Masthead Founder Hayden Suarez-Davis Editor in Chief Pranay Somayajula Managing Editor Dave Mahler Cover Design Pranay Somayajula Education Correspondent Sammy Kayes Political Correspondent Noah Karvelis Foreign Affairs Correspondent Krishna Hammond Contributors Daniel Kauder Justin Zarb 
 

Cover: Derivative of "Students' mass protest in Taiwan to end occupation of legislature" by Artemas Liu, used under CC BY-SA 2.0. This image is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 US.
Contents 3 4 6 10 12 15 17 19 21 23
Letter From the Editor Speaking Truth to Power: The Importance of Town Halls Paving a New Way Forward Victorious in Defeat: James Thompson and the Political Revolution Modi and Modernity Bernie Isn’t Destroying the Democratic PartyHe’s Trying to Save It South Carolina’s 5th Comes into Focus When Trump Attacks Judicial Authority, Whose Authority is Left? Stop Calling it “Free” College I, For One, Welcome Hillary to the Resistance
Letter from the Editor In last month’s letter, I wrote to you of the dire need to keep organizing and fighting for the resistance. The events of this past month have made that even more abundantly clear: The GOP-dominated House of Representatives voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in favor of a decidedly inferior alternative, throwing 24 million Americans off of their health coverage and gutting protections for individuals with preexisting conditions. President Trump’s Nixonian move to fire FBI director James Comey in the middle of an ongoing FBI investigation into the Trump Administration’s possible ties to Russia is a dangerous decision that has been derided by everyone from Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein to the American public at large. And while it has not been as widely reported as some of these other egregious abuses of power, the arrest of a reporter for repeatedly asking a question of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price sends a chilling message to all Americans about the state of the free press in Trump’s America. It has become clear that we can no longer find solace in the false hope that the Trump Administration will come to its senses sooner or later and start to govern in a rational manner. The sort of abhorrent action and rhetoric that we have seen coming from the White House thus far is no “rough patch”; rather, it is the norm for Trump and his cronies. Therefore, if we want to minimize the amount of damage done by this administration, nothing will change if we do not engage ourselves in comprehensive, grassroots action. Showing up at town halls, calling our representatives, and organizing rallies to counter each and every outrageous action taken by our elected officials will be critical to turning this resistance from a spark into a flame. We must support candidates, from the school board to the Senate, who offer a bold, progressive vision for the future of this country, and we must move away from the antiquated idea of “safe seats”. In Trump’s America, every seat, whether it is Republican or Democratic, is fair game for progressives, and we must run candidates in every single election, even those where the pundits tell us that we can’t win. Remember: if Donald Trump can shatter expectations, then so can we.
Pranay Somayajula Editor in Chief
Edition 04-May 2017
3
Speaking Truth to Power: The Importance of Town Halls Even in 2017, town-hall meetings remain a staple of American democracy
by Noah Karvelis As author and poet Aberjhani once wrote: “It can be difficult to speak truth to power. Circumstances, however, have made doing so increasingly necessary.� In the current political landscape of the United States, it has become more important than ever to stand up to hold those in power accountable. The town hall-style meeting has long been one of the most effective ways of accomplishing exactly this. In recent months, we have seen people carrying on the historic, grassroots tradition of the town hall meeting all across the country. From coast to coast, in packed town halls, citizens have been turning out en masse and voicing their experiences, opinions and thoughts in face-to-face meetings with senators, representatives, and other elected officials. These citizens understand, and are themselves an example of, the importance of the town hall meeting in our civic life. They recognize that in a functioning democracy, we must constantly be holding politicians accountable to the citizens whom they are elected to represent. The town hall
has emerged as one of the most productive ways of doing this in the Trump era, and has functioned this way for centuries. The Tradition of the Town Hall The town hall meeting is a tradition that dates back to the very beginnings of American
for example, the popular CNN Town Halls held with politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. Town halls have also shifted to not only being televised, but also to a purely digital format and are commonly held on Twitter, such as Obama’s town hall in 2012. Despite these changes and developments in the town hall meeting, at its core it remains the same: a vehicle for citizens to voice their opinions and hold politicians accountable to those whom they represent.
Image from the United States Department of State
democracy. One of the very first town halls on record was held in 1633, when the citizens of Dorchester, MA came together to discuss the issues that affected their community. Following in this example, countless political figures throughout history carried on this tradition of taking politics back to the grassroots level. Since then, the town hall has shifted, expanded and developed in different directions. Take Edition 04-May 2017
The Town Halls of the Trump Era The historic legacy of the town hall meeting continues unimpeded during the Trump presidency and, if anything, has only increased in its power and efficiency. Take, for example, the recent town hall held by Arizona senator Jeff Flake. After several months of refusing to hold a town hall with 4
his constituents, citizens protested and eventually petitioned the senator to make a public appearance in a town hall-style meeting. Just this month, they were finally successful, and Flake agreed to hold a town hall meeting. Thousands showed up to demonstrate and voice their views and to hold their senator accountable for his voting record and political positions. In a powerful display of disgust with the senator’s actions and the state of American politics, citizens voiced their opinions for two and a half hours. This grassroots energy has helped to draw Flake’s popularity into question, and has helped to underscore his position as an extremely vulnerable seat in the Senate in the 2018 election. The Flake town hall, while serving as a perfect example, is certainly not alone in demonstrating the importance of this type of meeting. Across the nation, other town halls have been held and have sent a resounding message to politicians and voters nationwide. Take, for example, Jason Chaffetz’s February town hall. In a packed meeting, Chaffetz’s constituents were unrelenting and demanded answers from their representative on issues such as his negligence of duty as Chair of the House Oversight Committee, an accusation leveled due to his lack of effort in mounting an investigation into Trump’s conflicts of interest. The citizens at the Chaffetz town hall came together and showed Chaffetz, and all other elected representatives, that they will be held accountable and work for the citizens instead of elite special interests. In the wake of this, Chaffetz recently announced that he will not run for reelection and may even leave Congress early. When politicians are held accountable in this way and reminded of what a democracy looks like, we can take back the power of our
democracy and place it back in the hands of the people. The Way Forward for Progressives We can not afford to lose any time or to relax any pressure on our elected representatives. We, as citizens and participants in a democracy, must demand to be treated as such. When politicians refuse to come to the towns and homes of those whom they represent, we must follow the example of activists such as the ones in Arizona who stood up and demanded that Senator Flake answer to them. If our representatives refuse to communicate with the people, then we will use our collective voice to unseat them in favor of people who will fulfill their civic duty. When we come together in grassroots activity such as this, we represent the fundamental, grassroots change that is taking place in American democracy. We must carry on in this direction and continue resisting and speaking truth to power in any way that we can. For many of us, the town hall functions as one of the most effective and historically relevant ways of accomplishing exactly this. The town hall is a staple of American democracy, and, in the age of fake news and political “pundits”, remains one of the last true democratic forums in our nation. Everyone who participates in our democracy must continue showing up these town hall meetings and speaking truth to power. When we hold our representatives accountable, we begin to ensure that they work for us, not elite interests, and prove that if the voices of the citizens are ignored, we will take action.
