The Progressive Times Edition 03

Masthead Founder Hayden Suarez-Davis Editor in Chief Pranay Somayajula Managing Editor Dave Mahler Cover Design Nicholas Busman Education Correspondent Sammy Kayes Political Correspondent Noah Karvelis Foreign Affairs Correspondent Krishna Hammond Reporters Nick Ramacciato Joe Breslin, Sr. 
 


Cover: Photo from the National Archives and Records Administration via Wikimedia Commons

Contents 3 4 6 10 13 16 18 21 23

Letter From the Editor

Laying the Foundations for Change Millennial in the House Undrinkable and Unthinkable The Authoritarian Plague: New Vectors for an Old Disease Towards Healthcare for All: The Case for a Public Option Protecting Our Sources Rahm Emanuel’s Not-So-Modest Proposal When Democracy Goes Wrong

Letter from the Editor Here we are, almost at the 100th day of Donald Trump’s presidency. 100 down, 1375 to go. A lot has happened in the month since the last edition of The Progressive Times went out. The “nuclear option” was deployed by Senate Republicans to block a Democratic filibuster and confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the United States launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian military base, bringing US-Russian relations to a decided low, and a carrier strike group is currently en route toward North Korea at a time when tensions over the country’s nuclear weapons are reaching boiling point.

These are just a few examples, but taken as a whole they are symptomatic of a country being led by a man who is impulsive, irrational, and utterly undeserving of the title “Leader of the Free World”. From reactionary Cabinet and Supreme Court appointees to rash foreign policy decisions that elevate international tensions and threaten global security, Donald Trump has proven time and time again over the last 100 days that he poses the greatest domestic threat to American democracy yet.

And yet, despite all this, Trump still enjoys the support of a Republican-controlled Congress for actions that, under Obama, were met with vitriolic opposition. Moreover, save for a few exceptions, Republicans have remained largely silent on the Trump Administration’s numerous ethical transgressions and attempts to propagate false narratives. It is clear, therefore, that we cannot look to our elected officials to hold Trump and his allies accountable. Instead, that responsibility falls on us. Abraham Lincoln promised a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. When that government fails to represent the people of, by, and for whom it stands, it is up to every citizen to stand up and fight back.

We will not become disheartened by the failure of our politicians to fight for us. Instead, we will keep this failure in mind as we organize for elections up and down the ballot in 2018, 2020, and beyond. As we begin the fight to take back our government one congressional district, Senate seat, and statehouse at a time, we will use this failure as ammunition to ensure that never again will we allow our government to be controlled by special interests and hateful demagogues. Donald Trump and his cronies are currently laboring under the impression that the aftermath of the 2016 election is the calm after the storm for the Republican Party. It’s up to us, the people of the United States of America, to make them realize that the storm has only just begun.

Pranay Somayajula Editor in Chief

Edition 03-April 2017

3

Laying the Foundations for able to gerrymander districts to Change their advantage at all levels.

by Suzanne Oshinsky This article was originally published on Voices of the Revolution.

On November 9, 2016, Democrats ceased to have majority representation in any branch of the Federal government. If progressives have any hope of evening the playing field, we need to start our local campaigns now.

Re p u b l i c a n s h ave a l way s made state rights their rallying cr y, and it is time that we start focusing on them as well.

Now more than ever we need to ensure that our state politics represents and protects people’s interests.

At a recent Democratic forum in Baltimore, Maryland, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy spoke about the importance of state legislatures and governorships in the upcoming 2020 census, when district maps will be adjusted to allow for proportional representation. Whoever is in control state-wide during this time will be able to create more favorable districts for maximizing the number of representatives from their party, a process known as gerrymandering. Over the past 10 years, Republicans have not only increased the number of states in their control, but have also been

During private meetings with his constituents, the sole Republican Representative in Maryland stated that he is not worried about loss of access to healthcare in the state. As a doctor, and a supporter of Trumpcare, he claimed that he was not concerned with plans to remove federal protections for patients because the Democratic state legislature has such a good record of taking care

of its citizens. Ironically, if the state legislature no longer had a filibuster proof Democratic majority, his Republican colleagues in the state legislature, along with the Republican governor, would be sure to make cuts to programs that protect Maryland citizens.

That state level elected officials are willing to take up the slack left by cuts to Federal programs is crucial.

The founding fathers purposely put in checks and balances at the federal level. A president can do a lot of damage, but he also needs a willing congress and Edition 03-April 2017

judicial branch of government.

States were purposely given a lot of autonomy as well. By design, smaller or less populated states were a given a lot of extra say via the US Senate to ensure that they could maintain their rights. This has been both a blessing and a curse. While strongly progressive states are able to push for access to affordable healthcare and other progressive priorities locally, states divided or in largely Republican control have been left behind or have even regressed, passing laws such as blocking minimum wage hikes and discriminating against transgender and LGBT individuals.

S t a t e g over nment also allows for checks and balances within its own various branches: executive, judicial and legislative. In Maryland, for example, despite a Republican governor, a Democratic majority house recently gave increased authority to our Democratic attorney general to bring lawsuits without permission of the governor. Thus, he was able to join other states in battling the unconstitutional immigration ban in the courts. By engaging with state government and pushing for progressive change in any of the three branches, we are able, as progressives, to minimize regressive policies.

City elections can determine what dog breeds you have, whether or not you can grow a garden in your yard, where you can park, how well 4

local businesses do, even what color you can paint your house.

Our liberties are made or broken in city hall.

Engaging at the local level, with the counties and municipalities that are the backbone of our communities, is equally as important. Frankly, your city’s government is just as likely to impact your day to day life as the president or congress. Mayors and council members enact rules and ordinances that directly impact what you do. City elections can determine what dog breeds you have, whether or not you can grow a garden in your yard, where you can park, how well local businesses do, even what color you can paint your house. Our liberties are made or broken in city hall.

Our highest aspirations start with a culture of caring in the lowest offices. At this level, a small number of people can make a huge impact. School boards and parent associations can promote a vision of inclusiveness and fairness in our schools. Citizens can join advisory committees to work with city and county officials to focus on environmentally friendly ways of doing business. Municipal elections are often completely ignored by most citizens, and a handful of votes can make the difference in a tight race. County races in my local area have had incumbents elected repeatedly with not a single challenger from the opposing party, despite nearly equal numbers of voters from both parties. Raising the level of engagement at this level could easily boost the presence and awareness of progressive ideals and policies, which in turn could affect statewide district elections and eventually our representation at the federal level.

In a “post-feminism” era, we need to begin taking seriously the adage that the “personal is political.” In fact, personal involve-

ment, whether it is participating in town hall meetings or canvassing and talking to your neighbors, is what we need most in today’s politics. With national leaders going down an uncertain path, more than ever we need face to face local discussions so that our citizens and politicians get to know each other personally.

On a recent Saturday, my seven year old daughter and I sat down to chat with our US representative at his local district office.

While we many not agree on certain policies and agendas, we made a personal connection talking about our family’s concerns, and he graciously insisted he would reply to my daughter’s hand-written note. Perhaps our representative will think twice about making decisions that affect us, now that he knows us personally.

Edition 03-April 2017

5

Millennial in the House

islature and have a seat at the table in making policy.

An interview with MN Rep. Erin Maye Quade

TPT: In that same vein, it’s pretty clear to most people that we need more diversity in government. What would you say is the biggest reason why we don’t see more young people, LGBT individuals, etc. running for office?

Elected for the first time in 2016, Representative Erin Maye Quade represents District 57A in the Minnesota House of Representatives as a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party. As a gay woman of color who also happens to be one of the youngest members of the Minnesota Legislature, Rep. Maye Quade’s election has brought, in the eyes of many, a fresh breath of air to a relatively homogeneous legislature. She sits down with The Progressive Times to tell us more.

