pennsylvanian. It showed that Andrew Jackson was leading his opponent, John Quincy Adams, with 335 votes over 169.

While Jackson did not go on to win the presidency until the following election year of 1828, he did win the popular vote in the state of Delaware, where the poll was held, as well as the entire country that same year. After that instance, polling became increasingly popular as a method of election prediction. Polls remained localized, however, until The Literary Digest conducted a national survey wherein they predicted that Woodrow Wilson would be reelected in 1916. The Literary Digest went on to correctly predict the elections of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Despite all of their accolades, The Literary Digest failed to realize the bias in their sample group of around 2.3 million voters. This led them to claim that

pected to win a majority of the battleground states, which would have pushed her towards her goal of 270 electoral votes, but an unexpectedly strong performance rewarded her opponent with 6 crucial states (WI, MI, OH, PA, NC, and FL).

Demographics played a large part in Trump’s unprecedented victory. Clinton overwhelmingly won the Latino vote, with 65% of that demographic voting in her favor. However, she underperformed compared to the performance of President Barack Obama in 2012 (71%) and 2008 (67%). Trump performed slightly better with this demographic than 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney (Trump received 29% of the Latino vote, Romney received 27%), but fell short of 2008 nominee John McCain, who received 31%. Although Hillary Clinton performed very well with the Hispanic demographic, it only makes up about 12% of the electorate in 2016, compared to 4% for Asians, another 12% for Blacks, and a significant 69% of Whites, which is what boosted Trump throughout the country, according to the Pew Research Center.

Edition 01-February 2017

7

Many voters, however, are blaming the election of Donald Trump on other causes, such as mainstream media coverage. Starting with the primary season earlier in the year, the idea of media bias, shown through disproportionate and favored coverage of a certain candidate, extended into the presidential race. The second presidential debate drove this argument further, as voters felt the questions were unfairly skewed in favor of Clinton. Some say the letter from FBI Director James Comey to Congress, in which he informed them of “the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation”, may have hurt Clinton’s chances.

Another theory floating around suggests that media sources overhyped the Clinton camp’s polling numbers and their chances of winning. For most of the election, reputable polling analysis site FiveThirtyEight gave Trump the best odds at winning compared to The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal.

Nate Silver, founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight says “our models are based on how accurate polls have or haven’t been historically, instead of making idealized assumptions about them.”

In all likelihood, late deciders are what helped put Trump over the top. In many of the battleground states, Trump gained an overwhelming amount of voters who remained undecided until the last minute, which could well be a reason why the results told a different story than the polling. There was an estimated 7 percent of likely voters who were undecided.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who lost the Democratic Party nomination to Hillary Clinton, issued a statement after the election saying “Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment eco-

nomics, establishment politics, and the establishment media.” — a statement that many Americans can relate to. Protests of President-Elect Trump show another side of how people feel, but young Americans know there is still hope. The 2018 midterm elections will give voters a chance to elect new candidates all over the country. While polling can never always accurately predict the results of an election, it is nonetheless a useful method of election forecasting. In this case, it just so happened to be that the underdog came out on top.

Edition 01-February 2017

8

Remembering Pearl Harbor, entanglement with suspi75 Years Later foreign cion, and were loath to relinquish

by Krishna Hammond

DECEMBER 7, 201675 years ago, without warning, 2,403 Americans were killed in a surprise attack. Mothers, fathers, friends and neighbors- a horrified nation absorbed the news of their passing on every television screen and newspaper headline in the country. The attack on Pearl Harbor is now distant enough in our history that very few people who lived with that day seared into their minds remain. That only increases the urgency with which we commemorate their passing, and the potential that was lost that day, in that community. To allow that moment in time to become merely a footnote in history would be a disservice. It was not simply the prelude to American involvement in the world on a scale we had never imagined- it was an abrupt end to the aspirations, ambitions, and adventures of 2,403 individuals. In the days immediately following December 7th, 1941, the nation was left to piece back together not just the community surrounding Naval Station Pearl Harbor, but its conception of the world as they knew it. For more than a century, America had been consumed almost exclusively with the questions of a single hemisphere. The United States had not been threatened with an attack on the mainland since the War of 1812, and the intellectual landscape of the country fit this isolation. America’s citizens were only just beginning to glimpse the end of the Great Depression, and could scarcely remember a time before it. The generation that fought to end the Great War now viewed

the dream of peace. But as smoke rose from the wreckage of buildings pulverized and battleships sunk beneath the waves, they were violently awoken from this dream.

America, they realized, was not an island.

Today, we live in the shadow of similar upheavals in our conception of the world. 9/11 served as a painful revelation of the instability and extremism bubbling beneath the surface of the world as we knew it. The Great Recession uncovered the fragility of the global economic order, showcasing widespread corporate malfeasance, the weakness of regulatory systems worldwide, and the corrupt relationships that intertwined financial and political systems. The Arab Spring, as a direct result, destabilized entire political systems within the Middle East.The devastating results of the Spring in Syria, in turn destabilized Europe with a deluge of refugees fleeing a destructive and seemingly interminable conflict.

The threats our forebears faced were wildly different in specifics. In terms of technology, culture, and even the environment, our world was very different, and the collected stories of that era could fill several libraries. But in terms of generalities- the connections underlying our histories, the threads and narratives we rely on to make sense of a chaotic world, there are still some commonalities in the challenges we face. In a word, the underlying root of the extremism that has created the conditions for our shared struggle is instability. Instability manifests itself in a variety of forms- economic, technological, and environmental- and is the slow rot that Edition 01-February 2017

is threatening the dream of peace we all share.

Both we and our forebears endured a truly great- in the most terrible sense of the word- economic upheaval. Economic crashes are not the same as natural disasters or acts of terror-they do not end life- but they provide different kinds of death, and different kinds of wounds on the hearts of people. Wealth- even what little the working and middle classes hadevaporates. And with that wealth go dreams and aspirations. People become more bitter and more frightened. People trust one another less and less. People trust the world itself less and less. Then and now, people take refuge in lashing out, their decency blotted out by desperation. This economic instability is the silent killer, then and now, that creeps into nations and eats away at their core.

We can see this across the Middle East. The Arab Spring can be read as many things- spontaneous outpourings of democratic sentiment, blowback from the Cold War-era pseudo-stability of the region- but it can most accurately be understood as the collapse of existing orders, caused in turn by the collapse of the economy. In places like Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia, the existing regimes were able to maintain control for as long as they did in part because they were able to provide stabilitya commodity often traded for liberty during desperate times. As this stability was shattered in the wake of global economic catastrophe, the dam burst. People will tolerate injustice that is systematic and predictable. When these systems give way to the unknown, even many moderates stand up in resistance.

This can also be read as the root of much of the surge of Islamist extremism as well. As secular autocracies and illiberal secular democracies crumble, 9

people turn towards traditional systems (and the dysfunction forgotten amidst nostalgia) in order to restore trust. In America, this has been seen in the rise of right-wing populism what can be charitably described as a reactionary movement based on restoring the American dream through nativism, protectionism, and a dash of crony capitalism.

In Europe, far-right parties gain traction and strike worrying parallels to the fascist movements of the 1930s. The Middle East is no different in its experience.

Thus, extremist and illiberal movements around the globe only stand to strengthen themselves. The unfortunate problem with such movements is that they exacerbate the problems they set out to solve- and thus invite ever-more extreme ideologies to push them aside. It is likely, then, that groups like ISIS, with sophisticated planning, organized strategies, and dangerously persistent ambitions, will only continue to fulfill a latent desire to reject the existing order of the world, to restore an imagined past.

Worse still, it is likely that because of the rise of hardline nationalists, cooperation between nations will only continue to erode, providing a fertile breeding ground for conflict- only serving to destabilize the world even further.

