1
Masthead Founder Hayden Suarez-Davis Editor in Chief Pranay Somayajula Managing Editor Dave Mahler Cover Design Nicholas Busman Education Correspondent Sammy Kayes Legal Correspondent Stephen Scapelliti Foreign Affairs Correspondent Krishna Hammond Political Correspondent Noah Karvelis Business Correspondent Kaleb Rogers Reporters Nick Ramacciato Joe Breslin, Jr. 
 Joe Breslin, Sr. 
 Cover: Derivative of image by Brandan W. Schulze
1
 
Contents 3 4 5 8 10 12 14 16 18
Letter from the Editor The Other American Dream From Marx to Trump: Labor’s Role in Revolution Publix: A Progressive Prototype I Should Have Voted for Donald Trump Finally, a Reason to Agree With Nancy Pelosi A New Socialism for the Trump Era Economic Power Drives Political Power Tonight in the South China Sea
2
Letter from the Editor We’re almost two months into Donald Trump’s presidency, and many of our worst fears about press freedom have already come true. Beyond simply referring to the press as the “enemy of the people”, President Trump has already taken concrete steps towards restricting freedom of the press in the United States. Actions such as the ban on respected media outlets that have been condemned by the Trump Administration as purveyors of “fake news”, coupled with preferential treatment for purveyors of actual fake news, have already begun to serve as inspiration for the attempts by at least one authoritarian regime to crack down on the press, and it is likely that more will follow. The attacks will keep coming. Members of more media outlets will be denied entry into the White House Press Briefing Room, and the list of publications decried by the president as “fake news” will continue to grow. The role of a free press in holding power accountable will only grow in importance, and teams of independent citizen journalists such as The Progressive Times will become more and more vital to providing the political revolution with rational, progressive analysis of the facts. Nevertheless, much like Elizabeth Warren, we will persist. Members of the ProgTimes team, along with every other member of the political revolution, will persist in standing up to the Trump Administration’s hateful agenda and making it clear that fear, bigotry, and authoritarianism have no place in our America. The team at The Progressive Times is dedicated to the tireless pursuit of this goal. We do so in the hopes that decades from now, people will look back at our political revolution and know that we did everything in our power to stop the forces of hate and fear at the gates. It is impossible to speak truth to power without finding power in the truth. For the sake of the movement, we must persist. And for the sake of the movement, we must resist.
Pranay Somayajula Editor in Chief
3
The Other American Dream
will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream”. The other American Dream, the true American Dream, is the dream of a better America. It is the dream of an America that does not determine the quality of your life or that of your children based on skin color, gender identity, or postal code. It is an America which does not allow innocent lives to be wantonly destroyed by the greed and recklessness of those at the top. It is one in which every person is given the opportunity to follow their own dream, not some predetermined notion of what that dream should be. This other American Dream is not one in which selfishness and cruelty are applauded and rewarded. This other American Dream is one in which man and woman, black and white, rich and poor alike can all come together as one America and revel in our shared humanity.
by Pranay Somayajula Let’s not deceive ourselves any longer — the American Dream as we know it is dead. The quintessential story of hard work taking someone from rags to riches is just that — a story. Born of naïveté and fallacy, this ill-fated delusion was delivered a fatal blow the first time an American died in poverty while another feasted on the profits of their toil. Though this dream now exists solely for privileged individuals who long ago lost touch with the harsh realities of what real life means for millions of Americans, our nation’s blind faith in the integrity of the American Dream remains a painful reminder of our society’s willingness to ignore the failures of existing power structures. Rather than the strong motivation for morally-achieved success that it was intended to be, the American Dream has become a fallback used by the ruling class to vindicate their ruthlessness and barbarism in their rise to the top of the social pecking order without any concern for those whom they crush along the way. By parroting the lie that true equality of opportunity does exist in today’s society, the modern aristocracy shifts the blame for their oppressive rule away from themselves and onto the victims of their greed. They fail to realize that “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” means nothing as long as our society allows individual privilege to give certain people a head start in life that others, who are no less deserving, don’t get. The American Dream as we know it has become an American nightmare, a perverted distortion of a Dream that once upon a time shone bright with hope and promise. However, the death of the American Dream as it is commonly understood does not mean the death of the American promise. Though it has been all but forgotten, there still exists, buried somewhere deep within the most hallowed realms of our nation’s great democracy, another American Dream. It is not a Dream wherein the surest path to the top is paved on the backs of everyone and everything in its path, but rather a Dream wherein our great nation makes good its commitment to the sacred promise that all people are created equal. It is a dream reflected in Abraham Lincoln’s promise to the American people of a “new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth”. This other American Dream is the dream that Martin Luther King, Jr. put forth when he looked out across a sea of faces of every shape, size, and color, each representing their own small part of the great American experiment, and boldly proclaimed that “we
©Scott Webb
It is often said that the United States of America is a nation unlike any other, and that this singular destiny means we are charged with setting an example for the rest of the world. This notion of American exceptionalism is one that has pervaded American thought for as long as America has existed, beginning with John Winthrop’s declaration that we must be a “City Upon a Hill”. However, we must do more than merely set an example. We must set the right example, an example that can only be achieved through the tireless pursuit of this other American Dream. The other American Dream is one of hope, and through leading with our actions we must spread that hope to the watchful eyes that are upon us. It is not enough to merely be a city upon a hill. If the American Dream is to be kept alive, the United States of America must become a candle in the night.