Note: Responses have been edited for clarity.

TPT: Thank you for joining us, Representative Maye Quade.

To get started, could you tell our readers a little bit about your background and what inspired you to run for office?

EMQ: I was born in the district that I represent, I’ve lived there my whole life, and shortly after college I worked for then-Senator Obama in his field office in Denver. When I came back to Minnesota I worked for Governor Dayton’s campaign in 2010, and I worked for Congressman Keith Ellison starting in 2014. I’ve always loved policy, I’ve always loved our government and democracy, and I’ve really always loved connecting people to their government and to their elected officials. So, after the 2014 election, Congressman Ellison asked me if I was going to run for office. I hadn’t really thought about it, and I said “maybe one day”. And he said,

“well, what are you waiting for?” and I really didn’t have an answer for that. He had asked me that question because I was telling him about how childhood poverty in my community had gone up 380 percent since I graduated high school, and I hadn’t heard anybody talking about it. I was so distressed, and I wanted to use his office to work with the Sheridan Story to help give meals to kids who faced the weekend hunger gap. So, in response to that he asked me, “why don’t you run for office and effect the policy?”

That’s when I decided to run.

TPT: Taking a look at the demographic breakdown of the Minnesota House, I see a lot of older white men with a few terms under their belt. As a millennial woman of color in your first term, do you think your identity has been more of a source of strength or an impediment in such a relatively nondiverse legislative body?

EMQ: Well, I think it’s always going to be a strength because as you so aptly noted, there are a lot of folks in this legislature on both sides of the aisle who have a lot of the same life experiences. Being a millennial, being a woman of color, being gay, I have different life experiences, and so I feel that often I’m the only one or one of a few offering a different viewpoint on a policy or on a bill. I think that I’ve crafted a lot of relationships, and I think that that’s really important because people care about what I think and I’ve really enjoyed being that voice. I hope that my being here will help people to think about things beyond their own life experiences and beyond their own small circles, but also make space for other folks that are not like me to join the legEdition 03-April 2017

EMQ: I think there’s a few pieces to this. Women in particular need to be asked to run for office, I think, seven times before they’ll consider doing it. They’ll say to themselves, I don’t have enough experience, I don’t have enough education, I don’t have enough of something to run for office. That’s not always the case with men. The youngest members of our legislature are men, and one of my opponents in this past election could have been a 22-year-old man. I think that for men, they feel more that of course they could do this, while women feel that they don’t know if they can but they would like to. For young folks, I think there’s just a feeling that the government hasn’t worked out very well for them. Student loan debt is booming, buying a house is only obtainable if your parents have wealth. They voted yesterday to allow networks to sell our information, and that’s not something I think millennials are supportive of, regardless of their ideology. So, it just feels like what we think and feel as young people is so not reflected back in our elected officials, so why would you want to participate in something that so clearly doesn’t represent what we stand for? So, I think that’s part of it. The other part is that it takes a lot of money to run for office. As I noted, millennials don’t have a ton of wealth in general, and that means that our networks don’t have a lot of wealth. My young network of people would do five, 6

ten dollars at a time. That’s great, but they’re politically motivated, and if you have a network of people who don’t really care about politics, fundraising will be really hard. And then the pay is not that great. So, we have a bunch of barriers in place that would naturally filter out the folks that we desire to see in our elected offices.

think it takes the right person to say that I’m willing to endure some of this for the greater goal of being at the table. I don’t think it’s everyone’s desire to suffer through micro- and macro-aggressions for that greater goal, so it’s finding those people who feel like this is the place where they want to do that work. It’s also about getting together networks so we

© Minnesota House of Representatives. Photo by Paul Battaglia

then there’s that libertarianism of civil liberties that runs as a streak right through how I feel. I think that ideology is hard. I like my policy without a dose of politics, you know, politics actually isn’t my favorite thing in the world. I really enjoy figuring out how we can craft policy that benefits people, and I don’t do as well with ideologies or politics as some other people do. I always say that some people are really good at governing and some people are really good at running for office, and I tend to think that I’m better at being in office than I am at running for it.

TPT: How do you strike a balance between your progressive convictions and the need for bipartisan compromise when it comes time to work across the aisle, particularly with the existing Republican majority?

TPT: And drawing off of your own experience, how do you think we should go about bring more of these underrepresented demographics into our government and encouraging them to run?

EMQ: I think that for me, my goal has been to reach out, to ask, and support, and to be there for people as they consider doing this so that they take that leap. I think it’s hard. I’ve told this story a few times, but my first week in office I was called a racial slur by somebody who thought it was the appropriate term to refer to a biracial person. So I think there’s this very justifiable fear that even if I do win as a young person or a person of color, it’s going to be hard.

They’re not wrong, but I also

can fundraise for those people even if their networks aren’t wealthy, as well as having that support system once they’re in office.

TPT: Now, shifting gears a bit, you were endorsed on the campaign trail by Bernie Sanders’ group, Our Revolution, so clearly you align pretty strongly with Senator Sanders’ positions.

Of course, perhaps Bernie’s most controversial characteristic was his open self-characterization as a “democratic socialist”. Would you characterize yourself the same way? If not, how would you characterize yourself ?

EMQ: I would say that I’m a progressive libertarian. I’m left, and Edition 03-April 2017

EMQ: One thing that I say a lot is that there is so much that elected officials agree on that is just generally good for society and the state of Minnesota. We know that, but then you insert that politics.

For example, take early childhood education. It’s Governor Dayton’s favorite thing, and I’m pretty sure widely supported across party lines. We know that when we invest in our youngest learners, we have incredible outcomes. We know that early learning has the best return on investment, yet the Republican education proposal doesn’t fund it at all. So, that’s where we see politics get inserted into our politics. It’s a dig at Governor Dayton, and it’s a negotiating point for the Republicans because they know it’s his favorite thing. I think that reaching across the aisle isn’t as hard as it appears to be because we’re not that far apart in what we believe. There’s differences in policy, yes, but the ideological differences aren’t that 7

present and yet that’s what gets elevated and that’s what we choose to amplify over and over and over again. So, for me, reaching across the aisle hasn’t been that hard at all. If you look at the bills that I’ve coauthored or chief authored, it’s a pretty even split between R e p u b l icans and D e m o crats. I d o n ’ t know how we get less political or partisan about our policy, but I think we need to do more of that and we as legislators need to amplify that. We don’t reward bipartisanship, though we often call for it. I’m not really sure how to make it all better, but I do know that the ability to do it is there.

TPT: Let’s say that hypothetically, you walked into work tomorrow and found that we had gained a progressive majority in the Minnesota Legislature overnight. What would be the top three policies you would push for?

EMQ: Oh my goodness, that’s a great question. So, I think the top three policies that I would push for would be huge investments in our education system just right off the bat, from Pre-K all the way through higher education. It’s one

of the best things that we can do as a state to invest in our students, and when we have a surplus, I really think that’s what we should be talking about. I’d also love to talk

that we see coming out of Washington.