Instability in terms of technology is perhaps even more subtle. Part of the struggle for Americans to contextualize Pearl Harbor was cultural memory and understanding. Airplanes were steadily becoming a greater part of daily life, but the vast majority of Americans had not yet fully come to grasp the extent to which the ubiquity of air travel would shrink the world. The world had never been linked so intimately that such an air campaign could be carried out over such a colossal distance. It is difficult to imagine

Š Jonathan Simcoe

what has never happened before, and more difficult still to recognize that one sits squarely at the beginning of a revolution, rather than at its apex.

It is difficult to argue that technological progression has not similarly altered our world faster than we can contextualize it. Social media and personal computing capacity has allowed us to simultaneously increase our levels of interpersonal connection and isolate ourselves into insulated bubbles of information. Digitization and more sophisticated mechanization has driven the gradual decline of manufacturing jobs. And more still remains on the horizon- automated cars and sophisticated robotics are now becoming an everpresent reality, threatening what jobs remain.

And, most acutely in terms of foreign policy, technology has blurred the lines of what constitutes foreign intervention and attack. The foundation of much of the existing order rests on deterrence- the principle of measured, clearly communicated responses to attacks that are proportionate and do not escalate into larger conflict. How can this persist in an Edition 01-February 2017

era in which the Russian government can hack into a political party’s servers to influence an election? What is the proportional response? Is there one? Our conception this threat is still mis-formed, still gestating. But it will not wait for us to adapt. Even our interventions with tools like StuxNet prove the destructive capability of hacking and cyberattack. The task of adaptation and preparation is immense but necessary- we cannot in good conscience allow the mother of our efforts to be a dark reflection of the tragedies of the past.

This task of adaptation and mitigation is not confined to merely adapting to the deluge of new technology- but to the ongoing crisis that is climate change.

Thanks to the historic efforts of the Obama administration and the international community at COP21 and other such gatherings, the international community has made significant progress towards the goal of capping temperature increases at 2 degrees, with 3 full years of flat emissions. Yet, here too the specter of instability looms. Climate instability has already lead to drought in California 10

and India, with many Indian farmers resorting to hunger strikes and threats of suicide in protest of the crisis. Water shortages are ongoing, and the Department of Defense in 2010 reported climate change remains a dire national security threat- in part because of the possibility of the outbreak of wars for newly scarce resources like food and water. Changes in underwater currents and hurricane seasons threaten the livelihoods of fishermen and coastal communities which provide vita economic activity for nations.

However, we can be heartened by the example of our forebears. In response to a fractured world, an effort spanning generations began to attack the sources of instability around the world.

This began first with the war effort, and then with the project of rebuilding Europe through immense investment and reconstruction efforts. America lead the world in rebuilding the world order. The European continent transitioned from being perpetually locked in a battle of great powers into first a polarized split between East and West, before (with the dissolution of the USSR) evolving into a pluralistic community that has enjoyed relative stability and prosperity. Simultaneously, radical hate groups experienced unprecedented opposition. Efforts by activists succeeded in delegitimizing them in the eyes of the general public, and governments began to take harder stances on stamping out violent extremism in their jurisdictions after witnessing the horror and havoc they could wreak.

We can take similar efforts today. Instead of embarking upon large scale war efforts, however, we can dramatically overhaul our economy in different way. We can continue and intensify the struggle to convert our economy to a clean energy economy. By dramatically

increasing our clean energy production domestically and cooperating with research and investment into its investment abroad we can create a global revolution- one that is built upon sustainable foundations that will create wealth for generations. In time we can grind the acceleration of climate change to a halt, all the while helping developing nations to grow responsibly. We can encourage technological progress while advocating for a comprehensive economic safety net for workers worldwide to mitigate the effect which automation will have upon vulnerable workers and communities. We can expand education and infrastructure programs domestically and abroad through the UN and international partnerships to help build resilience and wealth worldwide. And finally, we can provide humanitarian aid to refugees around the world, and commit to building global norms and legal systems strong enough to disempower extremists and radical groups.

Yet, for all our ambitions and hope for the future, it remains essential to dedicate a place in our heart to all those whose lives were extinguished by violence and extremism. The anniversary of Pearl Harbor- a day that will forever live in infamy- is a time for solemn remembrance and reflection. It is important to honor the lost, as well as those who remained, and helped to forge an era of prosperity unparalleled in our history. Seek out those who remember. Learn from their stories. Share in both the heartbreak and the triumph.

The process of remembrance is much like the process of progress.

It is lighting a torch in our hearts, with the fire that was kindled by those who came before, and safeguarding it, for those who come after us.

Edition 01-February 2017

11

The Sentiment for Change

by Robert Zappa, Jr. As I sat on the train headed to Vienna, I knew the conversation would eventually settle on politics.

I sat across from an old friend who had graciously agreed to show my fiancé and me around.

She had finished college and emigrated to Austria at a time when many college educated Americans were forced to move home, and she never looked back. For her, as for many living in Europe, progressive ideals are the norm. Universal healthcare, ostensibly free universities, public parks and works, a high standard of living on a lower income, these are all things she found in her new home.

She had decided that she no longer wanted to pursue an MBA, and instead wanted to be a psychologist. And so it was. No need to worry about incurring another $80,000 in debt. No need to stress about continuing a career that she knew would leave her unhappy.

No, my friend made a decision that she felt was best, a decision that could help her become a healthy and productive member of society, a decision that leaves many Americans in economic turmoil.

That is not to say she took the decision to change her path in life lightly. It is to say that she was able to make a decision at all. Most of us in the States do not have the luxury of a choice, or wouldn’t consider it, even if we knew it would make us happier. She was able to positively change course in her life without having to worry about paying the bills on time and working 40 hours a week and studying for her new career. She was able to do this, to focus on her future, because of strong progressive ideals and the societal benefits that rise from strong progressive ideals.

And yet, despite the palpable benefits listed above, the menace of right-wing populism has taken advantage of a growing sentiment for change brewing around the world, using it to push politics in tranquil little Austria to the right.

I had been living and working in Spain for eight months when I made the trip to Austria. It was part of a European tour my fiancé and I were taking before we moved back home to Chicago. We visited a handful of countries on this trip. Some separated by mountains and others by seas. No two countries spoke the same language. But everywhere we went we found a word that was universally spoken — Trump. Friends, acquaintances, strangers, it truly didn’t matter. They wanted to know how Trump’s ascent could happen, why it was happening, and whether or not our country would be okay. And yet, as I sat across from my friend on the train headed to Vienna, I was hesitant to even bring up Donald Trump.

Austria has had a sordid history with right-wing populism and I was afraid to discuss the growing presence of right-wing populism in Austria because we were on a train, in public. Many people in Europe speak English, especially if you say something that upsets them. And I hate being the Ugly American. Regardless, I mustered the courage and asked my friend about the recent elections results in Austria, about how a right-wing party could almost seize control of Austria. How could a nation that gave birth to history’s greatest monster flirt with right-wing populism and intolerance again? But before she could answer, I remembered that Spain and England already had.

Edition 01-February 2017

Following the financial crisis of 2008, Spain was reeling. A conservative party swept in, austerity measures were passed, and yet the people of Spain still suffered. The conservative party did little to ease unemployment as it hovered above 20% nationwide and near 50% for youth. Time passed, more misguided measures were passed, people longed for the past, and yet the people of Spain suffered. On May 15 2011, more than six million Spaniards clamoring for relief staged protests nationwide. It was then that the seeds for the Podemos Party were laid. Podemos was officially founded in early 2014. It was a forceful response to the burdens placed on the shoulders of those who have suffered the most. They are quickly becoming the voice of millennials in Spain and their rise is just beginning. Originally comprised of a patchwork of various Spanish parties from the Left, Podemos has ascended quickly.