Edition 04-May 2017
5
the bad news — the Paving a New Way Forward: bad newsThat’s is that I do not believe we can reform the Democratic because of how ingrained An Interview With Draft Bernie Party the control by the oligarchs is inside that party. The good news is, Founder Nick Brana though, that with Bernie Sanders, Note: Responses have been edited for length. Nick Brana was the National Political Outreach Coordinator for the Bernie 2016 campaign, and now is the founder and leader of Draft Bernie For a People’s Party. He sits down with The Progressive Times to discuss the past, present, and future of progressive third parties in American politics. TPT: Thank you for joining us today. To get started, could you tell us a little about yourself and your work for those readers who might not be familiar with Draft Bernie? NB: So, I’ve worked in politics for more than a decade, worked in Democratic politics, and most recently I worked on the Hill and I had worked on a number of campaigns before joining Bernie’s campaign in 2015 where my title was National Political Outreach Coordinator. From there I went on to join Our Revolution as the electoral manager there. On the campaign part of what I did was working the superdelegates; that was a big part of my job. That was part of what led me towards creating Draft Bernie in the end. TPT: So what prompted you to start Draft Bernie and how did you go about it? NB: It was working with the superdelegates, realizing simply how disconnected they were from the lives of working people, from the interests of working people, realizing this system of patronage inside the Democratic
Party and how unconcerned they were about the issues, and how deeply ingrained corporate money was into the mentality of the party and the party structure itself. Working there, and my previous experience with the party has pushed me towards this, but this really led me to believe that it’s not a matter of removing the tumor of corporate money from an otherwise healthy body; rather, the entire body of the Democratic Party is corrupted. Corporate money is essentially written into the party’s DNA, and there would be almost nothing left if you were to extract that. So there’s that, along with also looking into the history of third parties and realizing that while the challenges to create a major new party are great, there is a successful model in our own history of having done so. That’s what the Republican and Democratic Parties did, for politicians with large followings inside the establishment regime to show the limits of the party, and after having done so, to take that following to a new party. For example, Lincoln’s Republican party overthrew the old, pro-slavery Whig Party within just a few years by doing that. To me, the person that meets that description perfectly now is Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is incredibly popular now, the most popular politician in the country, and despite that, he’s working within an institution that is not amenable to progressives, that is not responsive to any of the issues that working people have. Edition 04-May 2017
if you were to take half of the Democrats and half of the independents and form a new party with them, the independents being by far the largest group, that’s already the largest party in the United States by far. Bernie’s popularity with those groups is around 80 percent, so I think it’s eminently doable at this point and people are hungry for an alternative. You’ve got Trump’s daily assault on working people, which you would think would be building the Democrats immensely, and you’ve got Bernie working to bring people into the Democrats basically every day. So you’ve got two major forces that should be bringing people into the party, but in fact, the people’s disdain for the Democratic Party and the recognition that it is not a genuine opposition party, but rather is a variation of the Republican Party, is so great that people are actually leaving the Democratic Party and moving into independent status. Because of that, I think there is a direction the country is moving as a whole towards an independent alternative, and rather than trying to struggle against that current, we should embrace it and we should create our own progressive, populist party. TPT: So what do you say to the conventional belief that because of the structure of the American political system, a third party will never establish itself and will only act as a “spoiler” to help the other side win?
6
NB: Where we are, there’s this kind of paradoxical effect that as both parties move further to the right as they have for year, then people on the left, which is the majority because the majority of the country are progressive populists on the issues and side with Bernie down the line on his platform, people become disillusioned and realize that the Democratic Party is way too ideologically close to the Republican Party, and they’re not motivated to go out and vote. Turnout, essentially, is depressed because of that, and we saw that in the past election; that’s what led to Trump’s victory. And so the way to win is not to follow the Republican Party further away from the views of the majority; it’s instead to do what Bernie did on his campaign, to offer a bold alter native that actually inspires people. Bernie built up a political revolution within a year; we can formalize that into a campaign because that will then inspire people to come out and to vote. The Democratic Party base is essentially with Bernie but the party isn’t, so he can take that base into a new party, add to it independents, add to it anti-establishment voters, add to it young people, add to it third-party voters, and you’re talking about a coalition now that is much larger than the Democratic Party. This party would replace the Democratic Party in quick order.
TPT: How does your movement’s mission to “Draft Bernie” as the head of the People’s Party align with the Sanders campaign’s message of “not me us”, that the political revolution should not center around any one person? Is there a contradiction there? NB: Bernie won’t be the one designing the platform; that’s actually what is so inspiring about this to me: it actually does represent the people taking back power. First of all, it’s the people telling Bernie — Bernie called us to the campaign, and now it’s our turn to call Bernie to a new party, and ©Gage Skidmore/ CC BY-SA 2.0
that’s what we’re doing. I think that’s empowering; I think that is the “not me us” part of this. It’s the people saying, “Bernie, we don’t have confidence in that approach anymore. The Democratic Party is continuing to shrink despite your best efforts.” That, I believe, is part of it, and it’s also the fact that this is not an effort to make Bernie the king of a party or the autocrat of a party. Edition 04-May 2017
This is what we’ll do should Bernie decide to do this: we’ll come together as the many movements that make up the progressive movement, and we will craft a platform together, democratically. We will also create a new party structure because the structure of the Democratic Party is completely undemocratic itself. You have party bosses who essentially get to pick the candidates in the primaries. Just recently in court, the Democratic Party essentially affirmed its right to pick candidates in back rooms if it wants to. So, reforming the party process so that it’s not superdelegates who are electing the party leadership but it’s people, the actual membership of the party, that’s just as important as actually crafting a platform. That’s where I say that it is about “not me us”. T P T: I f Bernie were to refuse the leadership of the People’s Party and instead chose to maintain his position as an independent affiliated with the Democrats, is there anyone else you would want to see take the helm? NB: There are lots of great progressives who I would hope to join together in this effort. We have folks, of course, like Dr. Cornel West, Josh Fox, who joined us in the effort to create something new. I am very confident that Bernie will join us. We’re 7
talking about the longest-serving independent in Congress, who tried to build the Liberty Union Party in the ’70s to try and take down both establishment parties. This is the guy who had to be talked out of running as an independent the last time he ran for president and then left the Democratic Party during the DNC Convention because he couldn’t wait to get out of the party. And of course, he himself has said that if the Democratic Party fails to reform, then the action will be in a third party. That’s his quote: “the action will be in a third party.” So, I am confident that he will join us in the end; it’s just a matter of how much evidence does this require before it becomes evident to him and others that this strategy is really not succeeding. But if he were ever to say “You know, I’m wedded to the Democratic Party forever”, then those of us believe that the Democratic Party is not going to be the solution would have to work amongst ourselves to create an alternative. TPT: So given your past connections with the campaign, are you in talks with Bernie himself or his staffers about this initiative? NB: Yes, I have spoken to all of the above, but those were conversations with private individuals, so unfortunately I can’t discuss them. TPT: What if Bernie Sanders or someone who shares his vision were to run for and secure the Democratic nomination in 2020? Would the People’s Party throw their support behind them, or would you choose to support another candidate who was not affiliated with the Democrats?