TPT: Recently, the Minnesota House controversially passed H F 6 0 0 , © Minnesota House of Representatives. Photo by Andrew VonBank which for t h o s e readers who are unaware, strips the rights of local jur i s d i ctions to set their o w n l abor stand a r d s such as s i c k leave, m i n im u m w a g e , etc. This b i l l , a lthough primarily suppor ted by about how we can reform our Republicans, was coauthored criminal justice system. We need by a few Democrats. What are to decriminalize a bunch of your thoughts on members of things, we need to do sentencing your party supporting this bill? reform, we do not need to invest in private prisons. We need to inEMQ: First of all, I spoke out vest in mental health, I think, is very strongly against the bill with the biggest one. We piecemeal that the author and I spoke out against one, with a little bit of money for it on the floor. I think this is one this type of program and a little of the worst policies we could bit of money for this other one. pass, it moves us in the wrong diWe need to have mental health rection and takes away local conparity. If you have depression, it’s trol, and it takes away the earned just as dangerous as if you have a sick and safe time of 150,000 broken leg, and it needs to be Minnesotans, some of whom live treated just as seriously as physical in my district. It’s beyond me why injury. And then we need to prothis is a priority for anybody. So, tect our healthcare market and our to the members of my own party, environment because of what’s I in caucus explained why no one happening at the federal level. I should vote for this bill, especially think there’s a lot that Minnesota Democrats. I think that there are as a state can do to protect itself some members of my party who from the most harmful policies just know what they do and don’t Edition 03-April 2017

8

support, and they’re not really moved by what I have to say or what other folks have to say.

Everyone’s got to vote their district and they have to vote their conscience, but if I had it my way, no one would have voted for this bill regardless of party.

think we really need to start digging down and making sure that all of our candidates know their districts and are honest with their constituents rather than running away from what they believe. I think that is one of the best things I did with my election.

TPT: Now, I’d like to end on a broader question: as the only state representative in Minnesota this past election to flip your district from red to blue, what strategies do you think the Democrats should apply to achieve similar success on a large scale in 2018’s midterms and beyond?

TPT: Representative Maye Quade, thank you once again for your time. Keep fighting the good fight.

EMQ: I was honest with my district. No one was confused about what I stood for and why, and I didn’t try to make my positions on issues based on what the polls told me they should be. It was this is the right thing to do or this is what is best for Minnesota and our community, and I was honest about that with constituents. Even at the doors, when someone would say that they do or don’t support this issue knowing that I felt the opposite, I would say honestly, “Here’s how I feel about that. However, what are some other things you care about and how can we work together on those things?” I think people really responded to my honesty, my candor, and my desire to more than anything be a transparent and acceptable legislator. People would prefer to have access to me and transparency from me and connectedness with their government more than ideological purity. Even recognizing that every district is different, I think being born and raised in the community that I represent now meant I reflected back to voters all of their community’s values. Whether they aligned politically or not, the values are the same. For Democrats, I Edition 03-April 2017

9

Undrinkable and Unthinkable Our handling of Flint is a shame upon the nation

by Noah Karvelis In April of 2014, The people of Flint, Michigan were forced to switch water sources to the highly corrosive and polluted Flint River. Despite it being wellunderstood by community and city officials that the Flint River was heavily polluted and potentially dangerous, the switch went ahead as planned in order to act as a money-saving mechanism to indirectly fund large tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations.

By May of 2014, citizens of Flint began voicing serious c o n c e r n s ove r yellow and brown water flowing through their pipes and into their homes. By August of 2014, the citizens’ concerns were verified as the first official warnings about Flint’s water were made by the city resulting from the discovery of E. coli in the citizen’s water supply. In response, the City of Flint issued a water boil advisory and began treating the water with high amounts of chlorine. In October, as a result of the corrosive water’s effects on car parts, General Motors voiced concern over the water supply.

Despite these first warnings, complaints, and apparent recognition that the water was, in fact, too corrosive for use even on car parts, the people of Flint continued to rely on the polluted water of the Flint River. In the wake of this concern, in February of 2015, lead was discovered in the water supply and was traced back to the pipes that supply water to Flint residents. It was the beginning of a crisis that not only

ed water. No solution is apparent, and any discussion of the crisis is slowly grinding to a halt. In the minds of many Americans, the people of Flint have become all but invisible.

As the media coverage of the crisis disintegrates and the stories and lives of the people of Flint disappear, public consciousness and aid for the situation evaporate. Despite this, in the heart of the richest country of the world, Flint, Michigan is without clean drinking water.

Photo via Pixabay

could have been avoided, but was suppressed by officials and has wreaked absolute havoc on the people of Flint for years.

The Lives of the Citizens It is now nearly three years since the people of Flint were forced to switch water sources to the Flint River, and yet they continue to live with lead-contaminatEdition 03-April 2017

What are the people of Flint drinking?

For most of the citizens of Flint, the water that they drink and bathe with does not come from their pipes. As many have fallen ill (citing erratic blood pressure, thinning hair, rashes and far more serious effects such as memory loss and brain development issues) from the lead-contaminated, polluted water, using the 10

water in any way has become unthinkable. As a result, the city of Flint has supplied and installed water filters in many homes. These filters, according to the EPA, are 99.9% effective in restoring the water to safe, drinkable levels.

However, the filters can be difficult to install and many are consequently ineffective. And many other citizens do not yet have filters installed in their homes. These citizens who do not have the benefit of a filter instead receive deliveries of bottled water (despite city officials fighting the federal order to do so) or must report to stations for water to drink and bathe with. Despite this, many citizens state that the struggle to receive and access this supply of safe water is so great that they have gone back to drinking the contaminated water in their faucets. For many, there are far too many roadblocks to receiving the water and filters supplied, and it is simply not possible for them to access the aid program’s clean water. As the director of aid program Crossing Water stated, more than half of the homes that Crossing Water visits do not have filters and are instead bathing, drinking and cooking with the lead-contaminated water.

Despite this glaring failure, the City of Flint states that their “commitment remains to the City of Flint and bottled water, filters, and testing kits will continued to be provided until the water is deemed to meet quality standards.” With no solution visible, this may be a commitment that the City is forced to uphold for many more years.

What is life like in Flint?

Currently, many of the citizens of Flint live in a desperate state. The effects of drinking and bathing in the contaminated water

have wreaked havoc on the community. While the entire population is susceptible to the aforementioned health effects, children have been especially affected through long-term brain damage and developmental issues related to their consumption of lead through Flint’s water supply.

What is the government doing?

As the media’s focus on the Flint crisis dwindles down to zero, aid to the people of Flint also declines dramatically. As a result of little more than a moment’s notice from America’s erratic and hyperactive media spotlight, discussion of a solution for the people of Flint has become silenced, and many are unaware of the realities of the government’s crisis relief aid.

Initial Reactions As the crisis was originally uncovered and the need for aid was first found, these reports of contamination and lead-poisoning were denied and suppressed by city officials. When a memo stating a need for concern over leadcontamination was leaked to the public, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) quickly stated on public radio that there was no contamination in the water supply and people should “relax”. Shortly after, Michigan Radio also reported that the MDEQ intentionally omitted lead-contaminated samples from their report. Following these denials of an apparent issue, outside agencies and institutions such as Virginia Tech University became involved to let the people of Flint know the truth about their water supply. What they reported was dangerously high levels of contamination and lead in Flint’s water, eventually all but Edition 03-April 2017

forcing Flint to issue a lead advisory to citizens.

Current Aid and Plans for a Solution As Flint citizens continue to live without a clean water supply, aid efforts are severely lacking in support. Take, for example, the recent announcement that the State of Michigan, which originally offered a tax credit for water charges, will actually now force citizens to pay for contaminated water that remains undrinkable and unusable.

Sadly, this lack of aid is anything but unusual for the people of Flint. While filters and bottled water are still being supplied to citizens, many citizens, such as Michael Hood, feel that the aid effort is far too little, stating that “It doesn’t seem like anyone with the power and authority to change this gives a damn”. As a recent budget proposal shows, he isn’t wrong.