Out of left field, as us Yanks would put it. Two years following its inception, Podemos had risen to the third largest party in Spain, controlling 21% of congressional seats in the 2015 general elections.

As quickly as the right hand may rise, so too may the left.

Our friends across the pond, those with whom we share a language and some kindred blood, find themselves with both hands raised. The leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, frequently draws comparisons to Bernie Sanders. Though Brexit has felt like the blind leading the blind (looking at you Boris Johnson and Theresa May), there is a slight comfort knowing Jeremy Corbyn is fighting for the Left. If Podemos represents how a movement can work from the outside, Jeremy Corbyn represents how a movement can work from within. Corbyn leads a Labour Party that, much like the Democrats under 12

Bill Clinton, drifted towards the center and abandoned progressive cornerstones as a 90’s response to the Reagan/Thatcher era.

Corbyn, however, refused to follow the party line when they shifted to the center. He often sat in a lonely corner railing against the U.K.’s entanglement in foreign wars, challenging the deterioration of labor laws in favor of free trade agreements, fighting for LGBT rights, and pushing for green initiatives. He is a 30 year member of Parliament that has consistently been on the right side of issues, often decades ahead of his time.

He is also beloved by millennials and has connected with their strong sense of injustices in the world. The similarities between Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are striking. It is almost as if two men, separated by an ocean, were able to tap into the same vein. Their messages have been consistent for decades, and now the sentiment for change has finally caught up. And if Jeremy Corbyn has shown us one thing, it’s that change within a system is possible. However, that doesn’t mean there won’t be kicking and screaming along the way. Mr. Corbyn has been ridiculed consistently by a hostile press; members of his party tried to remove him from power — an effort that proved foolish, in part, due to a deep and powerful base of young and active believers. It is this young and active base that will allow Jeremy Corbyn to make a progressive stand in the wake of Brexit. And a progressive stand is possible here

©Adrien Ledoux

in the States, too. Forget possible, a progressive response to Donald Trump seems inevitable if the Democratic Party is to survive. In a country where Senator Sanders is viewed favorably by 82% of millennial Democrats, changes can be made. In a country where people felt so cheated by a system they chose to elect a reality T.V. star, changes must be made. In a country that is fed-up with short term, short sighted, inside-the-box thinking, changes will be made.

We can and must find our voice to challenge President-elect Trump, or we will bear what is sure to be a disaster for progressive America and the Democrats.

As I sat on the train headed to Vienna, deep down I knew the answer to the question I was asking. I knew how a right-wing party in Austria, or Duterte in the Philippines, or Donald Trump in the United States, could take power — a strong belief that things must change mixed with suffering and uncertainty. This sentiment for change has vaulted all around the globe. From the United States to the Philippines to Brazil to Spain and England, and yes even Edition 01-February 2017

in the birthplace of history’s greatest monster, this sentiment is growing.

But the manifestation can go either way, and we are the determiners. It can manifest itself through racism, xenophobia, intolerance, and economic warfare. But, if our political institutions can rise to answer the call, we can respond with tolerance, fortitude, opportunity, and economic relief. Donald Trump seized upon this sentiment. That things must change. That we are still suffering economically. That we can have, and deserve, a better future.

But we can seize it back. We too have the means to answer the call.

If we rally around our progressive leaders, give them the support they need, fight for every inch of freedom, and stay unrelenting, there is not a reason in the world why we wouldn’t be able to put the sentiment for change to good use. The train has just pulled into the station.

13

Principles of a Modern Progressive Movement

by Sammy Kayes “I’m not a liberal, I’m a progressive,” Bernie Sanders told a high school student in 2003 as he spoke to a classroom about the importance of civic engagement.

“There’s a difference.”

Leading up to his presidential run twelve years later, Senator Sanders would say to the Progressive Democrats of America what he has said countless times in the past: “I have never accepted this nonsense about red states and blue states — in every state of the country there are people who are struggling, and they are on our side. Don’t accept that division. We are the vast majority of people.”

We may not agree on everything, but we have many common interests as human beings and as Americans. “Most people want big money out of politics,” as Sanders often says. “Most Americans do believe that healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and want a national healthcare program.” “The majority of Americans believe that the minimum wage is not enough.”

The implication of all this is clear: the American government has, over the decades, failed to represent the American people.

This is more than just partisan grumbling — a 2014 study by researchers from Princeton and-

Northwestern Universities concluded that the United States is not a democracy, but an oligarchy.

Sanders is one of the few politicians to publicly recognize this truth.

“I am worried that we are moving toward an oligarchic form of society,” he says, “in which a handful of people are not satisfied with controlling most of the wealth. They want to control the government, too.” ©Gage Skidmore/ CC BY-SA 2.0

The concentration of immense political power in the hands of a wealthy few is not a new phenomenon in American history.

However, this is not the first time that millions of Americans have chosen to resist oligarchy in favor of a government of, by, and for the people.

A history of fighting back In the late nineteenth century, wealth inequality in the GildEdition 01-February 2017

ed Age was reaching critical mass as the divide grew between the haves and have-nots. Contributing to this social tipping point were ruthless business practices, political corruption, and a fundamental lack of human compassion on the part of the upper class. In response, regular people of all kinds came together to fight for fairer wages, shorter workdays, and better working conditions. For the first time, a formal progressive movement had begun to manifest itself in American politics. But progressive ideals, which are in essence the idea of a “people’s government,” are as old as the nation itself.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that “banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies”, already a precursor to the progressives’ fight against concentrated power within the banks.

Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States and leader of his Republican Party, articulated in his Gettysburg Address the fundamental notion of government “of, by, and for the people.”

Teddy Roosevelt proclaimed that “it is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said that “Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob”. He proposed a “sec14

ond Bill of Rights” which included the right to medical care, sustainable employment, and quality education.

President Eisenhower, a Republican and former military general, warned that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”.

Famed civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. agreed with these former presidents’ notions of fighting inequality. “Why are there forty million poor people in America?” he asked. Since “the system will not change the rules,” King followed, we are going to have to “change the system.”

These similar patterns and principles repeated themselves throughout the history of not just progressive politics, and civil rights movements, but all of American history.

Bernie Sanders’ presidential run in 2016, and all the movements that coalesced around it, have been another part of this long string of American ideals.

But more than being a part of the past, this new progressive movement encapsulates what progressives must fight for into the future.

Principles of a modern progressive movement A truly progressive movement is against corruption.

It is fundamentally opposed to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.

A truly progressive movement is against oppression.

Progressive movements have always fought, and must continue to fight, for the vulnerable and underprivileged — workers, the sick and powerless, and every other

minority group that is marginalized by existing power structures.

A truly progressive movement is against discrimination. We are an egalitarian movement, with a belief in the fundamental equality of human beings.

Discrimination is a form of oppression, and a movement cannot be egalitarian and against oppression while tolerating discrimination.

A truly progressive movement is against privatization of the public sphere. We must be fundamentally opposed to the mass privatization of goods and services that should remain public: healthcare, education, and other necessities for a decent life.

A truly progressive movement is for democracy.

Democracy is more than voting at the ballot box. Democracy is the constant pursuit of civic engagement and public involvement in the direction of society. Without democracy, the fundamentally American principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unattainable.

The progressive movement is for transparency. If we the people do not know what is happening in the halls of power — whether in the Capitol building, the statehouse, or the corporate boardroom — we cannot hold power accountable.

The progressive movement is thus for accountability of those in power. In the modern era, this includes the fight to get big money out of the political process and to reform the electoral system so that we can elect those who are best fit to serve the people, not simply the powerful.