NB: The Democratic Party has done everything to affirm that it will not support progressives. There’s been a couple of special elections — one in Montana, one in Kansas — that the DNC is refusing to support progressives. We’ve seen that turnout for the Democratic Party in special elections has also been low; we’ve seen also that the Democratic Party is less popular than Trump and the Republican Party. We’ve seen that swing, anti-establishment voters who voted for Obama and for Trump believe that the Democratic Party’s policies favor the wealthy twice as much as would say the same for the Republican Party. That really shows that working inside the Democratic Party is a dead end, and I do not believe that a progressive presidential candidate would make it through the primary. I also don’t think that would satisfy what we are trying to achieve in a political revolution. The political revolution needs to be more than one individual taking one office, like the Presidency. Even if we have a dream scenario, and I have no confidence that this would happen at all, where maybe Bernie ran again and he got the Democratic nomination and even became president, then he finds himself within a corporate party and a corporate Congress that opposes his agenda. The political revolution has to be more than about taking one office. We really have the opportunity to build the People’s Party over the next three and a half years, and Bernie built his political revolution in just one year. 57 percent of people in the United States want a major third party, and running a candidate for the People’s Party in 2020 would have a downballot effect and would sweep in People’s Party members into state offices and local offices across the country, Edition 04-May 2017
Congress, and that would be the real political revolution. TPT: Many people argue that the political system needs moderates on both the right and left to ensure bipartisanship and keep the wheels of government turning. Do you agree with this sentiment, or do you see it as necessary to vote out of office any politicians who aren’t progressive enough? Where do you draw the line between political pragmatism and ideological purity? NB: There’s this convention in the media that teaches you to view the political system as a bell curve where most people are in the middle, and then you have the line down the middle with the Democratic Party on the left and the Republican party on the right, and the middle of the bell curve is where most people in the United States affiliate as. That’s the impression that the media and establishment politicians would have you believe about where people are ideologically. That’s not true at all. Issue polls show that down the line of issues from getting money out of politics to single-payer healthcare to free public college, people are instead far to the left of the establishment parties. That bell curve has shifted significantly to the left, and over on the right, two or three standard deviations away from the center, you have the Democratic and Republican parties. These parties do not represent the ideological spectrum of the people; they represent the ideological spectrum of their donors, of the billionaire class, the Democrats being the left wing of the billionaire class and the Republicans being the right wing of the billionaire class. I think it’s simply about democracy. Our objective 8
within a democracy is to create a system where the politicians actually represent people, and that requires that there would be progressive populists across all levels of government. And not everybody uses that term. Bernie is extremely popular with conservatives, especially if they get to know him more. In Vermont, he’s more popular with conservatives than Republican Party politicians; in fact, he was outpolling the Republican presidential primary candidates among Republicans. That tells you about how the media would have you believe that it’s left vs. right. It’s not. It’s not left vs. right anymore; it’s establishment vs anti-establishment because people are so fed up with how the system works. TPT: And what do you think of Bernie’s use of the term “socialist” to describe his ideology and positions. Where does the People’s Party fall in terms of how socialist it can be considered? NB: That would have to be a decision made by the people at the convention. We’d have to decide how far to the left we want it to be. One of the issues with the Green Party is that it has kind of been branded as this far-left party and people think it doesn’t represent them when of course it does on many issues. The party has to be a party that embraces working people who consider themselves of all kinds of political ideology and has to cut through that political ideology. That’s what Bernie does so well, and so that will be a decision that has to be made, of course, by the people as to how much we will go in that direction. It will obviously draw great inspiration from Bernie’s platform and, I think, from the Green platform.
TPT: And finally, what about your organizing and communications strategy is going to help you succeed where others have failed in terms of getting beyond the traditionally negative view of third parties in mainstream politics? NB: What’s so unique about Bernie is that he already assembled the coalition. He did it during the primary; he put together this revolutionary coalition of people who are no longer content to put up with the establishment and with the status quo. But because of the nature of a campaign, that has kind of been dissolved back into the political system and it’s kind of lost its coherency. It’s no longer a unified strength and a unified power. Bernie showed us, though, on the campaign, that a unified Left is a system-changing force when it comes together. One of the things you’re seeing now is that the independent Left is going all kinds of directions. As I mentioned before, people are not content to be working inside the Democratic Party and that’s why they are continuing to leave the Democratic Party at a time when you would think they would be entering the Democratic Party in large numbers.
this incredible coalition that came together under Bernie’s campaign and including so many people who have since become persuaded of the necessity for that. That’s what we have the ability to put together now, but only inside a new party. The power exists out there, and Bernie is the one who can put it together, having done it before. TPT: Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate the work you’re trying to do, and we wish you the best of luck going forward.
But in independent politics, the movement is fragmenting in many different directions because there’s no unifying, overarching leadership. If Bernie was to step in and he was to say “all right, enough with the Democrats; it’s time for a new party”, that would be what the progressive movement is doing. And we could reform that incredible coalition of independents, young people, working people, people of color, indigenous people, labor unions that came together for Bernie as well, progressive organizations, Edition 04-May 2017
9
Victorious in Defeat: James Thompson and the Political Revolution James Thompson proves that the political revolution is alive and well
by Noah Karvelis Last Tuesday, a clear message was sent by James Thompson and his campaign for Congress: The political revolution is alive and well in the heart of conservative America. When Thompson, a littleknown civil rights attorney from Kansas, arose as the Democrat challenger, no one considered him a legitimate threat to flip Trump cabinet member Mike Pom-
peo’s congressional seat in the deeply conservative 4th District. Yet, the impossible nearly happened on Tuesday night. As the election results came in, Democrats and Republicans nationwide looked on in awe. It suddenly appeared as though James Thompson was on his way to represent Kansas’ conservative 4th District- a district that Trump carried by 27 points during the presidential election- in the United States Congress. In the end, James Thompson lost the special election in the 4th District by fewer than seven points- the closest
that a Democrat has ever come to flipping a seat in Kansas in 21 years. While the defeat has sent another conservative to Congress to fill new CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s vacated seat, it is nevertheless a clear and inspiring victory for the political revolution. The Thompson campaign is, without a doubt, a victory for progressive revolutionaries and grassroots campaign organizers nationwide. This campaign sent a message of hope to every single American who deserves a political system that works for people like ©Tim Evanson/Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0
them, not just billionaires and their corporations. Thompson proved that you do not need the money and support of big corporations- or even the Democratic establishment. While the Republican Party pumped money into what they realized was a heavily contested race, the DNC and DCCC hardly supported Thompson. Even after DNC chair Tom Perez’s supposed embrace of a “50 State Strategy”, the Democratic establishment overlooked the campaign in Kansas and once again refused to support a grassroots, progressive candidate. Despite this lack of any vestige of support from the
Edition 04-May 2017
10
establishment, Thompson nevertheless came within 7 points of flipping a Congressional seat in the heart of conservative America. In the face of a tremendous lack of support and funding from the Democratic Party, the Thompson campaign turned to authentic, grassroots organizing to launch them to a near-victory. What resulted was one of the strongest displays of the power of progressive campaigns in decades. Thompson’s campaign showed us that through grassroots organizing, even in the most “impossible” districts, the political revolution is thriving and poised to fight and win- regardless of establishment support.
our nation. Only through this type of revolutionary, grassroots political action can we place the United States back where it belongs: in the hands of its citizens.