In 2016, Flint’s mayor stated that it would cost $1.5 billion to fix Flint’s pipes and leadcontaminated water supply. In response, the United States Senate passed a 170-million-dollar funding package to be spent largely on continued relief programs--clearly far too little to even come close to the amount needed to fix the complex situation in Flint. And while Governor Rick Snyder has created funding plans, no tangible action has been taking in fulfilling the plan. The only evidence of progress is the fact that the state of Michigan just recently announced it will be paying nearly $100 million to fix some contaminated water sources. This occurs only as a result of a lawsuit settlement demanding the payment, and will cover only a fraction of the $1.5 billion estimate from the Mayor of Flint. Furthermore, this settlement may result in some res11

idents losing access to clean, bottled water. As a result, any progress towards a tangible solution is extinguished and Flint residents continue to live with leadfilled water indefinitely.

What is taking so long?

ing out of the ordinary. Other national crises such as Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy have shown that when disaster strikes, the most marginalized communities will be the last to receive aid, their pleas for help will be ignored, and life in America will press on without them.

We can not stand idly by any longer and let this situation persist. We must keep fighting for Flint by calling on officials to take action, refusing to remain silent and taking advantage of any ways to help Flint that we possibly can.

To do otherwise is to allow the continuation of a tremendous shame upon the nation.

For so many of us, we look on in frustration and ask: what is taking so long? How is it possible that the people of Flint, in a country of so much extreme luxury, are still without clean water to drink? While finding a solution is inherently difficult, definite plans of action have already been created and have existed for nearly 12 months. What the people of Flint now need is federal funding and governmental leadership to recognize and fight for the people of Flint. While the President calls for far more than the 1.5 billion necessary for Flint to pay for a taxpayer-funded border wall, the people of Flint look on without clean water.

The money, aid and plan of action necessary for Flint could be secured and this crisis could finally come to a close. In a country with tremendous resources, it is not infeasible to do so. However, the people of Flint are members of what to many in power is an invisible, disposable community,a community that is predominantly African-American and low-income. In the United States, as the citizens of Flint are painfully aware, the marginalized communities of America are often tossed aside and left to figure out how to survive with crumbling infrastructure that leaches lead into their water, skyrocketing unemployment, and broken schools.

And when they ask for assistance from their government and fellow citizens, their cries go unheard.

Sadly, this apparent invisibility of the people of Flint and the Flint Water Crisis is noth


Edition 03-April 2017

12

hope. In others, the The Authoritarian Plague: New into country descends into a vicious cycle — their leaders are viewed as corrupt and criminal, Vectors for an Old Disease their institutions bankrupt (often

by Krishna Hammond Although many of us would prefer to believe otherwise, authoritarianism — and its nowneutered progenitor, monarchy — never really left the world stage.

While the brief history of the United States has coincided with (and occasionally helped foster) a worldwide shift towards democratic nation-states bound together by a patchwork of international norms, a great deal of the world has consistently remained in the grip of a handful of power-hungry individuals. The so-called “liberal democratic order” that defines international affairs is a brief breath of air in between some 12,000 recorded years of continuous conflict (declared or not) and hundreds of thousands more of nomadic (and often brutal) struggles to survive.

With this in mind, we must understand that countries all across the world are more vulnerable to descent into authoritarianism than we are led to believe, even in relatively developed democracies. During times of economic dysfunction — the Great Depression and the Great Recession, for example — extremism gains credibility. Why? Because of disunity, distrust, and desperation. When socially-appointed referees are discredited, when the incompetence (and sometimes malice) of the ruling class goes too far, and when the inequity of people’s circumstances overwhelms the cold comfort of an increasingly tenuous status quo, change- any change- is preferable to the alternative. In some cases, the better instincts of human nature lead people to invest their energy

both morally and monetarily), so a segment of the population seeks out a figure of strength who they believe will impose stability but who in reality only escalates tensions. What is arguably even more damaging in these scenarios is not the rabid supporters of the autocrat — it is the rising number of citizens who have lost faith in the idea of self governance and democracy itself. Such a groundswell of despair does not just make it much harder to rouse the public to resistance, it infects other nations, and threatens to bring the global liberal democratic order crashing down. Authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin relish in and work to foster this outcome — a world of authoritarianism is one in which the people cannot cooperate across state lines to resist the control of their leaders, nor can they acquire informaPhoto via Pixabay tion outside of the tidy media ecosystem created by the state.

It is our responsibility as citizens of the free world to ensure this does not come to pass, and to begin the work of pushing back the rising tide of nationalism that has been spawned in vulnerable democracies across the globe. In this spirit, this article catalogues five nations most vulnerable to

Edition 03-April 2017

13

authoritarian outbreaks, in order of increasing severity.

The United States of America The United States of America is in a precarious position. For the first time, a sitting President has accused his predecessor of high crimes against the nation, then (after being rebuked

by Congress and the Director of the FBI) continued to press the lie to allies overseas. However, the damage to America isn’t in the salacious humiliations heaped upon the office of the Presidency, it is in the assault on key institutions of civil society — attacks on the free press, the legal system, and the civil service of the United States. Americans pride themselves on our civil society and a government built to dissuade authoritarian power through intragovernmental checks and balances.

But there’s a crucial problemchecks and balances are built to prevent a single branch from succumbing to the temptation of tyranny. What happens when multiple branches and institutions are in crisis? Congress, despite being controlled by a single party, is paralyzed by both intra-party warfare and an uncanny desperation to cover for an increasingly erratic president. While the federal courts system remains intact, the Supreme Court still lacks a member, and is trapped in the shadow of the controversy around the refusal to offer a hearing to Obama nominee Merrick Garland.The press reels as it tries to reckon with a administration utterly disinterested in honesty, and a political climate in which many don’t care (so long as their team is winning, of course). And, presiding over it all is a man who has lied openly and proudly about the most basic fundamentals of American politics — a party leader who demands an abandonment of shared reality in

order to establish loyalty. The country’s independent institutions are straining under the weight, and its partisan establishments are making a dangerous bet on Republicans’ willingness to challenge the President. That said, the endless campaign churn of American politics may be a chance to temper the ambitions of the executive branch. A 37% approval rating this early indicator of public opinion turning against the President.

Approval ratings below 50% are historically linked to an average of 36 House seats lost during midterms. This would effectively grind the Trump agenda to a halt, provide opportunities for real investigation of malfeasance- and hopefully inspire him to moderate in order to pass legislation.

France Marine Le Pen and her National Front have held a consistent lead in the first round of the French Presidential election, with approximately 26% (compared to for mer Socialist Emmanuel Macron’s 25% and and 19.5% for center-right Republican Francois Fillon) in polling. Her far-right, anti-immigrant message shares many themes with Trump’s agenda- a crackdown on immigrants, trade barriers, and taxes on foreign workers. And, more critically, her desire to exit the Euro could be the death knell of the European Union, which in turn could allow far-right movements in smaller countries to seize power in the ensuing economic chaos. However, it’s important to note there are several mitigating factors at work.

First, the elimination of minor party candidates will likely benefit her potential opponents more than her. The recusal of the sitting President Francois Hollande weakens the anti-establishment narrative- it is difficult to allege an extremist is the only option to Edition 03-April 2017

change a corrupt status quo when the status quo implodes of its own accord. Even further, the previous favorite, Fillon, has been bested by Macron in the wake of a scandal, and in a time voters may be hoping to send a message, a centrist Independent seen as an outsider may act as a needed safety valve.

He is firmly grounded in the center-left, making him more palatable to the French Left compared to Fillon while still appealing to pro-Europe right-wing voters with a an economically populist message.