A truly progressive movement is for freedom of the press, also known as “the fourth estate.” The purpose of the press is to combine transparency, accountability, and education. Without a free and responsible media, Edition 01-February 2017

we will never be able to inform the public or hold power accountable.

The progressive movement is for non-violence. While there are examples in the past of violence in progressive movements, these were aberrations and desperate last resorts, not fundamental strategies of the movement.

The progressive movement is for authenticity and integrity. Many opponents have denounced progressives as “idealists”. However, it is not idealistic to seek justice for all Americans in a system that was supposed to ensure this justice in the first place.

If cynics had their way, no progress would ever have been achieved. Those who seek to trivialize the progressive movement would do well to remember that this nation was not founded through incrementalist reforms, but through radical, revolutionary change.

Rather than being mere idealists, we fight in accordance to our principles, and for what is possible if we stand together.

Finally, the progressive movement is for solidarity, which is implied in “we the people” and democracy itself. Agreeing on every single thing is beside the point, and will never happen in its totality. Solidarity means that most of our interests as human beings are shared interests, and progress is not possible if we do not stand together on the issues that matter.

Progress is a struggle “The fight for justice is not a concept we hear a lot about in politics anymore. Justice — that is what we should be fighting for.”

(Senator Bernie Sanders) Near the end of his primary campaign, Senator Sanders began to coalesce his message 15

around the idea of justice. “Our vision of social justice, economic justice, racial justice and environmental justice must be the future of America,” Bernie Sanders told a rally in Santa Monica, California.

And he said it many times before and after. Following Sanders’ primary loss, this message of justice would stick. Many others would repeat it as their mission.

It is crucial that we never stop repeating it. The notion of justice is key to the development of our society, and it resonates with all of us. It is what progressive movements have always been fighting for, and it is what “we the people” have always struggled for.

Representing its ideal will carry us forward and bring many more to our ranks.

We’re in this together The most significant thing we all have in common is that we are human beings. At a Democratic debate in 2016, Bernie Sanders was asked about his religious beliefs. In response, he described an overall philosophy: “Here’s what I’ve always believed. Every great religion in the world… essentially comes down to do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. And when you hurt, I hurt.”

As humans, we strive to preserve our basic rights and live up to our boundless potential.

That is the meaning of human progress. It is the goal of progressives to look beyond the political spectrum and welcome all those who believe in these principles and fight for them. Whether one is traditionally conservative, left, or centrist is secondary to our collective willingness to care for each other and create a better world for all of us. This is the mission of progressives going forward, and these principles will guide us along the way.

©Caleb Woods

Edition 01-February 2017

16

where middle-aged whites had higher mortality rates, while Mario Rubio did the exact opposite and — even after controlling for race, Ted Cruz showed no correlation. education, age, sex, The reason for focusing income, marital status, immigraon middle-aged whites specifically

by Harpreet Chima tion, employment, and share of when looking at mortality rates This article was originally published on non-college educated whites — the comes from data showing that, Voices of the Revolution, a publicaprevalence of obesity, diabetes, since 1998, there has been an intion of The Political Revolution. heavy drinking, and lack of regular crease in their all-cause mortality physical activity most accounted rates. All other major groups in Since the conclusion of for Trump’s performance the United States and groups in the election, a startling pattern has compared to Mitt Romney. other developed countries have emerged showing that, seen an average of a 2% compared to Mitt Romdecline in mortality since ney’s presidential cam1998. According to a paper paign in 2012, Donald

by Anne Case and Angus Trump outperformed Deaton, this uptick can be most in counties with attributed to suicide, drug, the highest drug, alcoalcohol poisoning, and hol, and suicide mortalichronic liver disease and ty rates. Penn State socirrhosis. By 2011, poisonciologist Shannon ings had overtaken lung Monnat was one of the cancer as a cause of death first researchers to put in middle-age whites, with out data showing this suicide not far behind. correlation. Although Increases in morbidity, as Figure 1. Percentage of counties where Trump outperformed Romney, by region Trump outperformed shown in Figure 3, corRomney in nearly 80% roborate these findings. of counties countryThere was a statistically wide, his biggest gains significant decrease in the came in counties with percentage of middle-age above-median drug, alwhites reporting excellent cohol, and suicide moror very good health, with tality rates. corresponding increases in Monnat further fair or poor reports and broke this data down by reports of physical pain. dividing mortality rate This data was corinto quartiles. She found roborated by a recent that the above relationNCHS Data Brief released ship was more proby the Centers for Disease nounced in the industriControl and Prevention Figure 2.

Correlations between mortality rates for middle-aged whites al Midwest and New which revealed that for the and Republican Primary Candidates in Iowa England for counties with the first time since 1993, the life exhighest mortality rates and less so pectancy for Americans overall This correlation was seen in counties with lower mortality declined in 2015, dropping from earlier by Jeff Guo, a reporter for rates. For example, President 78.9 years in 2014 to 78.8 years.

The Washington Post. After the Obama won Coos County, New Regardless of whether this is part Iowa Republican Primary, Guo Hampshire by 20 points in both of a longer-term trend, it is troulooked at the correlation between 2008 and 2012. The same county, bling to see when other developed mortality rates for middle-aged which has the highest death rate countries have not seen a similar whites and support for Ted Cruz, from drugs, alcohol, and suicide in downturn. David Weir, director of Donald Trump, and Marco Rubio. all of New England now went to the health and retirement study at Guo’s data showed that in Iowa, Donald Trump by nearly 10 the Institute for Social Research at Trump did better in counties points. The Economist also found the University of Michigan, stated,

The Pain Behind Trump’s Victory

Edition 01-February 2017

17

“There’s just this acrosscommunities have conthe-board phenomenon tinued to show varying of not doing very well in levels of improvement, the United States.” The premature death rates CDC also found that have worsened in rural death rates rose most for counties. white men, white women, A discussion on and black men, along with increasing mortality rates increases in unintentional cannot be completed injuries, which include without talking about the drug and alcohol overopioid and heroin epidoses. demic that is driving most The increase in of the drug overdoses Figure 3. Changes in morbidity for middle aged whites mortality rate does not and drug-related diseases apply equally to all middiscussed above. Over the dle-aged past decade, nearly whites. International data 400,000 Americans have has already shown that been killed for drug relatrural areas are at a disaded reasons. Nearly vantage versus urban ar400,000 more have comeas when it comes to mitted suicide, and health and mortality. Lim250,000 have died from ited services, a lack of liver disease and other physicians, and difficulty alcohol-related illnesses. in traveling to urban In 2015, more people health centers all work died from heroin-related together against individucauses than from gun als living in rural areas. homicides. As recently as Figure 4. Percent of county characteristics comparing metropolitan areas Furthermore, people liv2007, gun homicides had with remote rural areas ing in areas without easy outnumbered heroin access to primary health deaths by more than 5 to skills or means to migrate for socare providers are more likely to 1. cial and economic opportunities.” be hospitalized than those with During this time, annual These communities, usually commore access. These same chalsales of OxyContin, which is the posed of uneducated and lowlenges have been found in the most widely prescribed narcotic, skilled individuals, face having to United States; Shannon Monnat went from $45 million in 1996 to deal with healthcare issues without and Camille Pickett found that $3.1 billion by 2010. Sam access to health-promoting inforindividuals living in remote rural Quinones, author of In Dreammation and knowledge of healthcounties have the greatest chance land: The True Tale of America’s promoting behaviors. This is in of reporting poor/fair health. As Opiate Epidemic, explained how stark contrast to individuals in seen in Figure 4, rural counties are Purdue Pharma, the company that metropolitan areas who are more significantly more likely to have makes OxyContin, aggressively likely to have health insurance, are persistent poverty, high unemmarketed its drug to areas in with more likely to exercise, and are ployment, and population loss. In high populations of blue-collar more likely to have access valuable addition to these disadvantages, workers who are greatest at risk health care information. The these communities often lack the for work-related back pain and County Health Ranking and economic or political power to other injuries. But in 2007, the Roadmap program, which helps demand investments in healthcare company and three of its top excommunities identify and impleservices from their local governecutives plead guilty in federal ment solutions that make it easier ments. court to charges that they misled for communities to be healthier, Monnat and Pickett also regulators, physicians, and patients found that rural counties have the state that small rural populations about OxyContin’s addictive nahighest rates of premature death contain “disproportionately ‘leftture and potential for abuse.