Continuing the Revolution If there was any doubt about the power of the political revolution, grassroots organizing, or the progressive message, there should be none now. Thompson’s campaign was not an anomaly. It is a direct effect of the extensive grassroots organizing taking place in every single state in the United States, every single day. If, in the heart of conservative America, progressives can organize and challenge the status quo in a rushed special election with essentially no support from party leadership, then we can accomplish anything. Thompson’s campaign proved exactly that, and his campaign is not alone. As the Trump Administration continues to wreak havoc upon the United States’ democratic ethos and destroy any remaining vestige of concern for lower- and middle-class Americans, citizens are coming together in grassroots efforts and fighting to take back American government and society. Right now, in every state in America, there is a tidal wave of political activity. While the Republicans celebrate their votes in 2017, Democrats and progressives nationwide are meeting in cramped political headquarters, canvassing relentlessly in their communities, running grassroots campaigns, and fighting to continue the political revolution and give America back to the citizens. The Thompson campaign is a barometer for the effects of this activity and the turning attitudes of Trump voters. When solidly conservative districts such as Kansas’ 4th are beginning to turn blue, it is certain that many more will follow and the strength of the political revolution will continue to grow. What we must do now is continue this energy and come together regardless of race, gender, or age, as a revolutionary force in American politics. We must recognize that we, as Americans suffering under a society and government continues to provide for corporations and billionaires, must unite in fight to take back Edition 04-May 2017
11
Modi and Modernity Centralization, Corruption, and Change in the World’s Largest Democracy
by Krishna Hammond Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minister of India as of 2017, has cast himself in the image of a new kind of Indian politician- a savvy, charismatic technocrat (in the tradition of other popular world figures) intent on accelerating the development of the world’s largest democracy. He has embraced digitization by pushing for the increased availability of government information, started the Digital India program (intended to build infrastructure for high-speed internet in rural areas), launched a Make in India initiative, and announced his intent to improve the efficiency of the (admittedly corrupt and byzantine) Indian bureaucracy. But the overtures of his agenda have sour notes along the margins, giving his tenure as Prime Minister an ominous undertone. His efforts at attacking bureaucracy, regulation and the “shadow economy” of corruption have produced intermittent chaos in the markets due to uneven implementation, and have eroded labor rights. The ultimate result is a steady centralization of political power in the capital of New Delhi, centered around Modi’s own right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He has elevated Hindu nationalism (Hindutva), and the BJP has pushed (but does not yet have the votes to pass) measures to enact covertly ideological “anti-conversion laws.” Modi is not the first politician to centralize authority- he himself lived through the days of the Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi, who had her own authoritarian ambitions (albeit on the other side of the political spec-
trum). However, these issues hint a more fundamental deficiency: Modi’s selective embrace of modernity. He pushes for development, but rejects religious freedom and the public sector of the economy, civil institutions, and labor. It paves the way for the same trend of destructive nationalism and fundamentalism that has contributed to dysfunction worldwide, and it limits the potential of the country that is best poised to provide a powerful democratic counterbalance to the governance of authoritarian China. Lost in the shockwaves in Western media generated in early November of 2016 was the implementation of a demonetization policy in India. The 500 rupee (roughly $7.70 USD) and $1000 rupee notes ($15) were removed from circulation; these notes comprised an astounding 86% of all notes in production. This was an anti corruption measure designed to flush the system- rendering currency useless particularly hurts institutions that cannot legally account for the lost capital. The measure caused the desired pandemonium in the “shadow economy” or the “informal economy”- the term for the unregulated economy populated mostly by workers paid under the table, middlemen who peddle bribes on behalf of others, and small undeclared businesses. However, it also lead to massive cash shortages and real pain for workers around the nation who needed money in the short term, not the long term. Over 100 people died as a direct result of long wait times for valid bank notes. Official services — particularly online ones — strained and shut down under the pressure. Opposition parties and labor Edition 04-May 2017
unions hosted massive protests, many jobs were lost, and the GDP growth rate was revised down significantly (average forecasts stated a drop in about 1–2 percentage points on average, translating to a loss of tens of billions). Yet, this chaotic implementation hides even more concerning trends within the economy as Modi attempts to retrofit a dysfunctional, semi-socialist economy into a neoliberal model. Privatization initiatives and measures to dismantle labor laws have been implemented (leading to massive strikes in 2015, as many industries like rail, power, and banking are at least partially publicly owned), and restrictions on the development of environmentally-protected land have been lifted. In alarming news, restrictions on development of industry in the most polluted parts of the country have been lifted. All of the measures detailed above have one common denominatorthey empower the investor class of the economy, and weaken principal foes of the BJP- trade unions, the institutional bureaucracy, and the centrist and leftwing opposition parties. In expanding the fortunes of the wealthiest by executive fiat, Modi has bound their destiny to his own, and has used their goodwill to centralize power around himself. He has eliminated key agencies like the Planning Commission and has increased executive power over judicial appointments. This concentration of power and uneven implementation of reforms has married the worst of both sides of the political spectrum: the market chaos of dysfunctional neoliberalism, fused with the concentration of executive power in dysfunctional socialist administrations of the past. Modi’s attempts to remake the economic and political life of India have more often than not had the reverse effect, 12
a public realignment in favor of fundamentalism could see the cultural westernization in t h e yo u n g e r generation roll back.
© Obama White House. Photo by Pete Souza
stifling the growth necessary for the future. Perhaps more worrying, however, is not the economic and policy vectors of Modi’s attempted neoliberal realignment of India, but the creeping specter of fundamentalism represented by Hindutva, the official adopted ethos of the BJP. Hindutva pays lip service to pluralism by claiming Hindu identity to be “cultural” rather than religious, and allows some leeway for Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists to consider themselves cultural Hindus.In practice, however, this ideology has lead to overt regulation of religion in the form of “anti-conversion” laws- requiring participants in religious activity to report to the state authorities any change in religious status months in advance. This allows for the monitoring of religious minorities by authorities and provides a disincentive for Jews, Christians, and Muslims to evangelize. In 2014, the BJP ran on a
promise to institute such laws nationwide- with the effort being stalled only by a lack of a majority in the Upper House. Modi’s BJP supported the institution of laws supporting Hindu doctrine on a statewide basis (India functions on a federal system, broken into 29 states), including bans on the killing of cows in Maharashtra in 2014, conversion programs to Hinduism, and alleged coercion of conversion from Islam and Christianity, which specifically drew criticism from President Obama. This is all underpinned by a gradual expansion of the role of hardline Hindutva supporters in the political world of India, similar to the role of evangelicals in American politics in the 1980s. India maintains civil rights laws despite spotty enforcement, but this Hindu-nationalist tide has the worrying potential to undermine rules designed to protect people on the basis of caste and religion, and exacerbate the populist impulses of the Indian public. Taboos on public displays of affection and homosexuality remain strong, and Edition 04-May 2017
India has an outsize role to play on the world’s stage. It is a nation more comparable in population to China than America, yet it bears much more in common with America in terms of democratic traditions and economic structure. It is one of the world’s most successful young democracies, and it prides itself on a strong economy, a grounding in the tradition of civil rights pioneered by none other than Mahatma Gandhi, and one of the world’s oldest and richest cultures. The Indian people have a strong desire to develop and grow to their rightful place on the world stage- but this growth is put in jeopardy by the ambitions of Narendra Modi and the BJP. Modi and the movement he represents crave the blessings of modernity in the Western style- sophisticated infrastructure, the expansion of the economy, and greater national prestige. On the other hand, they are either disinterested or outright hostile to the civic institutions that enable this modernity- civil rights, labor rights, and decentralized (and balanced) government. Religious freedom can be read as a moral imperative. The strongest disincentive towards 13
fundamentalism, however, is the havoc it plays on growth through limits on individual freedom. Similarly, the strength of the public sector and organized labor in India has been a strong contributor to better outcomes in terms of standard of living and growth (although expanding opportunity into rural areas remains a challenge that vexes nearly all geographically large nations, India included). Investment and the health of the private sector is important in India- but that should be balanced with the protection of Indian citizens’ livelihoods, as well as the protection of the environment (an area in which the poorest Indians are particularly vulnerable due to increasing climate instability around the tropics).
