

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Yesterday, The Atlantic's Eric Liu asked what it would take to move presidential candidate Bernie Sanders's ambitious proposals from "we're gonna" to "we've done it," outlining seven steps to bridge the gap. First among Liu's recommendations is a call for a "Bernie's 30" of progressive congressional Democrats to oust Republican incumbents, throwing the weight of the Sanders campaign's small donor base into strategic races around the country.
Yesterday, The Atlantic's Eric Liu asked what it would take to move presidential candidate Bernie Sanders's ambitious proposals from "we're gonna" to "we've done it," outlining seven steps to bridge the gap. First among Liu's recommendations is a call for a "Bernie's 30" of progressive congressional Democrats to oust Republican incumbents, throwing the weight of the Sanders campaign's small donor base into strategic races around the country. But what about Bernie's three million?
Liu's suggestions are solid, involving a mix of plans for grassroots mobilization and innovative electoral strategies at all levels of government. According to his fifth point, "Sanders would have to link up to other organic movements that are arising in parallel with his own campaign." Liu cited Democracy Awakening and even Trump supporters hungry to "make America great again."
But the strategies for the Sanders camp's success and that of egalitarian movements are necessarily distinct: Bernie is a candidate for, not of, the movements, but his success thus far is a sign of what a sizeable chunk of America is ready for, electorally speaking: democratic socialism. It's still hard to escape the feeling that he caught today's movements off guard. If Sanders is elected, will movements make their own push for electoral power, for a party of and by DREAMers, the movement for black lives and the emergent youth climate fight? Or will they mobilize outside to hold him accountable? Hopefully, both.
Bernie and the soul of the Democratic Party are worth fighting for. As renowned civil rights organizer Bayard Rustin said, "A political party is not only the product of social relations, but an instrument of change as well." A Sanders administration would make life better for millions of ordinary Americans and likely signal the end of the Clintonite New Democrats' rush for the center. Radicals can win -- or at least get close enough to shake up the party establishment, as Sanders already has. Movement leaders could be the "Bernie 30," and push for a historic realignment with their own agenda, shared platforms and party infrastructure. And their comrades in the streets can continue pushing for the kinds of change that only mass uprisings can put on the agenda.
As Liu points out, Obama's on-the-ground strategy in 2008, the brainchild of United Farmworkers' veteran Marshall Ganz, is a powerful example for how to integrate young and newly-engaged volunteers into a campaign infrastructure -- and one that movements themselves could learn plenty from, along with the Tea Party's impressive grassroots infrastructure (something Liu also mentions). That said, there's a difference between a revolutionary election campaign and a revolution. A "Bernie three million," then -- whether he wins or loses -- will be about more than Bernie, channeling their energy and new-found skills back into the movements that made his run possible.
Whatever a Sanders White House can accomplish will not be enough -- commander-in-chief isn't an office that lends itself to activism. The crises of climate, and racial and ethnic inequality can't be undone in one office over four years. That's likely why Bernie's campaign has been quick to deflect from his importance as an individual, circulating the slogan "Not Me Us" in advance of the Iowa caucus. In calling for a "political revolution," the 74-year-old Brooklynite has repeatedly pointed to his supporters as the vectors of change. "This campaign is not just about electing a president," Sanders said in last night's Democratic debate. "This campaign is about creating a process for a political revolution... It is about bringing tens of millions of people together."
The United States has come close to a political revolution before, and passed a slate of unprecedented redistributive policies to quell. The New Deal is an overused, overstated metaphor for what form a more redistributive, more sustainable American economy could take. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was no socialist, though, and passing each part of the New Deal also came down to outright fights between his administration and Congress, which was "often to the left of Roosevelt in the early years," according to historian Arthur Schlesinger. Conventional narratives herald then-president Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a savior of the country's downtrodden. What that leaves out is the historic New Deal Coalition, an often extra-governmental, ungainly force of social movement actors -- communities of color, unions, the unemployed -- that backed him into a corner. Roosevelt faced the threat of open revolt, from his own party and the American people.
Take this vignette from before FDR took office, in 1932, as fallout from the Great Depression continued to hit. Robert McElvaine's history of the period describes the House floor in March of that year as a "truly remarkable" scene. "Prompted by the largely spontaneous outpouring of sentiment from their constituents, congressmen rebelled against their leaders," he writes. "Amidst cheers, foot stomping, whistling, and wild applause, progressive Republicans united with Democrats in voting to increase income taxes, surtaxes, and estate taxes. Shouts of 'soak the rich!' and 'conscript wealth!' rose from the House floor."
As anyone who's watched C-SPAN can attest, congressman don't foot stop against the rich of their own accord anymore. There are no scripts for a democratic socialist American president, and the lead-up to the New Deal is a plenty imperfect one to follow. If we take Bernie's call for a political revolution seriously, though, we can hope for some more scenes like the one above.
I first saw Bernie Sanders speak in early November 1993, when I went to a brown bag lunch he held for voters in Montpelier, Vermont, a few days before NAFTA was passed. At that lunch, he explained how NAFTA would undermine workers rights, and American democracy. He turned out to be years ahead of his time.*
But I bring it up now because it relates to why I am proud to endorse Bernie Sanders for President of the United States.
Sanders is a fearless, experienced leader capable of seeing the truth, and standing up to big private power, even when its almost impossibly hard. President Sanders would always keep the humble, struggling, proud citizen at the center of what he does.
Here are 10 reasons for my support:
1. Congressman Sanders voted against the Iraq war, showing judgment and leadership when it mattered, and has held consistent and careful foreign policy views.
2. Senator Sanders has been a leader on finance, supporting a new Glass Steagall and introducing his own bills to break up the big banks.