— lagging behind more urban behind’ populations without the Unfortunately, by that counties. In fact, while other time, 5.2 million Americans were Edition 01-February 2017

18

already abusing the drug. And while efforts to reduce the number of prescriptions of OxyContin have been successful, the gap has been filled by heroin, which produces the same high and is just as addictive. Purdue Pharma had done a good job at targeting bluecollar workers for their drug. In the 1960s, it was predominantly young men in urban areas who would abuse heroin. However, a 2014 study found that more recent users were predominantly older, white, men and women living in more rural areas, who were first introduced to opioids through prescription drugs before they moved onto heroin.

All of this data goes to show that the fear and uncertainty that many feel after Trump’s victory is the same fear and uncertainty that was felt by some of those that voted for him. I started this article by stating that a “startling pattern has emerged.” For a pattern that has been nearly 40 years in the making, it should not have come to us as a surprise. But this is what occurs when we continue to live alone, in our own bubbles. We must realize that our well-being and our future is connected to the well-being and future of all Americans, regardless of who they voted for.

Markos Zúniga, founder of the Daily Kos blog, posted an article titled, “Be happy for coal miners losing their health insurance. They’re getting exactly what they voted for.” Even in our most difficult moments, we cannot afford to stoop so low. The path of hatred will paralyze our progress.

The path of bitterness will diminish our promise. But compassion and understanding has never hindered a movement. If we are to prevail, it will only be because we heard the voices of all our sisters and brothers. If Democrats had done more to acknowledge the pain felt by some middle-aged

Americans and offered to help them, our election may have had a different outcome. Only 10,000 votes made the difference in Michigan. As progressives, we cannot make the same mistake again. ©Kayle Kaupanger

Edition 01-February 2017

19

Here’s the Truth: There’s no such thing as “fake news”

by C. Fidalgo This article was originally published on Voices of the Revolution, a publication of The Political Revolution.

Over the last two years, the trend of growing distrust in the media has gained steam. As a wise man once said: “MSNBC is blue and to the left. CNN is red, white, and black, and in the middle. And Fox News is bright red and hollerin’, and on the right.” I personally avoid all three, because their bias, especially in the case of MSNBC and Fox, is so blatant that it’s embarrassing.

However, many seem to act as though these outlets are the Gospel word on reality. And if you were to put Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow in a room, I doubt you could get them to admit the sky is blue.

How did we even get here?

Didn’t the news just use to be… the news?

WHAT WAS THE NEWS? Many people have told this story, so I’ll make this short.

It’s the 1970s. TV News is an hour of facts: cold and boring facts.

People watch the news or read newspapers, listen to the facts, and then argue about what we should do. Back then, a reporter’s job was to report. Find the facts, tell the masses about them, and that’s it.

That was reporting.

But, that changed as soon as CNN started to run a 24/7 news cycle in the 1980s and later 9/11 doubled the viewership.

Once 9/11 was over, shareholders needed to maintain their black bottom line, and the entire day

couldn’t be the same hour of facts reported over and over. Instead, the dish needed spices, something to bring flavor to your “news viewing experience.” Solution?

Pundits.

WHAT’S A PUNDIT ANYWAY? Webster defines a pundit as this: “an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public.” I’m putting emphasis on one word for good reason, and that word is OPINIONS. Opinions are not facts. For instance, my daughter has an opinion that “I’m a little tea cup” is “short and scout,” despite the song being “short and stout.” Why is it an opinion? Because she’s adorably wrong, but this is a simple case.

So, how do we tell the difference between opinion and fact with more complicated stuff ?

Break down the sentence.

“I believe that it is raining frogs.” This sentence has two parts, a feeling and a fact. While the feeling, “I believe” whatever, might be true — you know, because you feel it and believe it — the fact is not. No matter what you believe, it’s not raining frogs.

How do I know this? I fact check by walking outside and looking at the world.

The problem with pundits, especially in the current climate, is they are all beliefs. Random experts, who sometimes aren’t even experts, spouting their OPINIONS first and foremost. But opinions about the world aren’t the same as the facts about the world.

Edition 01-February 2017

WHAT HAVE I BEEN WATCHING THEN? Simply put — CNN, Fox, MSNBC — these are dressed up op-eds on an all-day cycle. Most stories on these outlets are a teaspoon of fact to a pound of opinion. A screen split eight ways with eight feelings, one for each demographic, so people can feel like their opinions are valid, no matter how wrong their facts might be.

What’s worse? This kind of “news” is making people more uninformed, which goes against the whole spirit of true journalism.

But why is this happening?

Because the facts aren’t why people are watching; they are watching to feel RIGHT. The world is complicated and scary, and most people don’t have time to listen to all the details about every issue, so they instead seek out opinions similar to their own as a way to justify them. They look for cherrypicked narratives to back up their opinions and then use them as ammo on social media. People don’t want facts, so stations don’t sell facts. They sell feelings.

The whole problem? The facts aren’t opinions. The facts aren’t biased. The facts don’t care about feelings. The facts won’t make you feel better, but that’s not the point. News isn’t about feeling better — it’s about knowing the facts.

Opinions aren’t news. The news just is the news, the FACTS. Everything else is fluff.

SO…WHAT COULD I WATCH? The fact is that NPR and BBC listeners get more of the facts right than other listeners of other stations, and NPR is mostly funded by the people of the United States. Whereas CNN, MSNBC, or Fox need to make 20

shareholders happy, YOU are the shareholder for NPR. So here’s my one opinion as transparent as I can make it: I enjoy NPR. I listen every day. It’s not a shock jock yelling, 12 panels of feeling, and sometimes it’s a few hours of facts repeated most of the day, BUT it’s the closest thing to the facts out there. For me, that’s all I need to make my own opinions.

© Matt Popovich

Edition 01-February 2017

21

The Compassionate Case Against Private Charity

by Pranay Somayajula This is the transcript of a speech delivered on February 3rd, 2017 at Mounds Park Academy in St. Paul, Minnesota.

“It happens in the blink of an eye,” murmurs the narrator.

“Every five seconds, a child in poverty dies.” Across the screen are flashed haunting images of young children, staring piercingly towards the camera with sad, helpless eyes. The ad, like thousands more of its kind, ends with a desperate plea for compassionate viewers to join UNICEF and donate whatever they can to “stop another child dying”.

We live in a society where charity is almost a social expectation. Every day we’re bombarded with images of abject misery paired with requests for donations of five, ten, a hundred dollars.

Our worth as individuals, it appears, is ultimately defined by whether or not we’re willing to spare a dime or more for our brothers and sisters in need.

And while private charity may appear to be an unequivocally moral and desirable concept, the reality is much less optimistic. Rather than achieving its intended goal, private charity will only serve to bolster an oppressive system so long as it remains the only acceptable form of social provision. In

stead of relying on private charity, our society needs to move towards establishing a welfare state that allows the government to carry out its most basic duties.