turns. An independent judiciary lends credence to laws and establishes justice. Protections for religious freedom defend the liberty of citizens while allowing them to express themselves- to the benefit of all. Modi should embrace these democratic institutions, as they nourish the moder nity and progress which he craves. There is still plenty of time to moderate and transform the BJP into a true populist movement. If Modi embraces his better instincts, then maybe he can become the leader he aspires to be.
It is clear through some of Modi’s more forward-thinking proposals, such as electric car conversions and his interest in changing the shadow economy, that he is interested in achieving real development and growth.The right wing nationalist desire to dismantle or weaken institutions and norms, however, will only stifle this effort. Modi should recognize the path of hardline fundamentalism and neoliberalism g oes nowhere, and does not represent a true platform of populist reform. So much of his platform is mired in half-truths and partially realized breakthroughs. Corruption is a plague on the economy. The same could be said of centralized mismanagement and environmental damage. Foreign investment is important. But it will be moot if the nation stops investing in the public good. Modi can and should seek reform and new investment — but he should not forsake the characteristics that make India successful. A strong public sector is a bulwark against economic downEdition 04-May 2017
14
Bernie Isn’t Destroying the Democratic Party- He’s Trying to Save It Instead of vilifying the political revolution, the Democratic Party should embrace it
by Pranay Somayajula When a 75-year-old senator loses a long and contentious battle for the Democratic presidential nomination in one of the most controversial elections the country has ever seen, you might expect them to go into hiding the minute the convention is over. For Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, however, that is far from the case. In the months up to and following Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election, Senator Sanders has continued to speak out against injustice and inequality, from introducing bills pushing for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage to founding an organization aimed at spreading progressive values and promoting grassroots candidates all across the nation. While the momentum of his campaign has led to increased support among Democrats both in the general public and in Congress, Bernie nevertheless remains a political independent who has re peatedly criticized the Democratic Party for its inability to adapt and organize in a grassroots manner.
This criticism, which comes at a time of extreme vulnerability for Democrats nationwide in the wake of a devastating 2016 election cycle, has led to many in the Democratic establishment condemning Bernie and his supporters as “tearing the Democratic Party apart”. Many have argued that Bernie has always been out to hinder Democratic success, and that if he really cared about the party, he would have dropped out and endorsed Clinton earlier in the race rather than push his campaign all the way to a divisive and vitriolic convention. Some have even gone so far as to blame Bernie’s purported divisiveness for the crushing defeat of the Democrats in November. This assertion, however, is a fundamental misrepresentation of why the Democrats lost. Bernie
Sanders did not push his campaign through to the end, nor has he continued to criticize the Democrats, because he is stuck in his own mental bubble of a socialist utopia where any politician who does not conform to his standards of ideological purity is corrupt and evil. Rather, Bernie and his supporters took these actions as a way to hold accountable a party which has, over the years, grown more and more distant from the needs of the American people. The Democrats did not lose the election because of an army of disgruntled “Bernie Bros” led by a sore loser. The Democrats lost because twothirds of Americans, and nearly half of Democrats themselves, believe that the party has lost touch with the American public. This is a party that in the past prided itself on being the friend of labor and the party of the average citizen, but now is less relatable to the American people than ©Gage Skidmore/ CC BY-SA 2.0
Edition 04-May 2017
15
the corporatist Republicans and their multibillionaire Commanderin-chief. This movement sparked by Bernie Sanders and his political revolution was, and still is, one aimed at saving the Democratic Party from itself. It may be true that had Bernie dropped out sooner, or had he been less vocal in his criticism of the Democrats, the party would be more unified and old wounds wouldn’t feel as fresh. This, however, would be an empty victory. Party unity means nothing if the party has nothing to unify around. Thankfully, we have seen Bernie and his army of progressives beginning to succeed in restoring the Democratic party to the party of the working man. During the general election campaign, pressure from the “Berniecrat” wing of the party pushed Hillary Clinton further to the left than when she started, and policies that were once considered radical, such as a $15 minimum wage, have found growing support among establishment Democrats. The truth is that without continued pressure from the party’s leftmost wing, the Democrats will only drift further and further from the needs of the American people, continuing the neoliberal transformation from a legitimate political party into a glorified special-interest group. The two-thirds of people who feel the Democrats have lost touch with them will turn into three-quarters, then fourfifths. Meanwhile, the Republicans will take advantage of the situation and gradually shift their mainstream party doctrine from traditional conservatism to right-wing populism. If we thought Donald Trump was bad, wait until we have President Alex Jones. This unthinkable future will only be prevented if the Democrats stop vilifying the very people who are trying to save them from themselves.
The party establishment’s refusal to ban corporate PAC money and its vicious smear campaign against a progressive contender for its top position are indicative of what Bernie has been trying to tell us all along: that change, particularly within the Democratic party, is never going to come from the top down. The only way that the necessary reforms will be implemented within the party structure is through grassroots, progressive pressure and action that comes from the bottom up. We can no longer rely on party leaders to turn the Democrats into a grassroots party of the people — that initiative will have to come from us. It will be imperative, in the months and years ahead, that we the people lead the charge to take the necessary steps and make the Democratic Party a winning force in American politics. If we don’t, I shudder to think of 2020.