Germany German Chancellor Angela Merkel is in an incredibly delicate position. Germany is the strongest economy in the European Union, and is indispensable to the region as a whole. As Chancellor, she holds the rest of the Union on her shoulders, and since the election of Donald Trump she has increasingly been referred to as the “Leader of the Free World”. Her electoral loss to far-right nationalists in the September federal elections would be a huge blow to the EU and would likely herald an end to the postCold War world order. It is against this backdrop that the Syrian refugee crisis has strained her political situation to the very limits; her decision to push for almost a million refugees to resettle in Germany was incredibly important to affirming international protections for refugees and asylum seekers. The cultural shock of the introduction of these refugees took an initial toll, however, and even the relative handful of violent incidents have the potential to incite hysteria. A number of terror attacks on European cities were effective at further radicalizing segments of the population already skeptical of refugees (despite UN reports showing no cor14

relation between migration and terrorist attacks), and it is clear that Merkel is taking a gamble on prioritizing human rights in an anxious time. Yet, retreating on refugee rights or the basic premise of a unified Europe would be surrendering to the far-right and would only further embolden its followers.

It appears, however, that Merkel has judged and played her hand well. Capitalizing off of German antipathy for Trump and on the continued strength of the center-left/center-right alliance in Germany has won her a 60% approval rating, even as her nearest center-left competitor, Martin Schulz, posts 31% to her 30% in polling. If Merkel can weather the storm of 2018, her leadership will be crucial in managing the outbreaks of right-wing authoritarianism in Europe going forwards.

Hungary Hungary is the first on the list to truly step across the thin red line into direct, explicit illiberal democracy. Newspapers are shutting down, and the climate is tense and uneasy. In the words of Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, “liberal democracy cannot remain globally competitive.” In this case, the cause is not preventing the intrusion of potential extremists, as in France or Germany — it is mitigation and resistance. The situation in Hungary has parallels to a much more degenerated version of America’s situation — an assault on the freedom of the press, deteriorating democratic institutions,and the rise of intolerance seeping into regional affairs. The Hungarian government has blocked sweeping anti-LGBT discrimination legislation in the EU, and because of the metastasizing right wing movement across Europe, it is much harder for more progressive EU

countries to counter attacks on human rights as a whole.

There is still plenty of room for Hungary to deteriorate further. Orban and his allies command paramilitary forces capable of coordinating organized attacks on rivals of the ruling regime. With rising anti-Semitic rhetoric and a floundering and weak opposition, the regime could, given sufficient leeway by the international community, advance to the stage of outright authoritarian control. The nation’s institutions lack many of the builtin advantages America has in mitigating authoritarian control (such as the decentralization of governance, rapid election cycles, and robust traditions of civilian-military separation). The international community will need to have all hands focused on preventing the country from tumbling further towards totalitarianism — provided each nation can right its own ship.

Turkey If Hungary stands in the shallow end of authoritarian control, Turkey is standing on the edge of the deep end. Its President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has consolidated a great deal of power in the hands of the state — in addition to his party controlling Parliament, he has initiated widespread purges of dissidents in the civil service, erected a lavish palace in 2014, and has graduated from a right wing, socially conservative (but secular) platform to an openly autocratic rhetoric, pandering to a populist base.

Now, Erdogan and his forces have moved to have a referendum on the Constitution, potentially conferring significant new powers upon the President. This new Presidential system would Edition 03-April 2017

give Erdogan significant plenary powers over national security, much like the American system, but with fewer checks and balances and far weaker institutions.

The ruling AKP party has been pushing for this since 2014, but Parliamentary setbacks derailed their agenda, until now.

But democratically-minded Turks stand, largely, alone. Cooperation on the Syrian crisis is too important for the EU or the United States to provide significant diplomatic pressure. It will fall to the people of Turkey, and their allies in solidarity around the world, to resist this power grab in order to regain control for the Turkish people.

When it comes to combating authoritarianism, there is much that can be done by the democratic community worldwide. In addition to building power at home, we must turn our efforts towards greater connections across nations, cultures, and backgrounds.

We must expand existing institutions and human rights groups to have truly global reach. If a truly united worldwide political front, dedicated to the eradication of of authoritarian control everywhere and built from thousands of grassroots groups and organizations, solidifies as a result of this frightening infection sickening our world, perhaps some goodness may be found in crisis. With our efforts, we can show that the world’s immune system — activism — is strong enough to withstand the authoritarian plague. The promise of a brighter future and a healthy world is still in reach. In order to achieve it, however, we must choose hope over fear, and square our shoulders for the work to come.

15

A public option is essential for progress in the fight for universal healthcare in the United States of America. As a result of high premiums and deductibles, many have realized that there are elements of the ACA that need

are experiencing with the ACA. Instead of having to turn to large, for-profit corporations, Americans who can’t afford private insurance can turn to the government for affordable, effective health coverage. This will not only help insure Americans who otherwise would be unable to access it, it will likely also lower rates for all citizens as more uninsured Americans become covered.

Furthermore, the public option will help to break monopolies that health insurance companies manage and instead offer affordable rates to citizens. A government-run option will be able to expand access to healthcare in such a way that uncontrolled monopolies will be forced to cease.

A “public option” for healthcare provides governmentrun healthcare not as the only form of care available, but a rather as an option to compete with private insurance corporations.

What this essentially accomplishes is sim- © Darko Stojanovic ple: it offers people who have been rejected fixing, and with the recent downby insurance companies or cannot fall of the Republican healthcare afford existing rates another opbill, an opportunity for another tion. Citizens are no longer forced solution has risen. It is time to ofto join the private, often expenfer a public option for healthcare sive, healthcare market, but their in America. access to care is still ensured with The public option will ofa government-run option. This fer an alternative for those who idea is by no means radical and in can not afford the high defact, is a logical solution to many ductibles and premiums that some

No longer will private insurance companies be allowed to go unchallenged; with a governmentrun health insurance option, insurance companies will be forced to play by the rules or lose their customers. As many, such as Robert Reich, have stated, this type of option is the only thing that will keep private health insur-

Towards Healthcare for All: The Case for a Public Option

by Noah Karvelis In response to the failure of the Republican bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, a tremendous opportunity has opened up for supporters of healthcare as a right for all Americans. As many, such as Senator Bernie Sanders, have realized, now is the time to begin the push for a single-payer health insurance system. While any progress towards single-payer is encouraging, we must also recognize that this type of system will not be created over night.

Therefore, the first step we must take is to re-evaluate, support and implement a public option for health insurance.

of the problems that plague the Affordable Care Act in addition to being supported by physicians, citizens, and many legislators.

Why Do We Need a Public Option?

What is Public Option Healthcare?

Edition 03-April 2017

16

ance companies in check and will help move us towards the ultimate goal: a single-payer system that works for all Americans.

Why Don’t We Already have a Public Option?

The public option for healthcare was originally introduced in the Affordable Care Act, but was removed due to threats of a filibuster by Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. As a result of millions upon millions of dollars spent by lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry and their massive influence on legislators, many elements of health care reform were threatened and removed. These attempts to influence legislators and “water down” health care reform facilitated the removal of elements such as the public option from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in order to allow the bill to pass the Senate successfully.

Since then, the public option has been introduced as an amendment to the ACA and was added to the 2016 Democratic Party platform, but both of these efforts have met little success thus far. To date, the fight for implementing the public option in the healthcare market has been indefinitely halted.

What’s Next?

As a result of the failure of the Republican healthcare bill, the time has come for Democrats to move on healthcare once again.

We must now continue moving towards a single-payer healthcare system and abandon our oftenpredatory healthcare landscape.

We can never again allow people to be thrown off of their insurance or denied coverage for preexisting conditions, or charged higher rates for simply being a woman.