Some argue that by opposing private charity in favor of a redistributive economic system that would take decades to put in place, I am allowing thousands of people between now and then to suffer. This, however, is categorically untrue. My condemnation of private charity is not a condemnation of philanthropy as a whole. It is, rather, a condemnation of a

system where private charity is viewed as the be-all and end-all of public welfare while economic inequality climbs to an all-time high and costs of living rise at a faster rate than real wages. By all means, people should continue to donate to charitable causes, so long as the organizations in question operate ethically. However, this philanthropy must be accompanied by the movement of society toward a future where private charity is unnecessary in the first place because Edition 01-February 2017

the government is actually doing its job. Unless we begin to take significant strides toward the establishment of a true welfare state, our society will continue to run around in circles and more people will slip into poverty as we scratch our heads and ask ourselves why charity and free-market capitalism aren’t solving the problem. Some, of course, may argue that the government already provides social welfare in the form of Medicare, SNAP, and other programs. Although these programs are a good start, they do not go nearly far enough in combating systemic oppression and injustice, as evidenced by the 45 million Americans who still live in poverty. We need radical change, and we need it now. © Ben Kerckx The first flaw in our society’s reliance on private charity is that nine times out of ten, it seeks to replace a necessary function that would otherwise be provided by the government. A privately-run homeless shelter, by taking in people and giving them a place to spend the night, serves a purpose that would otherwise be served by either a state-run shelter or public housing of some sort. Of course, private homeless shelters are not inherently bad institutions. The problem is that as long as our society leaves the provision of shelter for the homeless to private hands instead of delegating that responsibility to the state, we are allowing the government to shirk one of its most fundamental duties. A good government must ensure two things to its 22

citizens- security and well-being.

The former is provided by the country’s military and law enforcement. Unfortunately, our country has largely failed in its duty of providing the latter. When we leave the provision of well-being for the worst-off of our citizens to be the responsibility of private philanthropists, we undermine the integrity of our government by allowing it to lapse in one of its two key responsibilities. In a desperate attempt to justify this failure, the Right inevitably falls back on a dangerous double standard- social welfare is bad because it provides “handouts”, but at the same time, we don’t need social welfare because we can trust private charity to do the same thing.

The second flaw in the notion of private charity is that it fails to address the underlying inequities that cause the very problems it is designed to solve. When we donate to a food shelf, we never stop to ask why there is even a need for food shelves in a country where, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, $165 billion worth of food goes to waste and over 6 billion pounds of produce are unsold every year.

The answer to these questions and more is a simple- a capitalist system that prioritizes private profit over the well-being of our fellow people, regardless of the human cost. Private charity, as long as it remains the only major source of welfare, only serves to bolster this exploitation as it legitimizes the capitalist system which is the root cause of the problem. We tell ourselves that we can afford to cut taxes for the wealthy and give massive subsidies to corporations which avoid paying taxes and exploit their lowest-paid workers. As long as private charity is there to clean up the mess, the argument goes, we can continue to maintain the capitalist system. This, unfortunately, is a self-fulfilling prophe-

cy. Charitable contributions in the United States reached a record $373 billion in 2015, but this increase in charitable giving has been accompanied by the concentration of those donations among the top 1 percent as income inequality has surged to its highest level since 1928 and inflation eats away at the buying power of whatever increase wages have seen. However good their intentions, the actions of capitalist philanthropists have dire consequences. As Oscar Wilde writes, “Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised… so… the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good… Charity creates a multitude of sins.” What we need, rather than an over-reliance on private charity to mend the ills of capitalism, is a fundamental challenge to the capitalistic system itself that goes directly to the root of the problem and works to eradicate poverty rather than temporarily diminish it.

It’s easy for us, living in our bubble of privilege, to scoff at public provision of welfare and argue that anyone who can’t be helped by private charity is just too lazy to “get a job”. However, to do so would be to ignore the reality of life as a poor person in America- a life where not only are you unable to put food on the table or a roof over your head, but where you are told that your struggle isn’t a real one and that any hardships you face are your fault. I do not pretend to comprehend this struggle. I have never had to worry about where I’ll spend the next night, what I’ll eat for my next meal, or how I’ll pay for my next day of education. My only personal experience with this issue comes from my human compassion. The very least I can do is to admit my privilege and Edition 01-February 2017

understand that I am no more deserving of it than anybody else.

We as Americans, and especially as privileged Americans, have a duty to look out for those who weren’t lucky enough to be born into the same ZIP code as us. To do so, it’s crucial that we come to terms with the reality that relying on private charity as a means of solving all social ills will never work unless our society shifts to a system that actually addresses the root of the problem. The words “liberty and justice for all” have been said and written a thousand times before.

Now, it’s up to us to make them a reality.

23

A Fragile Democracy

by Michael Haskins A test of power On January 29th, Yonatan Zunger posted “Trial Balloon for a Coup?” to his Medium page.

The next day, Jake Fuentes posted “The Immigration Ban is a Headfake, and We’re Falling For It,” also to Medium.

Both authors are amateur writers posting to personal blogs, better known for their work in Silicon Valley than for their political punditry. Nonetheless, both posts struck a chord, picking up thousands of views and shares.

Both articles also received attention from national media outlets.

The two authors make the same argument: that the immigration executive order was intentionally designed to test the limits of the separation of powers.

Separation of powers is considered a hallmark of American democracy. When functioning properly, separation of powers ensures a system of checks and balances so that no branch of the federal government can concentrate power in its own hands. At the center of the separation of powers is an independent judiciary that evaluates the legality of actions taken by the executive and legislative branches.

In the case of the immigration executive order, judges around the country issued emergency stays to halt implementation and enforcement of the executive order, and a federal judge issued a nationwide halt on the executive order on February 3rd. As a result of the stay, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, which includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an-

nounced returns to standard procedures.

While this sequence of events seems to indicate that the separation of powers functioned as intended--a judicial check on executive overreach--the chaos and disarray that emerged from this process seem to indicate a worrisome undermining of the judiciary.

In fact, the first federal judge to issue an emergency stay of the executive order did so as early as Saturday, January 28th, less than twenty-four hours after Trump signed the order. In response, the Department of Homeland Security issued a press release that it would both enforce the executive order and comply with all court orders, an impossible feat given that the court order specifically contradicted key aspects of the executive order. Furthermore, multiple news outlets reported that Customs and Border Protection officials continued to uphold the executive order in defiance of the courts as late as Monday, January 30th, two days after the courts barred implementation of the executive order.

If the immigration order was a loyalty test designed to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security would side with the Trump administration or the courts, as our amateur Medium authors speculate, then the results are a mixed bag at best.

Constitutional hardball Salon posted a thoughtful yet troubling article on Trump’s executive order which argued that Trump may be playing a form of “constitutional hardball” designed to provoke a constitutional crisis.

According to the article, constitutional hardball “refers to political claims and practices that are technically constitutional but that violate existing norms and Edition 01-February 2017

assumptions.” In the case of the immigration executive order, the Trump administration appears to be playing constitutional hardball with judicial review.

Judicial review of the executive branch was established in 1803 by the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison. Although judicial review existed informally prior to 1803, Marbury v.

Madison formally entrusted that power to the court and defined our contemporary understanding of the separation of powers.

Since then, the courts have been defied at the state and local level a number of times, most infamously in response to school desegregation, but the federal government has, for the most part, upheld court orders and enforced the law when states and local municipalities have acted unconstitutionally.

Federal defiance of court orders, on the other hand, is especially worrisome given that federal defiance has the potential to spark constitutional crises. If a sitting President were to order his aides, Cabinet members, or other members of the executive branch to defy court orders, the court could hold anyone carrying out those orders in contempt. The court could then order the United States Marshals Service to compel members of the executive to obey the court order.