Edition 04-May 2017
16
South Carolina’s 5th Comes Into Focus
All eyes are now turned to a Democratic showdown in the Palmetto State
by Daniel Kauder By now most people have heard of the special elections in Kansas and Georgia, in which Democratic candidates were at the forefront of what is apparently a surging wave of anti-Trump voter engagement. In both Kansas’ 4th a n d G e o rg i a ’s 6 t h Districts, the Democratic candidate saw u n p r e c ed e n t e d surges of turnout: J a m e s Thompson, the Democrat in Kans a s , u l t imately lost, but he brought the R e p u b l icans’ margin of victory down from 31% in November 2016 to 6.8% in April of this year. Jon Ossoff, the Democrat in Georgia, won the run-off with almost enough votes (48.1%) to win the Congressional seat outright in a district where the Democratic candidate only won 38.3% last November. The fact that these districts are both traditional Republican strongholds raises the question: Could this be the beginning of a Democratic resurgence? To see if this trend continues, all eyes now turn to the special election in
South Carolina’s 5th district, which has a primary on May 2nd. Set against each other are three Democratic candidates, two of whom- Archie Parnell and Alexis Frank- are at the same time polar opposites of one another, and yet, strikingly similar. The third, Les Murphy, is not discussed in this article because of his late entrance
Frank’s message is that her perspective as an activist political outsider would help move the 5th District in the direction it needs to go. It would seem as though we have a real showdown being set up for us; old versus young, financier versus veteran. Indeed, one could easily interpret this primary as a real referendum on the state of South Carolina’s Democratic Party.
The difficulty with such a The South Carolina state flag n a r r a t ive i s that in order for it to be legitimate, the players need to be very well defined. Both have staked out some rhetorical territory, but specific and concrete policy proposals were harder to come by, and that makes this ‘showdown’ narrative difficult to s q u a r e b einto the race. yond anything other than surfacelevel differences. To some degree On the one hand, we have this is to be expected in any race, Archie Parnell. With a well-develas many people respond more to a oped media campaign, decades of candidate’s broader vision than to experience in finance, and a proa point-by-point explanation of fessorial look to boot, Parnell’s their ten-page policy outline. But primary message is that he can at the same time, the people need leverage his experience working more than boilerplate platitudes for Goldman Sachs into helping and feel-good lip service. So in the the middle class get the best fiinterest of clarification, let’s exnancial deal from Congress. On plore beyond those cover letter the other hand, we have Alexis differences. Frank — a Millennial with six years of Army service and who sits on Take, for example, the the board of a local nonprofit, candidates’ statements on enviEdition 04-May 2017
17
ronmental protections. Parnell states that he wants to promote “the expansion of these renewable resources as we continue to decrease our dependency on fossil fuels”; Frank says that she wants to “do everything [she] can to stand up for your environmental protections and your children’s rights to clean air and clean water”.
take time, and thus the United States should “ease our way into” such a system- though she affirmed her belief that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. For his own part, Parnell’s position does not seem to go quite so far; his website states that Medicare and Social Security should be there for a person if they “paid into it” and “earned it”.
Neither gets into specific details about how they would go about that or what particular legislation they’ve heard of that they would support or oppose. Parnell’s campaign responded to inquiry on the subject by touting South Carolina’s potential for solar and wind, as well as nuclear and biofuels (especially as a byproduct of their logging industry), while the Frank campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
When asked for comment about Parnell’s history as a Goldman Sachs employee for decades, the Parnell campaign responded that his time in the firm was spent earning the nickname of “The Policeman” while in their Tax Department; “he walked the halls and combed the books to insure compliance with complicated tax laws, both US tax laws and foreign tax laws”. Campaign Manager Daniel Barash went on to say,
Both Frank and Parnell have declared support for a “living” wage, though both campaigns’ current positions are that what constitutes “living” varies state to state. Frank has stated that she believes there should be a bedrock minimum wage at the federal level onto which states could add based on their cost of living, but as far as The Progressive Times could find, she has not stated what she believes that federal minimum should be. Frank has said that she wants to implement the higher minimum wages on larger businesses first, as their profit margins can survive the increased expense, and gradually expand the wage laws to smaller businesses as that initial surge in working wages hits the local economies.
“Archie wants to bring that knowledge to bear for the families in the SC-05 — by creating good paying jobs in the district and lowering taxes for working families. It doesn’t take a tax expert to know that it’s wrong to give companies that outsource jobs overseas big tax breaks for offshoring trillions of dollars, and Archie will fight to end that.”
In an interview with The Progressive Voice, Frank stated that while she believes in a singlepayer medical system, the implementation of such a system would
ty, the primary for SC-05 is a refreshing island of calm and civility.
Beyond their initial differences in policy, however, was something else- a commonality. Both Parnell and Frank refused to speak ill of one another, and focused exclusively on what they believe the positive impacts of their own public service would be. This is especially heartening given that the Democratic Party is experiencing such a dramatic tug-ofwar for its soul elsewhere in the country. It would be admittedly very easy for either one of these two candidates to engage in such sniping, but against the backdrop of intra-party struggle and disuniEdition 04-May 2017
18
When Trump Attacks Judicial Authority, Whose Authority is Left? We must take the President’s attacks on the court system for what they are: a threat to American democracy
by Noah Karvelis When Donald Trump announced an executive order halting all travel and immigration from six majority-Muslim nations, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acted quickly in halting the order and refusing to reinstate it, declaring it unconstitutional. Just this last week, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California struck down Trump’s executive order banning sanctuary cities. In response, many around the world breathed a sigh of relief as it appeared that logic and American values of liberty and diversity were protected in a democratic, judicially-sanctioned manner. Yet, on the other side of the aisle, the response was much different. The Ninth Circuit Court, which comprises of Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington, has long been considered liberal and anti-American by conservatives, and is a common targ-
et for many conservative pundits and legislators. Now, in the wake of two consecutive executive orders being repealed in the region, President Trump has stated he is “absolutely” considering breaking up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and senators such as Ted Cruz have voiced support for such a move. Such a move is incredibly threatening — considering that a district court, not the Ninth Circuit, blocked the sanctuary cities order, Trump’s response is purely reactionary, opportunistic, and based on an untrue assumption about which court is actually blocking his actions. The fact that President Trump is responding to the overturning of his executive orders in this manner is not entirely surprising. As those who know him well have stated, Trump’s “ego is beyond egoism” , and he has clearly displayed his disrespect for outside authority in the first months of his presidency. Just days after taking office, Trump’s ego and total disregard for the judicial system was already on full display in a flurry of tweets denouncing “so-called judges” and the judicial system for temporarily halting his unconstitutional travel ban. Even before his time in office, Trump attacked Judge Gonzalo Curiel on the basis of his Mexican heritage constituting “an inherent conflict of interest” while overseeing a fraud lawsuit against ©Gage Skidmore/ CC BY-SA 2.0 Trump University. Despite the shocking realities of Trump’s past denial of the authority of the law, the threat of actually breaking up a court on bogus assertions takes Trump’s apparent disregard for judicial authority to an entirely new level. In the past, this disregard has taken the form of loaded rhetoric on Twitter or verbal attacks in press conferences. The fact that Trump has threatened
Edition 04-May 2017
19
to now entirely defy judicial authority and act to break up a functioning Circuit Court that disagrees with him should send a measure of shock to all lovers of freedom and democracy.
the destruction of anything stopping them- even judicial authority- is on the table.