Instead, we must institute a public-option healthcare insurer that can provide for the many Americans who cannot afford to pay for insurance in the private, often monopolized sphere of healthcare. We must allow for these citizens to find insurance by affordable, effective means. and a public option is the way to do exactly this. From there, we must continue forward and work towards establishing a single-payer healthcare system.

Offering a public option will not hinder progress towards a singlepayer system; rather, it is a step in that direction. By establishing this type of government-run health insurance option, we lay the groundwork for building upon the public option and expanding it over time into a single-payer system. Through this, we create a transition period to the single-payer system and take advantage of this period to create solutions to problems as they arise.

As a result, we can create a healthcare system that moves away from “throwing consumers to the insurance wolves” and eliminates the ability for insurance companies to continue making billions off of sick and dying Americans.

The time is now to establish a public option, expand it to a single-payer system, and, in the words of Bernie Sanders, “Join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee healthcare as a right to all people”.

Edition 03-April 2017

17

Protecting Our Sources

by Katherine Sylwester This article was originally published on Voices of the Revolution.

mojitos can be slurped down without a moment’s pause. It is not so easy in other parts of the world.

It is paradigm-shifting to suddenly have to worry about the water I drink, and it is hard to imagine that people here have been dealing with these issues for decades. It is harder still to imagine that these same problems have been happening in the United States. In Flint Michigan, people have been dealing with it for nearly three years. It is shocking to see that it has taken this long for the government to address the issue.

The Flint water crisis, and how the government failed to help

Photo from the National Archives and Records Administration via Wikimedia Commons

Water is a vital resource which is too easily dismissed as a given. Occasionally we become aware, as water problems surface in the media, that maybe we are taking it for granted. We celebrated World Water Day last week.

And just yesterday, as the Flint Water Crisis came to a settlement, we were reminded that people in Flint still lack access to clean drinking water. We also learned yesterday that the long-protested Dakota Access Pipeline is now filled with oil, despite the fact we thought we had stopped it. Protection of our water and environment demands our constant attention; we cannot depend on our government to do it for us.

For most of us in the States, water is a never-ending stream, flowing out of the faucet.

People have giant swimming pools filled with clean, clear, chlorinated water. Popsicles, frappuccinos, and

When I first arrived in Southeast Asia, where I currently reside, I was anxious and scrupulous when it came to water consumption. I remember accidentally breaking the water rule in Laos, where I realized too late that I had brushed my teeth with (reputedly unsafe) tap water. I spent the next hour obsessively scouring travel forums looking for anecdotes from other careless backpackers who made the same error, hoping that it would not make me sick.

In Laos, as in other parts of Southeast Asia, travel advisory boards strongly suggest that travelers stick to bottled water. Piped water is prone to blockages and leaks and is often contaminated by pollutants which wash into drains and watercourses. Increased urbanization into major cities only makes these problems worse. The only way to guarantee safe consumption is to pay for bottled water from a reputable company.

Edition 03-April 2017

Water pollution in Flint continues to plague citizens physically, emotionally, and economically. This crisis demonstrates that water is not always guaranteed to be safe in the United States, and the authorities’ response to the crisis — or lack thereof — shows that we cannot depend on our government to always put the needs of the people above economic gains.

The decision to switch Flint’s water source to the corrosive Flint River was made in attempt to save money for the city.

Before the switch in April, 2014, there had been no attempt to treat the pipes ahead of time to minimize corrosion, nor were there any tests performed on the water to ensure the water was safe for consumption. Consequently, Flint citizens have been exposed to lead poisoning from the damaged pipes and cancer-causing chemicals. Ten people have died from Legionnaires disease resulting from bacteria exposure.

Citizens were not ignorant of the damages posed by the water. From day one, they noted problems, bringing complaints to the city. Water smelled bad. It was discolored. Was it safe to drink?

Sure it’s safe, the authorities assured. We’ll just pump it full of chlorine. Maybe this week boil it before 18

drinking while we add more chlorine. It’s temporary, don’t worry. Instead of taking ownership of these problems, officials deferred responsibility, redacted evidence showing harm, and took short-cuts in mediating the problems, all which prolonged citizens’ exposure to this harmful water.

It took 18 months of activism before the city even admitted that the water was a problem — 18 months filled with dirty water, health complaints and increasing national protest. It has taken even longer for authorities to find a solution.

Just yesterday — three years after the crisis began — the State of Michigan and the City of Flint settled the lawsuit with a plan to replace all of the lead-producing pipes by 2020. Until then, Flint citizens are instructed to continue using bottled water or a high-grade water filter. Yet citizens are receiving decreasing financial support from the state, despite the fact that the problem remains unsolved. Door-todoor water deliver y has stopped, and water distribution sites may be closed by September. The governor has stopped subsidizing water bills for Flint citizens, citing budgetary constraints.

Meanwhile, The Environmental Protection Agency, designed to prevent such disasters, faces drastic changes under the current federal administration. Trump’s 2018 budget proposes a $13 million cut in compliance monitoring, which the EPA uses to ensure the safety of drinking water systems.

Even when fully funded, it seems that their advice is not always enforced. In the case of Flint, the EPA testified that though they had urged authorities to address a lack of corrosion control in Flint’s pipes, they had ‘encountered resis-

tance’. This resistance is what caused lead leaching from the pipes, which has consequently put thousands of children at risk of permanent brain damage. We cannot allow for any more ‘resistance’ to water safety. We must demand that our water stay protected.

What happens when we ask for water protection?

The Flint Water crisis would have been far less damaging if proper precautions were taken.

But when we ask and fight for these environmental precautions, we are met with more resistance.

The protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline — DAPL — illus-

water sources for municipalities across multiple states. The construction of DAPL was exempted from environmental reviews required by the Clean Water Act. With no governmental oversight protecting the water source, the people of Standing Rock and many other citizens in pipelineaffected counties knew that the only way to protect their water was to raise their voices in protest.

They set up the Sacred Stone Camp in the Pipeline’s pathway.

Support for the protest was widespread. By September 2016, thousands of native people traveled to Standing Rock’s occupation site and over 150 indigenous governments sent letters of support; the NoDAPL movement Photo via Pixabay

trates this unfortunate point, and it is imperative that we learn from the story.

The protest began in 2015 when members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and citizens from affected counties in the Midwest saw a threat to the Missouri River and lake Oahe — vital Edition 03-April 2017

had become an unprecedented event — the largest congregation of Native Americans in over 100 years.

The movement gained traction and became a symbol for civil rights, with support from Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Black Lives Matter, the ACLU, and Anonymous.

19

The democratic message that we all have the right to protect our environment and our water clearly resonated around the USA. North Dakota state troopers, the National Guard, and Energy Transfer Partner’s security teams meted out harsh treatment, utilizing attack dogs, bulldozers, strip-searches and pepper spray in their attempt to break people’s opposition to the pipeline. They showed not only a disregard for the protester’s right to clean water, but a shocking disregard for their lives.

It is vital that we recognize the significance of this violence because it shows that corporations will choose money over human lives.

Democracy Now’s video depicting protesters being attacked by guard dogs, was a breaking point for the movement. Seeing this violence firsthand sparked national outrage. People all over the United States marched in solidarity, pushed for divestment in DAPL from banks like Wells Fargo. A group of over 2000 retired military veterans journeyed to the protest site to guard against further violence. These actions of solidarity put the pressure on the the Obama administration to the easement for its construction.

like in Flint — before the government starts thinking of its people.

By speaking out and applying pressure on the State and corporations, we force them to show their hand. In the case of the DAPL, authorities were willing to meet resistance with violence. By exploiting this violence and showing it to the public, by showing how much suffering is happening, will we gain the support and solidarity which is strong enough to make true change.