Edition 02-March 2017
4
From Marx to Trump: Labor’s to-work’ laws. These laws operate under the guise of being pro-worker and pro-business, but in reality, they Role in Revolution only seek to bolster corporate power and diminish by Noah Karvelis
Throughout the history of political thought, leftist revolutionary ideology has consistently placed a particular emphasis on the importance of an empowered working class. From the Marxist notion of the “proletarian revolution” to anarcho-syndicalist support for a free and powerful proletariat managing itself, the concept of a strong working class has long been viewed as central to a revolutionary society. In the view of many influential scholars from past movements (as well as modern thinkers such as Noam Chomsky), when a revolution lacks support from the working class, there is little hope for its success. This applies to modern society as well. It is crucial for us to understand that for any progressive revolution to take place, we must bolster the working class and allow it to function not only as the underpinning of the movement but as the locus of control and action as well. However, the realization that the working class is essential to a political revolution is not unique to the Left. It is also well-understood by those who oppose the revolution. Realizing the power of the proletariat, the ruling class (to borrow Marxist terms) has constantly attempted to extinguish the potential for a working-class revolution. As Noam Chomsky noted it in his book OCCUPY: Class War, Rebellion and Solidarity: “The case of labor is crucial, because it is the base of organization of any popular opposition to the rule of capital, and so it has to be dismantled.” As Chomsky relays in striking clarity, the political power of labor simply cannot be allowed from the point of view of the ruling class, who will consistently do everything they can to “dismantle” it. The history of popular movements is filled with examples of this organized opposition to organized labor, and the opposition continues unabated today in America, most notably in the form of ‘right-
what little strength the working class wields, by restricting the ability of unions to organize and bargain collectively. Along with defeating collective bargaining, employers can also petition to “oust an unwanted union” from the workplace. The establishment of right-to-work laws has been a major success for corporate America and has dealt a devastating blow to the working class.
©Joko Narimo
The shocking decline in union membership and power is symptomatic of the general instability and lack of power of the American working class. As Alan Greenspan infamously stated in a 1997 Congressional hearing, worker “insecurity” is one of the key architectural features of the United States’ economy. This insecurity is accomplished primarily through increasing already-long working hours, lowering wages, attacking unions, and fostering an economic climate that creates a constant state of uncertainty for the working class. Ultimately, these forces not only benefit the capitalist interests of the elites through establishing a weak working class and pitting its members against one another in a perpetual race to the bottom; they also create an extremely effective restraint upon the potential for democratic (and revolutionary) activity on the part of the working class. Take, for example, the average full-time worker in America, who, according to a recent Gallup poll,
Edition 02-March 2017
5
works nearly 46.7 hours weekly- nearly six full days. Compare this with Finnish workers who generally work between 30 and 34 hours a week. Or take the case of Italy, where employers can face fines for making employees work more than 40 hours a week. In the United States, home to some of the longest working days in the world, it is hard to imagine a typical worker having the time to critically analyze one’s position in society, let alone the time required to engage in meaningful, sustainable political action. Beyond this general lack of time, the workers are also severely limited by their financial stability. The average employee working at McDonald’s with five to eight years of experience earns only $9.15 per hour. This shockingly low wage actually puts McDonald’s slightly ahead of its competitors Burger King and Wendy’s, yet still far behind those attempting to pay a living wage. The consequences of long hours and low wages are tremendous: a completely unstable, insecure working class that has neither the time nor the resources to study, assess their position in society, or organize for change. Of course, there are many examples of corporations that do operate ethically and do refrain from exploiting the working class. Some corporations such as Publix Supermarkets have become employee-owned and operated with tremendous success, and others such as Starbucks have become dedicated to helping fight alongside their immigrant employees after the Trump travel ban was implemented. These are just two examples of some of the ways progressive corporations are re-evaluating their treatment of the working class. However, while we must laud the efforts of such companies, they are the exception rather than the rule. Many corporations, such as CKE Restaurants, pay staggeringly low wages, offer almost no job security, and exploit workers routinely. Take, for example, the practice of deliberately leaving employees underpaid so that they can benefit from taxpayer-funded assistance programs, as CEO Andrew Puzder pointed out in an interview with Fox News. Puzder’s CKE Restaurants is just one example of a corporation that intentionally pays its employees low wages and restricts their working hours so that it can benefit from the most labor for the lowest possible cost. Under such exploitation, the corporate employer is no longer responsible for offering any assistance to its employees, such as adequate health insurance or a living wage. Instead, this responsibility is thrown onto the backs of taxpayers by forcing workers to over-rely on publiclyfunded assistance programs such as SNAP. Unfortunately, unlike the more ethical practices of Starbucks or Publix, this type of exploitation is the norm for an overwhelming number of American corporations such
as McDonald’s where workers “pay $14 a week for a policy that won’t cover more than $2,000 in medical bills in a year”. Undoubtedly, the best place to turn to for support in such a situation is the American labor movement. In the early 20th century in America, we saw a significant push for workers’ rights that was led by organized labor unions. However, although the labor movement was strong, so was the opposition. Take, for example, the anti-labor propaganda that spread in the first “Red Scare” during the Boston Police Strike of 1919, or the use of violence in breaking the Homestead Strike. Through efforts such as these, the fire at the heart of the labor movement was all but extinguished in its earliest stages, and with it died any hope for a left-wing, working-class revolution, proving yet again that the power of the worker is necessary for a revolution to survive. These attacks upon labor did not end with the Red Scare. Today, politicians such as Scott Walker, who rose to national prominence for his union breaking in Wisconsin, remain fiercely anti-union. Through Walker’s success with the Right-to-Work campaign, statements claiming that “collective bargaining is not a right. It is an expensive entitlement” and his plan to “divide and conquer” unions show that this type of anti-labor sentiment is still alive and well in