The Circuit Court system is a landmark of American democracy, and was founded in 1891 based on the vision of the founders of the American political system. In The Federalist Paper no. 78, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton outlines the role that the courts will play in American democracy and states that “Whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.� In threatening to break up the Ninth Circuit, therefore, President Trump is seeking to extend his personal power by attacking an essential democratic institution meant to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. What Trump and those around him have displayed thus far, through actions and threats such as this, is that they will go to almost any lengths to extend the President’s power. If this means changing Senate rules to defy a filibuster and confirm a stolen Supreme Court pick, so be it. If this means breaking up a court, so be it. There apparently is no limit to power in the mind of Donald Trump and the opportunistic legislators who blindly support him without any consideration for the average American citizen. If Trump were to act on his claim of breaking up the Ninth Circuit Court, what would occur would be a tremendous display of force and total disregard for any judicial authority in the United States. This rhetoric, let alone the potential action, should put American citizens, as well as citizens worldwide, on high alarm. If Donald Trump attempts to break up the Ninth Circuit, it confirms a fear that many people already harbor: the President believes his authority to be limitless. We must then ask ourselves: When Donald Trump attacks judicial authority, whose authority is left? We live in a society where any vestige of the common good, of democracy, and of freedom is being attacked and dismantled. With Donald Trump at the helm, it seems that this frightening trend will continue. The threat of a total concentration of power in the hands of billionaires, corporations and the legislators that work for them seems to be a growing reality. And Edition 04-May 2017
20
Stop Calling it “Free” College Tuition-free higher education does have its costs, but how we pay for it is no mystery
by Sammy Kayes Bernie Sanders recently introduced a proposal to Congress along with Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, and other members of Congress, which would allow for most students to attend public higher education institutions without having to pay tuition. The main stipulation for this bill is that for students to be eligible, they must come from a home that pulls in no more than $125,000 in combined income. Considering that we are the richest country in the history of the world, and many other countries cover one-hundred percent of tuition (or close to it) just fine, this plan is clearly a compromise — but it is a large step in the right direction. It would cover tuition for the majority of students, and ease the burden of education costs for millions of families. Financial concerns with “free tuition” are expected, but the skepticism does not bear out. Tu-
ition-free higher education is a far better financial decision than what we have now: $1.2 trillion in student debt. Each public dollar spent on education yields a greater return to the economy. UC Berkeley researchers found, for example, that “for every dollar the state invests, it receives a $4.50 return.”
But so long as universities know that students can and will pay for their tuition using student loans, tuition prices will continue to rise. Higher education has become a greater debt sentence over the years, and will continue in that direction if it goes on operating like a for-profit enterprise. Although many skeptics will agree on the benefits of tuition-free higher education, the inevitable question that is raised is “but how will we pay for it?”. This Edition 04-May 2017
may indeed be the final barrier for a skeptic, and if asked in earnest, the question is fine — it should be answered. Skepticism of new spending, or of a shift in resource allocation, is perfectly warranted. When the question is asked, though, there is an easy answer, and it is the only sensible one. First, we live in the richest nation in the history of the world, and so there is no doubt that we can easily pay for it. Then, it’s very simple how we will pay for it: the same way we pay for other public goods and services. We know how this works — it’s called federal and state funding. A small amount contributed through tax dollars, or s i m p l y drawn from the massive existing ©Davide Cantelli budget of the United States government, will pay for tuition-free public education without much difficulty. The annual federal budget is $3.8 trillion, or $3,800 billion. The College-For-All Act will have the federal government covering 67 percent of tuition costs, with the states covering the rest. That’s $41 billion per year out of $3,800 billion, or approximately 1% of the federal budget to spend on making higher education tuition-free. 21
Compare that with the cost of the Iraq War at $2 trillion (or around $142 billion per year), which in hindsight had no real defensive purpose. Or simply compare our request of $41 billion to the annual military budget of $600+ billion. Yes, it would be nice to spend what amounts to less than 10% of the current military budget on continued education and d e b t r e l i e f . To s a y i t i s “impossible,” after reading that factual sentence, would certainly be dishonest. But wait, there’s more. Consider that we subsidize major corporations to the tune of $110 billion annually — even though they operate and profit just fine without being subsidized. That’s about two and a half times what we’re asking for higher education. Then, there’s the conservative estimate of $1.4 trillion hidden by major corporations in tax havens, which a slew of economists say have no justification and should be abolished. This costs us roughly $111 billion in lost tax dollars each year. Can we have a part of that for education? We now have major reason to be skeptical of those who still say No. Finally, we arrive at the ultimate rebuttal to any financial skeptic: consider the Wall Street bailout after the 2008 crash in which Wall Street single-handedly took down the economy, through reckless speculation and fraudulent business practices, but were bailed out by taxpayers at a cost of roughly $17 trillion in long-term spending. Approximately $5 trillion has already been paid out,
which brings us to somewhere around $600 billion per year. Exact figures on the bailout are unknown, but this conservative estimate is more than 14 times what the College-For-All Act proposes in federal spending on higher education per year. It seems after all that we can afford things when we want to. Education is not very costly in comparison to the other ways in which we spend our tax dollars, and it is a better way to spend our tax dollars than building countless bombs and subsidizing fraudulent, economy-crashing business practices. We can afford to pay a comparatively small amount for things that benefit the majority, like education. Indeed, that’s exactly what tax dollars are supposed to be for. The best part of the College-For-All plan is that most Americans will not have to pay a single dime more in taxes than they already are paying. The proposal clearly states that, considering the American public has already paid massive amounts to subsidize Wall Street and major corporations, it’s time for the wealthy to pay a small fraction back to us in tax dollars — which the rest of us have already spent to bail them out and make their wealth possible in the first place.
budget were re-allocated, students would still be able to pursue higher education, and be debt-free in the future, through a small transaction tax on Wall Street. It will easily supply the necessary funds. All we need is for the government, pressured by the people, to “make it so.” The argument that we cannot pay for it is an excuse, not a practical concern, in the richest country in the history of the world. That is the bottom line, and never forget it. There is one thing the skeptics are often right about, however — and we advocates sometimes get it wrong, at least in language. “Free” college is not truly “free.” Just like libraries and fire departments are not truly free, and neither are aircraft carriers. So let’s call it what it is — which is good for truth’s sake, and nips the skeptic’s easiest gripe in the bud. Tuition-free higher public education would be a small but wise price to pay, for a better economy, a greater society, and more individual opportunities to learn and grow.
Sanders’ bill proposes that tuition-free higher education will be paid for by a tax of less than one percent on Wall Street speculation. Such a proposal is endorsed by over 1,000 economists, and has a precedent in similar taxes in many countries around the world. Truly we need a revolution in our nation’s priorities. But even if zero funds from the current Edition 04-May 2017
22
I, For One, Welcome Hillary to the Resistance But she should be aware: neutrality is not an option, and we don’t take days off
by Justin Zarb When I first heard that Hillary Clinton stated she was now “part of the resistance,” I was a little bemused, unsure of what exactly that meant. Perhaps she was saying that she was with us ‘in spirit?’ Or was she really going to participate in actual resistance? I found it hard imagining her showing up at rallies or town halls with a “Dump Trump” sign in hand. It all started to make sense, however, when the media reported Hillary Clinton was forming a new political group to raise funds for other organizations that are resisting Trump’s agenda. In an apparent attempt to play off of her 2016 campaign slogan, the new group will be called “Onward Together,” and, ac
cording to Politico, will “focus on sending money to other organizations at a time that Democratic donors are largely unsure about how they should be spending their cash.” Needless to say, the progressive reaction to announcements about Hillary funneling donations around has been mixed, at best, with some lauding her initiative and others lambasting it. But there’s an old saying that politics makes strange bedfellows. And as the last few months have made abundantly clear, we are in a bit of an all-hands-on-deck situation at the moment. So, in a gesture of good faith, I’d like to extend a warm welcome to Hillary Clinton on behalf of those that didn’t have the luxury (some may call it a privilege) to wait out the first 100 days of the Trump administration before beginning their resistance.