Until this happens, we must educate ourselves about our own water sources, and make sure our water is not at risk. We must recognize the inherent inequality when it comes to access to water, and protect those who are most vulnerable. We must keep raising our voice and demand that our government also protects us against future crises.

Constant vigilance — why we have to keep fighting The fact that Donald Trump has once more approved the pipeline is not surprising. If anything it continues to teach an important lesson in response to the question What do we do about taking control of our water?

The answer is we must keep fighting. If we want to ensure that environmental safety standards are enforced, we must demand it of our leaders. We cannot wait until disaster strikes — Edition 03-April 2017

20

Rahm Emanuel’s Not-SoModest Proposal

by Sammy Kayes Mayor of Chicago and commander-in-chief of the Chicago Public Schools, Rahm Emanuel, recently announced a new proposal called “Learn. Plan.

Succeed.” This proposal says that in order for high school students to graduate from CPS, they must first obtain an acceptance letter from a college, trade school, job or job program, or the military.

Taken at face value, this may sound like a good idea. Ind e e d , politicians know that their proposals are supposed to sound good to the public.

But on closer inspection, t h e p r oposal is deeply p r o b l e matic. In our ambition to secure greater educational and economic well-being for our children, it is important to look at the implications and repercussions of this policy, rather than taking the proposal on its face and getting swept away in feel-good rhetoric.

There are at least three major problems with the proposal.

First, it places more of the burden for improvement on students, schools, and communities at a

time when we need more accountability from public officials and our broader society. Second, the policy would force high schoolers to be confident in a post-secondary path too soon in their lives, simply in order to move on and have basic qualifications in the job world. Third, the proposal will widen the inequality of opportunity that already exists by making it even more difficult for struggling students to get a diploma. ©Faustin Tuyambaze

Let’s look at the first problem: the burden for improvement. Miles Kampf-Lassin published an article in the Chicago Reader explaining how this proposal would simply make things more difficult for students and families in the context of a school system “struggling to stay afloat”: “What Emanuel left out was that it’s a bit more difficult to adapt Edition 03-April 2017

when your school is chronically underfunded and under-resourced, as is the case for the more than half of CPS students who live in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods on the south and west sides.”

Emanuel’s proposal is yet another way for the city to shift more burden onto those who work and learn in the schools, despite the fact that they are not properly being supported in the first place. While teachers and librarians are being laid off, schools closed, programs cut, budgets cut (especially in minority communities), and far fewer social workers are employed than are recommended by their professional organizations, Rahm Emanuel and his handpicked b o a r d once again step in to implore t h e s t udents and remaining staff to “just tr y h a r d e r.”

This is not a real solution, and is just as insulting as it is unrealistic.

T he second problem with this proposal concerns the ridiculous implication that in order to move beyond high school, a student must already have decided what he or she intends to do after graduation. While a student under this proposal does not necessarily have to pursue the college or job that accepted him or her, all students will nevertheless have to make a large commitment to this process.

21

This will of course be a hindrance for many students who do not know what they plan to do after high school (not an unreasonable thing, given that the majority of students feel unprepared for life after graduation), but it will be especially destructive in the case of the most struggling, apathetic, and unsupported students. This policy will not “motivate” these students to try harder; it will more likely “motivate” them to give up and drop out sooner.

The third problem has just been implied, but let’s make it clear: everyone who was unsure about finishing high school is now less sure. This is not a difficult prediction to make. One more large and tedious obstacle to graduation almost certainly means that fewer students will graduate.

By “raising the bar” to a ridiculous level and adding another bureaucratic hurdle to graduation — which will be more difficult for struggling students to clear — this new policy will effectively be widening the opportunity gap.

Fewer students will graduate, and the reason they will not graduate will be arbitrary and poorly-considered. There is nothing written in the stars that one must know where one is going after high school, and be accepted there, in order to get a high school diploma. This policy is a political decision — a bad political decision — not a “natural” consequence of the needs of the education system, or the economy.

Take a guess where more of the drop-outs will go. These former students will be less likely to get a job, especially a decent paying one, since job prospects are severely limited without a high school diploma. These students will either end up on the street, or they will go into the military — as Emanuel has so generously added as an option for the graduation requirement.

If you’ve heard of the school-to-prison pipeline, there is also a school-to-military pipeline, and both of these pipelines are primarily connected to poor and minority communities. This proposal would speed up that process, and effectively force many young people to put their lives on the line because they were not born into the right community.

If there is a precedent for Emanuel’s graduation proposal, it is rare — and for good reason. The proposal is bold in that it seems to be based on zero evidence, and it’s such a terrible idea that nobody else has tried it. Merely claiming that it is an “evidence-based proposal” — as was stated in the press release — does not make it so. The evidence was not cited, probably because it hardly exists.

If it does exist, I urge Mayor Emanuel and his colleagues to release it. That will allow for the evidence to be scrutinized by educators and scholars, and then we can let the public evaluate for themselves. I doubt there will be any such scientific and transparent process, however, based on the way school reform has proceeded in Chicago and elsewhere.

Miles Kampf-Lassin writes that though Emanuel rationalizes this policy as motivational, it is actually “more punitive than it is motivational.” Indeed, this is one major trend of politics-driven education reform over the past several decades: a fundamental confusion of punishment with motivation. Threat of punishment has long been discredited through the social sciences as a good form of motivation, and it is a kind of “motivation” that interferes with learning and ethical behavior. That sounds like the opposite of what we want when it comes to motivating students and teachers.

Chicago citizens must continue to push for an elected school board so that we don’t have to rely Edition 03-April 2017

on people like Rahm Emanuel and his friends to offer legitimate proposals based on evidence, empathy, and sound thinking. There is a long list of legitimate, “evidencebased” reforms that we could use to improve our schools — and the future prospects for our children — if only it were elected community leaders who were making the decisions.

And of course, it is still possible and admirable to encourage high schoolers to apply for future positions — without making that a requirement to attain a basic high school diploma.

22

When Democracy Goes the Rohingya, an ethnic minority Wrong consisting of mostly Muslims. As Human rights violations in Myanmar: what’s happening and how to stop them

by Krishna Hammond Where democratic traditions are young, there will inevitably be an ongoing struggle between the government and the governed. Where institutions and norms do not work together to form a just civil society, violence and repression will inevitably be used to maintain order and stability, often by militaries that operate outside of any appreciable civilian control. Similarly, when institutions exist, but are weak, ill-conceived, or are managed by politicians without the drive to rein in abuse, chaos and violence roils around the margins of society, imperiling the disadvantaged and hampering any progress made towards justice. The human cost of this failure is enormous, and many nations struggle, with sometimes catastrophic results — for current examples look no farther than Sudan, Syria, and the Central African Republic. In this article, we draw crucial attention to a growing crisis in the nation of Myanmar, obscured by the interregnum following a peaceful democratic revolution (and by similar crises occurring simultaneously elsewhere).

Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is a southeast Asian nation bordering Bangladesh, India, China, Laos, and Thailand. For decades, it was ruled by a military junta — a military-run dictatorship — that was known for incredible acts of cruelty. Systematic efforts to rape and kidnap women as military strategy, torture of dissidents and enemies of the regime, and arson were commonplace, particularly against ethnic minorities like

a response to these atrocities, unilateral sanctions were instituted by the United States. The efforts of dissidents and pro-democracy activists promised change, especially as Nobel laureate and humanrights activist Aung San Suu Kyi was elected in 2015 (along with her party, the National League for Democracy) and assumed power as State Counsellor in March of 2016. Over the past few years, a slow stream of reforms have been put in place: the official disbanding of the junta in 2011, internationally monitored elections in 2012, anti-corruption regulations, the unblocking of YouTube and other websites. The release of thousands of political prisoners in 2016 led to the lifting of sanctions by the United States.