the United States. These types of statements and actions ultimately contribute to the common misconception that unions are greedy, corrupt, and counterproductive to the best interests of their members and the nation as a whole. As a result approval ratings of American unions have dropped nearly 20% and union membership is currently astonishingly low, with only 10% of all workers belonging to a union in 2010. Of those few who do belong to a union, many reside in one of the growing number of right-to-work states, where unions are stripped of any remnants of power. As Noam Chomsky pointed out in a 2014 speech: “That’s part of the business model… It’s a part of a corporate business model designed to reduce labor costs and to increase labor servility… They [corporations] want to keep costs down and make sure that labor is docile and obedient.” As we pick up where the labor movement left off and work towards a political revolution once again in America, we must be cognizant of this reality and the unique role the working class plays in any political revolution. This is especially pertinent given the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency. With the withdrawal of Andrew Puzder’s nomination, an important battle has certainly been won. Nonetheless, more challenges to the labor movement and to the revolution are waiting just around the corner. With at least one Supreme Court nominee, two new appointees to the
Edition 02-March 2017
6
National Labor Relations Board, and the potential increase in the number of Right to Work states, the Trump Administration and its cabinet of billionaires have the power to deliver a devastating blow to the already-enfeebled American labor movement. In the face of this, we must become more resolute than ever in our dedication to the fight for a living wage, affordable education, and a restructured tax system which benefits the working and middle classes. Without the empowerment of the working class and of organized labor, any revolution is destined from the outset for failure. In these early days of the Trump Era, we must continue our fight and bolster the working class as we strive towards a progressive political revolution. By doing so, we will move our revolution ever closer to imminent success. ŠJason Blackeye
Edition 02-March 2017
7
Publix: A Progressive Prototype
vate company in the US, has occupied a spot in Fortune Magazine’s “Top 100 Best Companies to Work For” for nearly 20 years, and is currently ranked #3 by Indeed.com for job security according to the company website. As of 2009, Publix is one of the few companies in America to operate over 1,000 stores, as it has by Kaleb Rogers expanded throughout the Southeast and most recently A Ramshackle American Dream to Virginia. But the true luster of Publix exists neither in The American Dream, as coined by James its market cap nor in its breadth across the Atlantic Truslow Adams in The Epic of America, is “that coast. Rather, the company’s prestige exists in the dream of a land in which life should be better and minds of its employees. As mentioned above, Publix is richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for a privately held company, with stock purchases only each according to ability or achievement.” The term is available to current and previous employees. As reinextricably linked to American exceptionalism: the ported by Forbes Magazine, the employees of the idea that the United States of America is unique from company maintain the controlling ownership stake of other nations in that its citizens are bound not by cul80% and receive 8.5% of their pay in public stock after ture, origin, or race, but by ideas. The pursuit of hapworking a total of 1,000 hours and one full year of piness represents one of those ideas, and embedded in employment. that pursuit is the prospect of bettering oneself Moreover, Publix offers attractive employee through social mobility. benefit programs including tuition reimbursement for Social mobility seems to be evaporating from undergraduate degrees, individual courses, and techniAmerican culture. The poor tend to stay poor; the rich cal programs. All employees are eligible after 6 months tend to stay ©Josh Hallet/Flickr/CC-BY-SA-2.0 of employment of consisrich. Those tent 10 hour work weeks. less finanThe supermarket has cially wellnever laid off an employoff work ee. low-paying, Relative to its tralow-skilled ditionally structured jobs with competitors, Publix is no proverheld in comparatively bial light at high esteem by its emthe end of ployees. Publix maintains the tunnel. a score of 3.8 out of 5 on Pride in the online job review one’s work platform Glassdoor, with and the 75% of reviewers stating prospect of they would recommend bettering the job to a friend. This oneself are score is comparably highnecessary er than competitor Walingredients mart (3.2), as well as othfor the cocktail of happiness and human flourishing. er well-known supermarkets Safeway (3.0) and WholeWithout this recipe, low-skilled workers inevitably fizfoods (3.4). The results are consistent on Indeed.com zle out and drift through jobs, never finding meaning where Publix maintains an overall 4.2 out of 5 stars. or taking pride in what they spend most days pursuing. A Symbiotic Future Publix: A Progressive Prototype Publix may serve as a progressive template With this gloomy presage, I would like to infrom which other businesses can craft a largely untroduce Publix Super Markets with a sliver of optiprecedented, yet successful, business model. mism. Founded in 1930, this Floridian organization is The struggle between employee and employer the largest employee-owned company in the United pervades most of American history. The Knights of States. In addition, Publix is the 8th overall largest priLabor union demanded an eight-hour workday in the Edition 02-March 2017
8
1800s, culminating in the Haymarket Square Riot. The Battle of Blair Mountain - the largest armed insurrection since the Civil War - erupted from years of mistreatment of union miners by their employers. Some of the most substantial, modern employee rights emerged from FDR’s New Deal, such as the Wagner Act of 1935, which codified the right to unionize, engage in collective bargaining, and strike when necessary. More recently, Walmart has infamously fought the unionization of its massive workforce, as reported by Bloomberg. The continuation of this contemporary struggle was made apparent in the recent debate between Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, where an audience member inquired how she can expand her business while complying with the ostensibly onerous employee benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Though Publix is obviously not representative of every business structure in America (obviously Publix and small, family-owned businesses operate differently), Publix at least suggests that circumstances exist in which large corporations and their employees can coexist in a mutually beneficial relationship. The above analysis suggests that Publix has competed with and often outperformed its competitors while concurrently creating an amicable environment for its employees. So where does Publix land on the aforementioned scale of “The American Dream”? Imagine two supermarkets. One offers the standard deal: a 9–5 workday, minimal promotion potential, and transient coworkers that seem to fade away as quickly as they’re hired. The other offers funding for education, automated investment opportunities, a familial working environment, and a progressive atmosphere. Which would you rather work for?