The US Marshals Service serves as the enforcement arm of the federal courts and are responsible for ensuring that the legislative and executive branches of government obey the judicial branch. However, the Marshals Service is also an agency within the Department of Justice, which is headed by the Attorney General, who is in turn appointed by the President. In other words, although U.S. Marshals ostensibly exist as the enforcement arm of the judicial branch, they are em24

ployed by the executive branch. By definition, they serve two masters.

A fragile democracy As a concept, democracy boasts two major advantages over other forms of government. First, democracy represents the interests of a larger share of the population than prior forms of government.

Second, democracy legitimizes the transfer of power from one set of rulers to the next, and that perception of legitimacy makes transfers of power more likely to be peaceful than the ruthless power politics of hereditary succession.

©Claire Anderson

However, for all its benefits, democracy is also very fragile.

It operates under the assumption that democratic rulers will respect the rule of law. When democratically elected officials stop obeying the rule of law, the separation of powers is designed to limit the potential damage. As the immigration executive order shows, however, even when the separation of powers works, it only works insofar as our officials place the rule of law above their own self-interests.

Fortunately, the Trump administration has recognized the court order. However, the Trump administration also gave us a very frightening glimpse of what might happen if they ever decided not to comply with the courts.

When acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to enforce the Trump administration’s executive order on immigration, she was fired by President Trump and replaced by an acting Attorney General who would be more supportive of the policy. Yates’s removal from office did occur under special circumstances given that she was an acting Attorney

to enforce their orders, but there is no guarantee that the Marshals would obey the courts over the Trump-appointed Attorney General, their boss at the the Department of Justice. Even if the Marshals did attempt to fulfill their duty to the courts, the Trump administration could use its power over the Department of Justice to obstruct them or even purge their ranks. This scenario would seem much more implausible had Trump not already fired an Attorney General who disagreed with him and purged another department, in this case the State Department, of its senior leadership.

At the end of the day, the full power and might of the presidency threatens to overwhelm the checks and balances of the other branches. That, right there, is the fragility at the heart of American democracy.

General, but suffice it to say that both Dana Boente, the new acting Attorney General, and Senator Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for the post, are unlikely to oppose the President in the first place. Even if an Attorney General did defy the president’s agenda, Trump’s actions regarding Sally Yates show that he would likely remove them.

If we play out a scenario in which Trump defies the courts, it is unclear how he could be stopped.

The courts could, of course, order the United States Marshals Service Edition 01-February 2017

25

Another Brick in the Wall

by Nick Ramacciato ©Caleb Rogers

It began as his signature campaign promise- building a wall and creating a stronger border between the United States and Mexico. President Donald Trump is already taking his first steps towards fulfilling this promise, but as with any presidential initiative, the inevitable question is raised: what obstacles does the President face on the long road to making his promise a reality?

President Trump began the first full week of his presidency by signing multiple executive orders regarding immigration and the construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall. One order strengthens border patrol forces, while the other increases the number of officers who are authorized to enforce immigration laws and deport undocumented immigrants. The orders also entail cutting off federal funding to sanctuary cities if they are not compliant with immigration enforcement laws. "Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its

borders," President Trump explained during a January 25th visit to the Department of Homeland Security. "We are going to save lives on both sides of the border."

According to CNN Money, there are already about 650 miles of fencing along the U.S.Mexico border, predominantly in populated areas, which leaves about 1,300 miles of open border.

Existing fencing is roughly 18 feet tall, at an average cost of of $3.9 million per mile. Walls, of course, are much costlier and more timeconsuming to construct than fences. In President Trump’s “60 Minutes” interview shortly after his election victory, he mentioned that he would accept a fence instead of a wall “for certain areas”, while adding a wall is “more appropriate” for other areas. This openness to building a fence signals a significant departure from Trump’s campaign rhetoric, which had before been unmoving in calling for a wall. Trump initially estimated that the project would cost around $8 billion, then later Edition 01-February 2017

said it could be “maybe $10 billion or $12 billion.” A comprehensive report conducted by Bernstein Research concluded the total cost would be at least $15 billion, and potentially as high as $25 billion.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the project would cost $15 billion. A hefty price tag like that can easily cover the cost of numerous social services that would have a far greater net benefit for all Americans than a costly, inefficient wall. President Trump discussed infrastructure during his campaign, and claimed that his vision is to “transform America’s crumbling infrastructure into a golden opportunity”. Fortunately for President Trump, this funding provides a valuable opportunity to do just that. Using the $15 billion fund, the government could build 7,500 miles of rural two lane roads. Alternatively, the budget could fund over 1,300 miles worth of six-lane highways while still leaving money to spare. With regards to education, $15 billion could fund the four-year tuition of 388,600 undergraduate students four years at an in-state university.

It could also fund the entire budget of the EPA for two years. It is clear to any reasonable American that these are all much better uses of $15 billion than building a wall.

Of course, regardless of whether the funding is used for social investment or constructing a wall, the question remains of who will pay. President Trump has promised multiple times that Mexico will fund the construction of a border wall, but the wording has changed over time. It should be noted that the current president of Mexico, Enrique Pena Nieto, and former president Vicente Fox, have repeatedly stated that Mexico will not pay for the wall (albeit with varying degrees of profanity).

In an exclusive interview conducted by ABC this past week, “World 26

News Tonight” anchor David Muir questioned him about this: “DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I want to start -- we're five days in.

And your campaign promises. I know today you plan on signing the order to build the wall.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Correct.

DAVID MUIR: Are you going to direct U.S. funds to pay for this wall? Will American taxpayers pay for the wall?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Ultimately, it'll come out of what's happening with Mexico. We're gonna be starting those negotiations relatively soon. And we will be in a form reimbursed by Mexico which I will say...

DAVID MUIR: So, they'll pay us back?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, absolutely, 100 percent.”

The following day, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that the President will request to impose a 20% tariff on Mexican imports, just hours after Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto announced that he was canceling his trip to meet with President Trump, which could potentially make their rocky relationship even worse. It is being reported that the POTUS had discussed the proposal with lawmakers, and that they are considering including it in upcoming tax reform legislation.

While Sean Spicer claims that “we can do $10 billion a year and easily pay for the wall just through that mechanism alone”, such a tax on goods from Mexico would lead to higher prices for items for consumers in the U.S. Back at the White House, Spicer then mentioned that the tax is just one of the options under consideration. This, as well as the previous “reimbursement” comments, implies that taxpayers will end up being affected one way or another.

Building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico will not solve crimes committed by immigrants, nor will it solve illegal immigration. Through August of 2016, there were more arrests made of Central Americans than Mexicans.

Central Americans, mostly women and children, are fleeing to the U.S. by the thousands in order to escape violence and poverty, and the immigration system in place isn’t capable of handling the influx, which is cited to be the real immigration issue- not Mexicans crossing the border. Building a wall is not going to solve anything.

What we need is the opening up of a pathway to citizenship so that people don’t have to resort to illegal methods to enter the United States in the first place.

The United States of America is and will always be a nation of immigrants. It is time for the government to realize that and move towards making it easier, not harder, to accept the diversity in people and cultures that has made America great.

Edition 01-February 2017

27

Russia and the Election: Unpacking the Hacking

by Krishna Hammond Any conversation about Donald Trump inevitably takes on the frenzied, surreal quality of the constant media firestorm that surrounds him. Criticism becomes slander to his supporters; praise becomes collusion to his many detractors. Nonetheless, Donald Trump now commands the world’s largest military, and leads (albeit reluctantly) the coalition of powers that resisted the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He holds the dubious distinction of being the first leader of said coalition who is also under suspicion of being aided, abetted, and blackmailed during the 2016 presidential campaign

by Vladimir Putin, the strongman leader of Russia. Not only is the integrity of our democracy threatened, our ability to litigate it in the public sphere is now in question as well. Our greatest weapon against these threats is the mortar that holds our society together–trust. Our trust in the idea of facts – not the “alternative facts” issued from the White House press office, nor dogma repeated until it rings in the same key as the truth, but facts formed by evidence forged in scrutiny and investigation – is key to the liberal democratic order Americans have worked hard to create. We deserve a presidency that is trusted – but before we trust, we must verify what is presented to us.