Until proven otherwise, I’d like to remain optimistic about Hillary joining the resistance. Here are a few things about becoming a member of the resistance that should help her start out on the right foot. The $64,000 Question on Everyone’s Mind The first rule of joining the resistance is that you can’t make it all about you. Come to think of it, that’s also the second rule. One doesn’t get to cherry pick issues that only affect them, or hijack the movement for personal gain. Being in the resistance is about All of Us, standing together in solidarity with one another. With that in mind, it would be prudent to put to rest the “Does she have plans for 2020?” question right now. Letting this question linger unansweredmakes any sort of ‘resistance’ on Hillary’s part appear potentially self-serving. And nothing seems to bring moderate conservatives and the radical-right together faster than the thought of an-
Original photos by BU Rob13 and Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons. Remixed by author.
Edition 04-May 2017
23
other Clinton reaching the White House. If our goal is to divide the Trump administration, then conflating any sort of personal political aspirations with acts of resistance is not only a distraction, but potentially detrimental to the movement’s success. Putting to rest rumors that another presidential run may be in store would shield us from attacks that our struggle is merely being used as a partisan ploy to regain power. Six-Figure Speeches to Billionaires are a Bit Tacky in the Resistance While I’m sure that the executives at Goldman Sachs really enjoyed the last few speeches from Hillary, continued engagements would only muddle our efforts to resist the Trump agenda. That’s because, it seems, one of the best ways to get a position in the Trump White House is to have worked for Goldman Sachs. In fact, Rachel Maddow admits we need a new word for the amount of former Goldman Sachs employees now working at high levels in the administration. It doesn’t end there — Newsweek recently published an indepth look at the multiple CEO’s and billionaires who now control the levers of power. To resist the Trump administration, we are quite literally contending with the billionaire class. Therefore, if the goal of Onward Together is to solicit funds from Wall Street and the 1%, it will inevitably be a counter-productive effort. Likewise, Wall Street compensated speeches given by Hillary (or other member of the resistance for that matter) will likely appear as a conflict of interest. It would send the message that “She’s not really with us,” and would harm overall resis-
tance efforts. One cannot successfully take on the oligarchy one day, while being handsomely rewarded by them the next. After all, there are no “off days” in the resistance. Drill, Baby Drill — or Spill, Baby Spill? One of the most dangerous aspects of the Trump administration is its commitment to overturning environmental protections in the name of fossil-fuel profitability. To kick off his presidency, the president signed executive orders to advance the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines. The administration has also openly questioned the validity of science with regards to climate change, and is staffed by several prominent climate change deniers. It would make sense, then, that as a proud member of the resistance, Hillary will have to be extremely vocal and open about her position on protecting the environment. Many environmentalists noted Hillary’s neutrality surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline during her presidential run. In the resistance, however, there will be more opportunities for her to participate in efforts to protect our environment, such as the upcoming work on the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline. Being part of the resistance means that one cannot remain neutral. As Desmond Tutu once wrote, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” If Hillary would like to be part of the resistance to Trump’s agenda against the environment, then she should be expected, like the rest of us, to take a side on issues such as pipeline construction, fracking, off-shore drilling, and the like. Politically, these positions have been tenuous for Hillary, as
Edition 04-May 2017
some labor groups have expressed concern about losing their source of income. The rapid growth of the renewable energy sector, however, should start to lay these concerns to rest. Business Insider is reporting that “Solar-energy jobs are growing 12 times as fast as the U.S. economy.” What better way to resist the agenda to Make Coal Great Again than to support movements fighting for renewable energy that not only conserve our environment but also create more jobs? Oh, the Places You’ll Go Granted, Hillary has more political experience in her fingertip than most of us may gain in an entire lifetime. So while I don’t pretend to be more knowledgeable than her, as an on-the-ground member of the resistance I nevertheless have a perspective that she may not be able to see. And since there’s still a bit of mystery as to where the funds raised by Onward Together will be coming from and going, here are a few ideas about how to use that funding in order to keep our democracy robust: • Voter Registration Drives, especially in battleground states — the lowest approval ratings in the world won’t mean a thing if people aren’t able to vote. Think of the message it would send for Hillary to organize a voter registration drive in Harrisburg, PA, where Trump recently held a rally instead of attending the White House correspondants dinner. • Campaigns to End Citizens United — While we work on getting more people to the polls, getting rid of big money in politics would significantly hamper the Trump agenda in Congress. This wouldn’t be an unprecedented stance for Clinton to take, as she
24
•
•
•
•
•
previously promised to overturn the ruling. Support Canvassing Over Mass Marketing — Research shows that personalized methods and messaging work better than impersonal ones (flyers, TV, radio, etc.) While political consultants generally like TV ads because they sometimes get a cut of the spending, building an army of door-to-door canvassers through training events could be more effective in defeating Trump in 2020. That’s the approach of Knock Every Door. Campaigns for Justice Issues — politics goes beyond electoral campaigns, and often outside pressure is needed before insiders are convinced to enact change. There are plenty of opportunities to support on the ground organizations who are working toward justice and equality. Special Elections in Traditionally Red States — Democrats need to be willing to take chances outside of their home turf if they wish to end the Republican majority in Congress. While James Thompson’s election has passed, Rob Quist and Jon Ossoff have special elections just around the corner that could help turn the tide. State Level Elections — Statelevel races have often been ignored in the national media, but they nevertheless constitute a major political battleground. Republicans now control 32 state legislatures, and while they won’t be flipped overnight, perhaps Onward Together could help shed a spotlight on these races as a long term plan. Small-Donor Fundraising Events— We now know that fundraisers don’t have to be limited to six- and seven-figure checks to be effective. The $27-per-person model can go toe-to-toe with Wall Street just fine. And since we keep
getting reminded that Hillary won the popular vote by approximately 3 million people, the numbers are on the side of the resistance. A small donation campaign from resistors around the country would be representative of the people both literally and figuratively. There are a few other issues that I expect we’ll have to talk about down the road. For instance, the Trump administration seems to have merged in a curious lock-step with Hillary with regards to military intervention. And if the president continues to trend toward escalation, a strong voice by a former Secretary of State could come in handy. But we can cross those bridges as they come. For now, I welcome Hillary to the resistance. I expect she’ll be playing by the same rules as the rest of us. For as all resisters know: It’s about all of us. There are no “off days” in the resistance. And we cannot remain neutral in situations of injustice.
Edition 04-May 2017
25
Edition 04-May 2017 ©Spenser H via Unsplash
26