Edition 02-March 2017
9
I Should Have Voted for Donald Trump
than they have been in the past, and there are already adequate safeguards in place. The real threat is an unrestricted pursuit of profit that is aided and abetted by the fear mongering and misinformation used by Trump to sway voters in the election, as well as the unethical practices that he continues to carry out in by Joe Breslin, Sr. office. According to the pundits, I should have voted I should have voted for Trump, but I didn’t. I for Donald Trump. I am a 56 year old, white, working grew up through the 60’s, when a common ethos of class, heterosexual male living in the northeastern civil rights and protest were the hallmark of the day. I United States. My family comes from a blue collar have worked in academia and got a degree as an adult economic background. Most of my friends are conlearner from an Ivy League school. My father was a tractors in trades such as plumbing, or they may own a union shop-steward and an ardent supporter of a few investment properties. They don’t want to see taxunion’s ability to help shift power to the working man. es on the money they made through their own hard Because of these factors, I voted liberal. work go to immigrants or people who don’t work for a In the primary, I voted for Bernie, and I was living. Many of them own guns and would prefer a lucky enough to be able to see him at one of his first government that stays out of their lives. Just like them, rallies in Seattle. Initially, I thought some of his ideas, I should have got caught up in thinking that Hillary such as free college tuition, were completely insane. He Clinton was a liar who could not be trusted to run this never did clearly define how the proposals he was country. Just like them, I should have believed that making would be paid for. However, as time went on Donald Trump will do many things to benefit people and I was able to better understand some of these from my socioeconomic background; that he will seseemingly radical ideas, I realized that a move towards cure the borders of our country against its economic some of these concepts made perfect sense. There was and ideological enemies; that he will “Make America something about a redistribution of funds, which our Great Again” and elevate our country from its current government already does to support initiatives such as condition. prison infrastructure, could be better adapted to pro©David Everett Strickler vide equal opportunity for those who didn’t have it--the poor, the working class, racial minorities. Many people dismissed Bernie and his ideas as crazy and radical, but he actually may be ahead of his time. Progress for all is a reasonable goal, and one that we should strive for. This state of affairs leaves the Left asking the million-dollar question--Where do we go from here? Should the progressive movement abandon the Democratic Party and try to build a third party that could possibly win power in this country? Alternatively, should the Democratic party aggressively adopt more progressive policies and move away from the status quo that caused them to lose big in the past election? Although the first option is most optimal, there are major issues with trying to estabBut I didn’t vote for Trump. I would not vote lish a third party in the United States. The Green Party for him in a million years. For all the talk about Hillary, has run in many recent presidential elections, but has I think he and his cronies are the true hypocrites and not made significant progress. Because of this, I think liars in this drama. Although there may be some temthe second option is most viable--working from within porary economic benefit to people like me, the true to shift the Democratic Party to its progressive left. objective of the Trump Administration is to continue Thankfully, this task is being addressed by a growing the imbalance of wealth and opportunity on this planmovement to break through the stone wall of estabet. I do not feel that our borders are under any more lishment politics and put as many progressive candiof a threat from refugees or illegal immigrants now Edition 02-March 2017
10
dates as possible on local, state, and federal ballots in every election over the next four years. Although I have a pronounced disdain for Trump, he did make many intelligent strategic moves that ultimately resulted in his win. People are inspired by candidates who come to their doorsteps, recognize their issues, and provide simple but effective ideas. The progressive movement needs to incorporate these tactics to gain meaningful power in the American government. But these tactics alone won’t be enough. For the progressive agenda to further develop in this country, key Democratic members of Congress need to start talking about these radical ideas now. It will be imperative for them to speak against the influence of money in politics and explain the pervasive wealth inequality that exists in this country. In other words, they need to re-establish themselves as the “people’s party”. Bernie did a fantastic job of this, but he did not adequately define the complex intricacies needed to describe how a radical concept such as ‘free college’ could be practically accomplished. He would over-rely on clichés and soundbites, but failed to present arguments with thorough substance. In order to win going forward, a progressive Democrat is going to need to define a distinctive message and story, develop nuanced plans, and show a willingness to collaborate with political colleagues to implement those plans. [All Trump had to do to win was put on a red hat with a catchy slogan]. With this in mind, the ideal progressive candidate for the 2020 presidential election will need to come from the current Democratic party but carry the banner of the progressive movement. The politician(s) that decide to do this will need to know that if they lose, they may be sacrificing their career in Congress for a greater good. That seems to be the issue now-- elected officials are so careful about what they say and how they act because they fear that taking a bold stand will cost them reelection.. What we need right now, however, is a risk-taker. Knowing that the progressive agenda was such a powerful force in the past election, it would be wise for this type of candidate to begin their campaign for president right away by highlighting progressive issues and making it known that they represent a break from the Democratic Party establishment. Although we don’t fully realize it, this is precisely what Trump did with the Republicans by getting his name in the news with sensational acts such as his controversial “birther” tweets. This politician will need to take advantage of the congressional bully pulpit and promote issues such as a basic living wage and education opportunity for all. They will need to make a case to voters that increased opportunities for poor and working class peo-
ple will result in a better economy than the current jobs-based, corporate controlled economy that results in wealth for the few and crumbs for the rest. The momentum garnered by developing and presenting a narrative about issues such as basic income and education opportunity can then be leveraged to promote other initiatives, such as an aggressive shift from relying on fossil fuels towards a robust expansion of alternative energy sources. It will be important for any progressive candidate to explain and plan on ways that the economy will transform in ways that will appeal to many of the white, middle-class demographic that voted for Trump. From a progressive perspective, the business of recognizing ways that all people can thrive, and an understanding that that is the key to progress, is crucial. It will be imperative for a progressive candidate to capture the minds of the middle class and to show that Trump and the conservative Congress are operating not in the best interests of the people, but in their own selfish interests. The Trump Administration has offered a return to the economy and society of the mid-20th century. A progressive candidate, however, should instead look to shape a better economy and society for the mid-21st century and beyond. Once there is a movement towards pragmatic and rational proposals about the economy and opportunity, other issues, such as reasonable immigration policies, voting rights, and representation of special interests will follow. In summary, the ideal progressive candidate will need to start now, bring the progressive agenda to the current Democratic Party, develop a narrative that captures the imagination of the working and middle classes and, at the same time, develop comprehensive plans on how progressive policies can be effectively implemented. I wonder if the ultimate end-game for the progressive agenda is to work within the existing two party system and move us towards a more centrist position which will bring the concerns of the marginalized majority from both sides of the political spectrum to the forefront of political discourse. This will not be accomplished by starting a new party that amplifies the more divisive issues in this world, but rather in demanding that the established Democratic Party learn to dominate the conversation. This will be accomplished by a candidate that fights for all of the initiatives that progressives care about: clean energy, basic living wage, protecting voter rights, single-payer health care, and education. This will be accomplished by a candidate who works to consistently present these initiatives in a simple, catchy way, yet who also develops the plans to address all of the nuances and effort it will take to mold this paradigm into the new reality.