In this case, most of the information on the allegations of Russian interference comes from two primary sources – an Intelligence report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), edited for redacted classified material, and an allegedly leaked dossier from an anonymous former British intelligence officer released by Buzzfeed News.

The DNI report was built around three primary components – Context, Evidence, and Find-

in Kommersant: "[when] the Ministry of Defense was at war with Georgia...[RT was] waging an information war against the entire Western world.”), and, most powerfully, its attempts to influence the 2012 presidential election.

This campaign entailed the use of paid commenters and agitators on videos and articles, as well as a media blitz intended to delegitimize the election, stir dissent, and amplify suspicions of voter fraud.

In terms of evidence, the report builds on this context by defining the confidence scale used to determine judgements of likelihood, as well as laying out concrete events supporting the report’s conclusions. ©Ilya Pavlov

ings. In terms of context, the report gives a history of Russian attempts to subvert American democracy – the legal means through which a Kremlin-backed news agency was able to operate in the United States, the political sentiments of the leadership (Margarita Simonovna Simonyan, editor in chief of RT, who, among other shocking admissions, wrote Edition 01-February 2017

The report establishes significant motive for Putin himself to engage in a strategy to block Clinton, based on his public and private feud with her. It goes on to mention public condemnations of Hillary Clinton by Vladmir Putin.

Such condemnations include his claim that she was responsible for protests against his re-election in 2012, as well as his blame of the 28

United States for high-profile leaks connecting him to the controversial Panama Papers. The report also analyzes language issued by the Kremlin, noting the delicacy with which the Kremlin avoids praising Trump directly, as well as sources stating Putin preferred working with leaders with business interests that could be benefited by dealing with Russia. Similarly, networks of Pro-Kremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign called #DemocracyRIP for election night in an attempt to delegitimize a possible Clinton win.

This evidence, taken in connection with the context provided, is persuasive. Not only does Russia have a known propaganda agency (RT/RT America) with the stated goal of providing an “alternative worldview” (which bears haunting similarity to the idea of “alternative facts”), but there is a longstanding pattern of behavior on the part of the Russians attempting to influence or monitor American elections. In addition to the influence campaign in 2012 detailed in the context section, in 2014 Russian intelligence was detected attempting to access elements of “multiple state or local electoral boards.” Fortunately, the DHS found that the systems being observed were not related to vote tallying. That means that while Russians have influenced and closely monitored the election (even the elements not apparent to the public), they have not been successful in truly manipulating the voting process itself. In addition to this disclosure, there is significant, sophisticated, and plausibly deniable co-operation between each constituent piece of the puzzle: RT stated they were they were “the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and that they had received access to "new leaks of secret information."

Kremlin-linked actors began

openly supporting Trump partway through the primary, as did RT and Sputnik (a government funded radio outlet), specifically in “media aimed at English speaking audiences.” In addition, Russian intelligence sources accessed “US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies. In July 2015 Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.”

With this extensive provision of means, motive, and opportunity, the report ultimately concludes with high confidence that the Russian government ordered interference in the 2016 campaign with the intent to elect Donald Trump. What remains then is the so-called Buzzfeed Dossier, released on January 10 by popular American media site Buzzfeed. It is important to note that this dossier is entirely unsubstantiated, and therefore its claims must be treated as such.

The Buzzfeed dossier alleges, primarily: a) An effort by Putin to cultivate Trump as an asset with the intent to encourage “divisions in the Western alliance”. b) Trump has been offered “sweetener” business deals (read: bribes) but has refused, choosing instead to accept a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin.

This flow was supposedly gained through secret meetings through high level staffers such as Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen. c) Trump has been compromised through blackmail material in the form of images and video of sex acts performed by Trump in Russia.

Independent inquiries seem to point to the most probable source of the dossier being Christopher Steele, a former Edition 01-February 2017

British MI6 agent whom sources like John Sipher, a former CIA official, note as a reliable source of information on Russia. In addition, the sudden death of an exKGB chief and associate of Steele has been speculated by some to be connected in some way, either as retribution or a cover-up to the dossier. On the other hand, those who were familiar with his career characterized him as extremely “meticulous”- yet there are scattering of misspellings throughout the alleged dossier. Reported attempts to independently verify the information contained in the dossier were not met with success, and Steele has apparently gone underground with his family.

Further compromising the integrity of the report is the fact that Steele was reportedly working on commission for Glenn R. Simpson, formerly of Fusion GPS, a Washington-based firm that works on opposition research.

Bill Browder, the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act (which placed sanctions on Putin allies who were allegedly hiding money abroad) discussed the dossier’s creation on behalf of Fusion GPS during an interview with Slate’s Jacob Weisberg. It’s important to note the Magnitsky Act was established as a punitive measure in response to the torture and death of Sergei Magnitsky, who worked with Bill Browder to uncover widespread corruption and theft by the Putin regime. According to Browder, Simpson had been working not only to establish a dossier for opposition research against Trump, but to simultaneously cast doubt on the Magnitsky sanctions through offering journalists (false) reports that Magnitsky was actually a criminal. This whisper campaign was conducted using former press contacts accrued by Simpson while working for the Wall Street Journal- who then passed on the false claims to Browder for com29

ment while attempting to verify them. Browder also notes the Kremlin has continued to harass him through intermediaries for his part in embarrassing Putin and pushing for sanctions. If these allegations are true (it is worth noting that Browder’s sources on the issue of the comments made to the press were off the record), they cast significant doubt on the veracity of the Buzzfeed Dossier.

However, there is no doubt there is a wealth of information within this dossier that is likely to be true, even if the document itself is unsubstantiated and its commissioner is suspect.

In addition to much of the dossier echoing information from the DNI report, many of the allegations of Trump’s manipulation by the Kremlin are made more believable by the histories of his staff. Paul Manafort is an influential lobbyist who has worked throughout eastern Europe, and more specifically for Ukraine’s Russia-aligned President Yanukovych. Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page, in his role on the transition team, made statements suggesting possible sanctions relief for Russia.

Carter Page in particular has given public speeches on his opposition to United States foreign policy regarding Russia, many of them criticizing sanctions on Russia such as the Magnitsky Act. However, the kinds of anonymous sources cited by the dossier are only credible if do they do indeed exist, which is only possible if this is indeed a Christopher Steele dossier rather than a red herring.

In addition, these allegations are only reasonable if the conclusions were not doctored by Glenn R. Simpson or Russian collaborators.

Given the fact that none of this is substantiated, much less confirmed, the dossier cannot reasonably be accepted as the truth.

It is without a doubt that our democratic republic has been subverted- there is a extremely high probability that Putin influenced the US election, and that such an influence will be replicated. If Putin is allowed to continue this behavior, he will not only influence our elections, but those of the former Eastern bloc as he attempts to piece back together some semblance of the old Russian Empire. It now falls to Congress and the American public to push for further investigation and, if necessary, prosecution. While several committees have begun investigations into the issue, it is imperative to maintain political pressure to gain more leverage over a Congress that is heavily incentivized to bury this issue. It is already apparent that the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are interested in sweeping this whole affair under the rug. It is our responsibility to ensure they do not succeed. Now is the time to make your voice heard. Call your senators and representatives.

Demand the democracy you deserve.

Edition 01-February 2017

30

Edition 01-February 2017 ©Anthony Delanoix

31