However, while power has begun to shift towards civilian institutions, the constitution written in 2008 still heavily favors the military (over 25% of seats in the government are guaranteed to the military, and many actions require 75% approval) and provisions exist that prevent Kyi from becoming President due to technicalities, creating instead the role of State Counsellor. Citizens allege factions of the military continue to act with impunity, raising the specter of a relapse into autocracy. To make matters worse, attacks on the Rohingya have only escalated.

After a terrorist attack in the early days of October 2016, over 86 members of the Rohingya have been killed by the military, prompting nearly 35,000 people to flee to neighboring Bangladesh.

Reports from the Burmese state of Rakhine allege the military has engaged in burning villages, and arbitrarily imprisoning Rohingya at random. UN monitors from the Edition 03-April 2017

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted widespread targeting of women and children for murder and rape.

Over 50% of Rohingya women interviewed by the monitors alleged experiencing rape and/or sexual violence.

In his report, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein wrote: “The devastating cruelty to which these Rohingya children have been subjected is unbearable — what kind of hatred could make a man stab a baby crying out for his mother’s milk. And for the mother to witness this murder while she is being gang-raped by the very security forces who should be protecting her… Testimonies were collected of several cases where the army or Rakhine villagers locked an entire family, including elderly and disabled people, inside a house and set it on fire, killing them all… What kind of ‘clearance operation’ is this? What national security goals could possibly be served by this?”

The consistent unwillingness of a regime ostensibly focused on human rights to respond is incredibly discouraging. In official statements, the government under Kyi questioned whether Rohingya were citizens (Rohingya were frequently referred to as Bengali migrants by the Junta, presumably to justify abuse), and denies mounting reports of assaults on the Rohingya. The refusal to recognize the ethnic group, and complicity with abuse on a massive scale, has led to a devastating feedback loop. Riots due to high profile crimes committed by and against Rohingya in 2012 were used as pretext for a government crackdown that has continued to escalate. And when the army engaged in large scale attacks on Rohingya communities in 2016, guerilla attacks on the military hardened into a coordinated Islamist insurgency, Harakah alYaqin (Faith Movement in Arabic).

23

The tide of violence and suffering must be stemmed. It is clear Kyi and her ruling party must be made to understand that an insurgency by a major ethnic minority group cannot be quelled through refusing to acknowledge the issue. Nor can they allow the military to engage in crimes against humanity and still lay claim to a desire for reform. The question of whether this continued violence is malice or incompetence in managing a corrupt and vile military is immaterial — it must be stopped. However, it is

critical in resolving this crisis that the insurgency be managed and abated as well, as the insurgency provides ammunition for the military to claim some legitimacy and gives the government an excuse to side with the military (beyond the 25% of seats it already holds). The United States can — and must — provide assistance in grinding the insurgency to a halt and stopping the cycle of retribution as well as protection for embattled Rohingya civilians seeking refuge from extermination, though a crisis of this

magnitude will require a multifaceted approach.

First, the United States has the capability to take significant unilateral action. It can contribute significantly to the country’s economic development (Myanmar remains one of the most undeveloped nations in the world) as well as provide additional funds for refugee management in neighboring nations. In addition, the US can facilitate the rebuilding of communities destroyed by the military and provide safe zones for refugees to rebuild within the

ethnic minorities could be a demand in future trading agreements with Myanmar (which is, understandably, in dire need of foreign investment).

Second, in Myanmar itself, a campaign to end the attacks, provide resources and justice for the wronged, and transition towards a condition of peace must begin immediately. These must start with a ceasefire on the part of the military and the insurgency.

The United States and its allies must leverage their international muscle to accomplish this goal. In ©Roxanne Desgagnes terms of the insurgents, a great deal of ideological and material support of the insurgent forces come from Rohingya exiles and sympathetic clerics in Saudi Arabia. The United States must demand the Saudis put a stop to the flow of funds and support to the insurgents. If the majority of Harakah al-Yaqin do not lay down their arms, American or Chinese advisors could monitor the campaign in exchange for material assistance to the military and closer cooperation in the future. However, it is important to recognize the insurgency only exists as a reaction to the radicalization of the community country itself. The US also has the by years of abuse — American ability to offer asylum to Romessaging on the issue will be crithingya, which has the added beneical to avoid Rohingya being fit of providing resources to Roscapegoated further. It will be crithingya activists, in the form of a ical also to insist that any assafe zone to organize political resistance in quelling the insurgency sistance to attacks on their comis predicated on international munities and to effectively dismonitoring of the conditions of tribute international aid received the Rohingya and subsequent profrom the United States. In terms tections for civilians. of putting pressure on the regime, Third, pressure must be an expanded version of the 1997 applied on the military to push for sanctions could be instituted, peace. On this issue, China could alongside the revocation of be a powerful voice; advocating diplomatic privileges by the US. for a ceasefire and condemning Finally, the acknowledgement of Edition 03-April 2017

24

the attacks would cost them little and would increase their standing as global leaders. In addition, a united US-China front would prevent the military from seeking to use China as a shield to protect from international scrutiny. On a smaller scale, the US could request the Nobel Committee formally condemn the behavior of one of its laureates (Counselor Kyi) with respect to the attacks on the Rohingya. Finally, the United States can also rally the support of Bangladeshi and Indian Muslim leaders to advocate for a peaceful solution to the crisis, as well as provide a moderate counterbalance to the radicalization of the population by years of consistent abuse.

Fourth, efforts to rebuild trust between the Rohingya and the Rakhine Buddhist majority are critical. Two crucial components of this effort will be a) the swift and impartial prosecution of both soldiers accused of crimes against the Rohingya and insurgents associated with attacks on Rakhine Buddhists, and b) building coordinated political opposition to the insurgency in the Rohingya community. While it is clear the brunt of the human suffering lies with the Rohingya, some overture towards the majority Buddhist population is critical, as the pretext for this crackdown were the riots in 2012, initiated by the gang rape of a Rakhine woman by Rohingya.

Any effort to install a system of international restorative justice that does not have the appearance of impartiality will be rejected by the population and will be seen as occupation by the West (a charge the Chinese, who will likely already be unhappy about American involvement along their borders, will be hypersensitive to). The inevitable blowback would scuttle the entire endeavor, and so the administration of unbiased prosecution will be incredibly delicate.

Going further, it will be necessary to guarantee some kind of representation on a national level and autonomy on a local level to ensure the community has a basic expectation of safety going forwards. In addition, some level of restitution must be offered by the state. The scale of the abuse is too great for any progress to be made without an admission of guilt by the state — though in many cases this is the most difficult part.

Throwing a few unpopular policemen to the mob is easy; holding senior military officials responsible will be hard. This does not make it any less necessary. As a final step, the military must surrender its seats in parliament, and independent law enforcement institutions must be created as a check on their power domestically.

Myanmar represents a opportunity in terms of the institution of democracy in Asia, despite the horrors transpiring there. It is important to recognize, after all, that developing democracies have a tendency to allow injustice to fester. If the United States of America wants to continue to bear the mantle of the “Leader of the Free World”, we must intensify our efforts to protect the downtrodden and preserve the pace of progress, in penance for our own misdeeds and failures. Like anything worthwhile, the creation and maintenance of a democracy is hard. Working to keep the institution of democracy around the world strong, healthy, and just is even harder. But the maintenance and expansion of liberty brings blessings- prosperity, healing, and peace. That is something worth fighting for.

Edition 03-April 2017

25

Edition 03-April 2017

26 ©Liam Black