Edition 02-March 2017
11
Finally, a Reason to Agree resignation from the post of National Security AdviWith Nancy Pelosi sor. When it was discovered that Flynn was in contact by Noah Karvelis
Nancy Pelosi was right- when it comes to Jeff Sessions and his alleged contacts with Russia, recusal is not enough. In a confirmation hearing before Congress, Sessions stated that he was “not aware of ” and personally “did not have communications with the Russians” during the Trump campaign. This has turned out to be, in fact, a blatant lie. As a recent report from the Washington Post revealed, Sessions met not once, but twice with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The details of the discussions that took place between thenSenator Sessions and Ambassador Kislyak are unknown, but what is apparent is that Sessions lied under oath, violated the sanctity of the highest attorney’s office in the nation, potentially committed perjury, and consequently, must resign. Lying Under Oath and the “Flynn Standard” Perhaps the most shocking element of this scandal is the fact that Sessions blatantly and intentionally lied to Congress while under oath. While Sessions’ actions and the current scandal are complex, the fact that Sessions has misled the Senate is enough to demand serious investigation and reconsideration of his fitness for the office of Attorney General. In the minds of many, such as Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, this apparent deception of the Senate merits Sessions’ resignation. The matter becomes even more clear when one considers the precedent set by Michael Flynn’s
with Russia during the Trump campaign and had lied about it, he promptly resigned. Now, Sessions has been discovered to have behaved in a similar manner. While Flynn’s case may be somewhat more extreme, the standard for this behavior has already been set and, as Schumer stated, Sessions will be “held to the same standard”. Consequently, Jeff Sessions must resign from the Attorney General’s position immediately. When an Attorney General deceives the nation and the Senate, no matter the reason, he or she has proven themselves unfit ©Glenn Fawcett for the office. Professional Misconduct Prior to Sessions’ appointment as the Attorney General, he was a United States Senator representing his home state of Alabama. As a resident of Alabama, his attorney license is granted under the Alabama bar. Sessions’ blatant deception and fraud are so problematic that they clearly constitute “professional misconduct” as defined by the Alabama State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct. While this may seem like a minor detail, the facts are simple and show that. Sessions has acted in a way that brings into question his ability to ethically practice law in Alabama and could merit disbarment. This would deny him the right to practice law at all- let alone his ability to be the nation’s highest-ranking attorney and the enforcer of laws. What are the Realities of the Trump and Russia Relationship? This scandal also brings into question the depth of the relationship between Trump and Russia. Throughout the campaign and first month of his presidency, Donald Trump made it clear that he desired a
Edition 02-March 2017
12
strong, friendly relationship with Russia. Since becoming president, we have also seen many appointees to the Trump cabinet, such as Flynn and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who have apparent ties to Russia and Russian interests. This, along with Russian interference in the election and the Sessions scandal, begs the question of what the relationship between the Trump administration and Russia truly looks like. Without access to Trump’s tax returns, we may never fully know. However, the evidence is clear that Sessions did communicate with Russian officials during his time as a Trump campaign surrogate. As Senator Claire McCaskill recently tweeted: “It’s clear Attorney General Sessions misled the Senate — the question is, ‘why’?” It seems clear that Sessions had something to hide from the Senate. If Sessions is, in fact, involved in illegal activity and misconduct on behalf of the Trump administration, it is in his own, as well as the nation’s, best interest for him to step down immediately. Is Sessions Fit to be the Nation’s Highest Attorney? As many are aware, Sessions has a litany of issues that should have disqualified him from becoming Attorney General in the first place. Take, for example, the fact that Sessions was denied a position as a federal judge as a result of his apparent racism. Considering this history, alongside the recent Russia scandal, it is hard to imagine that Sessions is in any way fit for the office of Attorney General. While it is possible that Sessions met with Ambassador Kislyak simply within the context of his being a U.S. Senator, the additional facts make it apparent that Sessions has acted in a way which makes him unfit to hold the office of Attorney General. The nation’s highest-ranking attorney should never be a man who intentionally deceives the United States’ Senate and citizens with a blatant lie. Nor should it be a man who has committed professional misconduct so great that it draws his law license into question. The facts are simple: Sessions deliberately misled the nation about his conduct with Russian leaders. This is no small act and is certainly behavior that proves him to be an unfit Attorney General. The standard for this behavior has already been set by the resignation of Michael Flynn: Sessions must step down as the United States Attorney General immediately.
Edition 02-March 2017
13
A New Socialism for the Gone are the days of Eugene Debs and Rosa LuxemTrump Era burg, when, save for the women’s suffrage movement, What we’ve gotten wrong, and how to fix it
by Pranay Somayajula Without a doubt, the last twelve months have been among the most pivotal in the history of American politics. The system saw the unprecedented rise of a radical progressive in Bernie Sanders, his defeat by a status-quo candidate championed by the political establishment, and the ascension of a hateful demagogue to the Presidency of the United States, backed by a conservative majority in Congress. At the same time, the Left is organizing at the grassroots level to create the strongest resistance movement in modern American history. All over the country, progressives are coming together to strengthen the movement into an unstoppable force with the power to vocally challenge Donald Trump’s reactionary agenda. In the midst of this vast upheaval in American politics, the question naturally arises--how can the socialist movement take advantage of the progressive furor sweeping the nation in order to effectively fight for socialist principles? The answer, it would appear, is twofold. First, the movement needs to work more openly with progressive organizations that don’t necessarily call themselves “socialist”. Secondly, and perhaps more radically, it is vital to the future of the socialist movement that we amend the commonly-accepted definition of socialism itself. The first thing which the socialist movement must do if it wants to take advantage of the current political climate is work more openly with more progressive and leftist groups. For too long, the socialist movement in the United States has operated on a basis of overwhelming ideological purity, sometimes to the point of self-defeating stubbornness. To many members of the movement, if an organization doesn’t have “socialist” in the name, it isn’t worth supporting. However, this philosophy, in addition to hindering the promotion of socialist goals, only adds to the negative preconceptions many Americans have about socialism.
the Left had few figureheads aside from the socialist movement and unions. Today, progressive groups are vital assets to the furtherance of socialist ideals. Although they may not explicitly call themselves socialist, their goals and ideals are sympathetic to those of this movement. Even organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the AFL-CIO, all of which have historically backed establishment candidates, should not be written off by ideological purists, as they all too often are, as being corrupt and unworthy of our cooperation. It is high time that we as socialists shed our pride and puritanism, be the bigger people, and work with progres
©Jerry Kiesewetter
sive organizations all across the board to fight for an agenda that is socialistic in principle, if not in name. However, simply working in conjunction with the progressive Left isn’t enough. For the socialist movement to survive past the 2016 election cycle, we must become them and they must become us. For this to happen, the very definition of socialism as we know it must be changed. For decades, socialism has been, by and large, a strictly economic philosophy. Although the movement has committed itself in a limited fashion to issues of race, gender, and sexuality, among other things, the main focus of socialism has always been the furtherance of workers’ rights and the abolition of economic inequality. In pursuit of these goals, other issues have historically been pushed aside or ignored
Edition 02-March 2017
14
by the socialist movement as a whole. If the movement wants to truly take advantage of the potential generated by the Sanders campaign, socialists must broaden their ideological aims to include the abolition of inequality in all of its forms, not just economic. It is pivotal for the socialist movement to embrace the increasingly intersectional nature of leftism in the 21st century and recognize that issues of racial, gender, and sexual equality, among others, are just as vital to the socialist movement as the class struggle. Intersectional socialism must become the new norm. The red flag should represent the race struggle, gender struggle, and sexuality struggle just as much as it represents the class struggle. Cooperation and coordination with progressive organizations, as I have outlined above, is the first step to achieving truly intersectional socialism. And yes, without a doubt the movement has made significant progress in this regard. Feminism and a push for racial equality have certainly made their mark on the socialist movement, as evidenced by initiatives such as the Democratic Socialists of America’s Socialist Feminist Team and Anti-Racism Working Group. However, this is not enough. Socialism, in its most commonly-accepted definition, remains to this day a largely economic philosophy. It may be a controversial or even radical position to take, but the reality is that the only way for the socialist movement to thrive in today’s political climate is for the nature of socialism itself as we know it to become more inclusive of many struggles. Perhaps, instead of worrying so much about seizing the means of production, we should focus more on destroying the means of oppression. To some, the rise of Donald Trump and the solidification of a Republican majority in Congress signify the death of the American Left. However, to subscribe to this fallacy is to ignore the upsurge in the last few months of grassroots organizing on the American Left. Initiatives such as Brand New Congress, Indivisible, and the Women’s March should give us hope about the determination on the part of the people to push back against Trump and his reactionary agenda. Just as the Left as a whole is well-positioned to create the strongest resistance movement our country has ever seen, so is the socialist movement well-positioned to take advantage of this climate by broadening its practical and ideological horizons. It may be a difficult step for those of us who are more concerned than others with ideological purity, but it is a step that we would do well to take. The future of our movement, and that of American society, depends on it.
Edition 02-March 2017
15
Economic Power Drives Court if, and only if, he or she first vows to overturn Political Power Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission―the 2010 Betsy DeVos is the latest example, but pay-to-play politics is not new.
by Sammy Kayes Betsy DeVos never went to a public school. She never sent her kids to a public school. She never taught in a school, and she is by no means a policy wonk. To the contrary, she is unfamiliar with basic education policy, including the general roles of federal and state government in education. All signs point to DeVos knowing very little about education, other than her pet cause of diverting tax dollars to religious schools and the pockets of entrepreneurs. And yet, on February 7th, Betsy DeVos became the United States Secretary of Education. If this seems bizarre, you’re half right. It sounds unreasonable, illogical, and unthinkable, and this was quickly recognized by the American public. The truth is, though, that our current situation is not far from the norm. Betsy DeVos and the rest of Donald Trump’s cabinet are an acceleration of―not a departure from — what Bernie Sanders has continuously referred to as “establishment politics.” At her confirmation, Bernie Sanders asked Betsy DeVos, “Do you think if you were not a multibillionaire―if your family has not made hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions to the Republican Party―that you’d be sitting here today?” DeVos smirked and hesitated, but responded that yes, it is plausible, since she has “worked on behalf of parents and children” over the past many years. Of course, the real answer is no. Betsy DeVos would not be considered for education secretary if she had not contributed all that money. “Working with children” is something that millions of people have devoted their lives toward, so why does it make her good enough? It’s a small club, and you’re not in it If you study the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, you will find that he made few real promises. Even with the policies he proposed, such as universal single-payer healthcare and tuitionfree public college, Sanders generally spoke about what we “could” and “should” do―not what he could absolutely guarantee as President of the United States. However, one of the few promises he did make was that he would appoint a new justice to the Supreme
Supreme Court decision that corporations are people (further strengthened by Buckley v. Valeo, which declared that money is speech). But legalized political corruption didn’t begin with the Citizens United decision or the Trump administration. Citizens United simply made big money even bigger and less of a secret. A now-famous study by researchers at Princeton and Northwestern Universities concluded that “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” The researchers came to this conclusion by studying data from 1981 to 2002―well before the Trump administration, Citizens United, or even the majority of George W. Bush’s presidency. Consider the days preceding Betsy DeVos’s confirmation as Education Secretary. Teachers, activists, and concerned citizens around the country flooded the phone lines and email inboxes of members of Congress, urging them not to confirm DeVos. Polls floating around social media and even some mainstream news sites suggested that a large portion of the public was opposed to her as Education Secretary. The Atlantic published an article that the opposition to DeVos has been “unprecedented,” noting that groups typically do not protest around the country in response to the nomination of a single cabinet member. Even two Republican Senators voted “No” on DeVos, (though we should wonder whether this was simply a political calculation by the GOP). Despite this massive public outcry, and the clear observation that DeVos is not the right person to oversee a national education system, DeVos was nevertheless confirmed as Education Secretary. The real reason she was confirmed is not that she is the “right” person for the job or is objectively qualified to hold the position. It’s because, as the late George Carlin joked, the ones to confirm her are a small club with their own agenda―and you ‘aint in it. The top one-tenth of one percent After massive pressure on both the Democrats and Republicans, the Senate was split 50–50 on whether to confirm Betsy DeVos. The tie was broken by Vice President Mike Pence in another “unprecedented” measure. DeVos’s almost party-line confirmation might lead some to believe that the Democratic Party are
Edition 02-March 2017
16
“the good guys” and the Republicans are the “bad guys” (and they are, overwhelmingly, guys). But consider that this is more spectacle than substance. Betsy DeVos was largely opposed due to her history of wishing and acting to privatize the public school system, but the history of privatization is not new, and the Democrats are by no means innocent in this respect. On the contrary, the road to privatization was paved by both parties working together. Appointed under the Obama administration, Secretaries of Education Arne Duncan and John King did not overturn or oppose George W. Bush’s punitive education policy — they expanded it, with support from both sides of the aisle. ©Gage Skidmore/ CC BY-SA 2.0
What does the Democratic party stand for, if not public education―in word and action? We know the answer to this question. The Princeton study makes it clear, and the US public feels it deep in its soul. The political class does not serve the public. Our politicians serve the powerful — the economically powerful. As Noam Chomsky has said, there is basically one party in the US, the business party, and it has two factions: The Democrats and The Republicans. Deregulating ourselves Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-trust laws and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” were responses to public backlash against an unbalanced political system and unfair society. By the mid-20th century, the top marginal income tax rate was 90% and the share of tax revenue coming from corporations was much higher than it is today. Investment and commercial banking were separated by law, safeguarding the public’s assets from the financial games on Wall Street that would
lead to the 2008 Great Recession. But who removed this safeguard? While the drop in tax rates was led by Republicans, it was the Democrats who deregulated the banks. Can economic power be regulated? Despite a well-regulated economy in the mid-20th century, financial reforms were eventually undone by a small political elite―themselves backed by economic power. This unfolding of government forces us to ask a question: as long as there is a small group with enormous wealth, how can we stop that wealth from translating into political power? Those who have the power, and want to keep it―and they will want to keep it―will simply rewrite the rules whenever an opportunity presents itself. Maybe not all of the wealthy and powerful will do this, and maybe it won’t happen at every opportunity. But we can be certain that some of that small group, at least some of the time―and that’s all it takes―will desire to shape the political system to their own benefit, even if it comes at the expense of the public interest. As long as humans are corruptible, this will be the case. Powerful individuals and organizations will roll back reform after reform and unwind the progress that we, the people, have made. Consequently, society will come to be ruled by a few rather than the many. We will not have a real democracy. There is one way to avoid this. As part of our political revolution, we must rethink, and act to change, an economic system which allows so much economic power to be concentrated in the hands of a few. We must move towards an economic system that is fundamentally built around human need, and prioritizes people over profit. We’ll have to think more about what that means. And I think it will involve, as Martin Luther King Jr. called for, an explicit questioning of the capitalist system. Because if we don’t rethink the structural design of our economy, and find the root cause of our political problems, there will always be another political party to buy. Betsy DeVos will just be one example, among a multitude, who would shape the fate of our nation for a generation―not because she was fit to lead, or because she was granted our explicit consent to govern―but because she simply had money.
Edition 02-March 2017
17
Tonight in the South China Sea
Chinese economy. Now, the issue has come to a head. Significant oil resources are at stake in the region, and Chinese companies are in need of more resources to continue their current rate of growth. The Chinese government is not simply claiming this territory- they Why this global flashpoint can no longer go unnoticed have begun establishing a military foothold within disputed areas. Specifically, China has begun building artiby Krishna Hammond ficial islands and gradually placing aircraft and anti-air Late in the night, our thoughts often turn to capability in the region. In addition, Chinese ships routhings we’d rather not think about. As night falls in tinely patrol these waters, and reports have come in of capitals around the world, the thoughts of many sailors being accosted by Chinese naval forces. diplomats will turn to a series of uninhabited rocks This is an incredibly delicate situation. While and islands thousands of miles away. A cold shudder Beijing may argue that the area is historically linked to will run down their spine: these rocks could be the to China and represents resources they have claimed flashpoint for a conflict that could escalate wildly out for millennia, the fact of the matter is that the Vietof control in the next decade, if not earlier. They are namese, Malaysians, Filipinos, Bruneians, and Indonethe Spratly and Paracel Islands in a region of the Pacifsians have made the same exact claim. There isn’t a ic Ocean bordering China, the Philippines, Malaysia, strong argument for why China should have the excluTaiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia and Brunei. This region is sive rights to the area, they merely have the most politoften called the “South China Sea” — and this disputed ical muscle of the countries involved. Simultaneously, territory represents a diplomatic and military bubble there are many others who don’t want to press China just waiting to burst. to change course. China’s economy is integral to the To understand why this area is so contentious, world market, and is 2nd in overall size (behind Amerwe need to clarify the international maritime law at ica). There is a strong incentive for other governments, work here. Every country has an and corporations “Economic Exclusion Zone” (EEZ) around the world, not that extends beyond its territorial wato interfere with the ters (which extend 12 miles out from policy whims of the the shore). The EEZ for most counChinese government. It tries guarantees exclusive access to is a sign of the severity any resources found within it- such of the problem that as oil, natural gas, minerals, and fish. these provocations The problems begin with the phrase, have nevertheless creat“most countries.” ed a political drive for Why is this a problem? Take Japan and East Asian a careful look at this map (repronations to defensively duced from a Heritage report). strengthen their miliThe orange area is the Chitary presence. Thus, a nese EEZ, and the blue-grey areas cycle of escalation has are EEZ of other Asian nations. The begun to unfurl, with issue is the difference between the missile defenses now United Nations-guaranteed EEZ in appearing along the orange, and the Chinese claim- that disputed areas. the “9-dash line” circumscribes exIt is already clusive Chinese territory. If the 9clear that the Chinese dash line were to be recognized as government considers China’s EEZ, it would effectively the South China Sea a would halve the EEZs of some nahigh priority — perhaps The “South China Sea” area, labeled with EEZs and the tions, and existing commercial activibecause the Chinese ty in UN guaranteed waters by compli- 9-dash line. Reproduced from Heritage.org. government has lost a ant nations would be under threat by the Chinese milisignificant share of its currency shares propping up tary. slowed growth, and cannot afford to allow the Chinese This issue has existed since the end of WWII, oil market to contract further. It is imperative that but it has largely simmered in the background with the America act as a counterbalance to this vaguely imperiend of the Cold War and the gradual opening of the alist power grab- but we also cannot allow this tension Edition 02-March 2017
18
to escalate into military conflict. Even aside from the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the United States and China, the loss of life in the region would be catastrophic, and the closing of trade along that corridor would cut off billions from the global marketplace and drag the global economy into a tailspin. How do we bridge this gap? We must move swiftly to unite the opposition to these aggressive moves and form a cohesive strategy, one that must contain both economic sanctions and military deterrence. Economic sanctions are now an option thanks to the July 12, 2016 ruling by a UN arbitral council that there is “no legal basis for China to claim historic rights.” We must use this ruling as a means of pushing for sanctions against China. America has significant leverage in this regard — Chinese nationals own significant assets within the continental United States, assets that could be frozen selectively until construction is halted in the South China sea. Forcing the issue to become both unpopular and unprofitable for China is essential. Eliminating the motivation for continued aggression is the only solution in the long run, as decisive military confrontation between China and the United States would likely escalate into a large scale military conflict of a scale not seen since Vietnam. Yet, we cannot allow them to attempt to muscle their way out of sanctions and international pressure. There must be a deterrence strategy, with a caveat. It is important to note here that deterrence means non-escalatory military doctrine. By committing more naval power to the immediate disputed areas, we can prevent China from pushing beyond the area they’ve occupied without initiating conflict. Fortifying areas where the 9-dash line intercedes into EEZs , providing missile defense support, and instituting aerial patrols in the region will act as a physical barrier to further expansion. Beijing isn’t looking for a reason to go to war here — they want to flex their muscles and show strength. Refusing to give ground is critical to wearing down their expectations of success using this strategy.
In addition, military exercises — carefully choreographed shows of force by partner nations- are a critical tool here. They reinforce and demonstrate the capability of countries to co-operate effectively and cut through the propaganda of nations. China is dominated by state run and state monitored media, and stories painting China as imperialist (even when they are accurate) are suppressed. Military exercises create a dilemma for censors- downplaying the exercises weakens their narrative regarding the disputed areas, but roundly condemning them draws attention to the issue in such a way that may spread doubt. Military exercises have had some limited demonstrated success in providing a check on the North Korean government, at least in terms of deterring conventional warfare. And such exercises do insinuate the implicit threat of the formation of a NATO-like treaty organization between Asian nations ©The United States Navy against China. Washington has been leery of floating this idea for fear of alienating Beijing (and as such losing access to their markets for American corporations), but they should not be. To say nothing of the strategic benefits of suppressing one of America’s chief rivals on the world stage, all people who are invested in a truly liberal democratic order have a responsibility to curb imperialism and mercantilist behavior such as Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. China must conform to international laws and norms if it seeks to benefit from internationalism and world markets. One of the few benefits to the wave of nationalism, nativism and protectionism worldwide is that it gives the American foreign policy sphere wriggle room to push for a tougher stance on China. Beijing is largely coasting on indecision by the Washington- decisions about what to do in Asia have long been sidelined for a series of ever-escalating crises in the Middle East. A firm yet measured stance can and will provide a hard barrier to further aggression while creating the space to let the air out of this bubble. Secretary Tillerson and the State Department have their hands full, but they cannot afford to ignore this crisis. Because sooner or later, every bubble bursts.
Edition 02-March 2017
19
ŠAaron Burden
Edition 02-March 2017
20