3. Senator Sanders has led the fight against the XL pipeline, and for wind, sun, geothermal, and all renewable sources of energy.
4. Congressman Sanders opposed NAFTA, and has been a leader in the opposition to the TPP.
5. He has spent his career fighting private prisons and overcriminalization.
6. He has always understood the vital role that unions and institutions play in a more equal America, and fought for workers' rights.
7. He has long fought against high-stakes standardized tests.
8. He is a lifelong advocate for veterans, and a leader in health clinics and access to dental care and basic services.
9. He always been practical, with a long career of working across all party lines with respect.
10. Most importantly, President Sanders would put fundamental reform--including public financing of elections--at the heart of what he does.
America is in pain, and democracy is in crisis. Twenty Americans have more money than the bottom half of Americans. According to the New York Times, 158 families made half of all the donations so far in the presidential race. We have a private campaign finance system gives private companies and billionaires control over government. That's not American democracy.
I endorse Sanders because of my deep patriotism, my belief that democracy is possible and a thriving economy is possible, and we don't need to beg at the feet of the wealthiest donors to have a collective life worth living. Sanders has always paid attention to the root threats: inequity and excess elite power. He always explained in patient detail the way that privately financed elections and outside spending totally destroy our democracy. There is too much fear in our political life: he brings big dreams instead.
I thrilled to endorse on the same day as the Working Families Party endorsement. The WFP endorsement is a huge boost for Sanders' campaign. While Sanders has generated lots of grassroots enthusiasm, few organizations have stepped forward to endorse him. I believe the WFP endorsement will help encourage more organizations to step out boldly in support of his campaign and in support of the democratic revolution.
Sanders showed judgment, leadership, and a willingness to be his own person in his first years in Congress when I saw him at that brown bag lunch, and he will show judgment, leadership, and a willingness to be his own person as President.
I am proud to endorse him.** I hope you join me.
*It was a consequential and memorable lunch for me in other ways -- in the elevator on the way there, I met Howard Dean's then-Chief of Staff, who suggested that I apply for a job on his campaign the following year. I did, beginning my own life as a campaigner and organizer.
**This is in my private role as a citizen. MAYDAY.US is not making any Presidential endorsements.
In defiance of a corporate lawsuit over a proposed fracking wastewater injection well, the citizens of Grant Township, Pennsylvania on Tuesday evening adopted the country's first municipal charter establishing a local bill of rights--a document which codifies environmental and democratic rights, and bans such drilling activity as a violation of that pact.
"The people of Grant Township spoke loud and clear: They have rights, and they will protect those rights," said Chad Nicholson of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), who served as a consultant to the commission that drafted the charter.
Grant Township initially adopted a Community Bill of Rights in June 2014 in an effort to halt the drilling project but was overruled when a court sided with Pennsylvania General Energy Company (PGE) and the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association (PIOGA), which argued that the rights of the fossil fuel companies trumped those of the citizens.
CELDF explains: "In its lawsuit, PGE claimed that it had a 'right' to inject wastewater into the Township. PIOGA has also declared that there is 'no constitutional right to local self-government' or to be free from the harms associated with oil and gas production."
However, Tuesday's vote, which called for a "transformation of the community into a home rule Township," now invalidates most of that court ruling, according to CELDF.
Local efforts to prohibit extraction activities, such as fracking, over concerns of its impact on air and drinking water quality have faced fierce resistance from both drilling companies and state governments. In Denton, Texas, for example, a community fracking ban was overturned after the state government passed a law barring such ordinances.
This has forced grassroots groups to devise increasingly creative solutions in order to maintain sovereignty in the face of what campaigners say are deep pocketed--and politically connected--corporate interests.
Nicholson notes that close to 200 communities across the U.S. have advanced some form of community rights, though many are amendments to existing charters. The Grant Township Bill of Rights is the first written entirely on the basis of asserting and protecting "the right to clean air and water, the right to be taxed fairly, and the right to local community self-government."
"This isn't David versus Goliath," he added. "This isn't just one community standing up to say 'no.' Grant Township is joining with communities across the country who are standing up collectively and saying to government and corporations, 'We're no longer willing to be fracked, poisoned, and polluted.' They are mobilizing against a system of law that empowers corporations over communities, and empowers government to preempt communities from protecting their air and water. Communities are saying this is not acceptable, it's not sustainable, it's not democratic, and it's going to change."
Voters in Seattle, Washington on Tuesday approved a first-in-the-nation "democracy voucher" ballot initiative that could serve as a national model on campaign finance reform.
Initiative 122 (I-122), which was endorsed by nearly every Seattle City Council candidate and enjoyed the support of dozens of local and national progressive groups, passed 60-40, according to the King County Elections Office.
Supporters say the innovative public campaign financing program could give everyday voters more control over the city's elections while limiting the power of corporate and special interests.
The initiative states that for each city election cycle, or every two years, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC) will mail four $25 vouchers to each voter. They can only be used in Seattle campaigns for mayor, city council and city attorney. The SEEC will release money to the candidates that agree to follow I-122's rules, which include participating in three debates and accepting lower contribution and spending limits.
The measure also prohibits elected officials and their high-level staff from lobbying the city government within three years of leaving office and enacts limits on campaign contributions from people or entities that have contracts with the city.
Last year, Seattle's City Council passed a historic measure establishing a $15 minimum wage.
"Seattle leads the nation, first on $15 an hour and now on campaign-finance reform. We look forward to seeing more cities and states implementing their own local solutions to the problem of big money in politics," said Heather Weiner, a campaign spokesperson, on Tuesday night.
Ahead of the vote, Honest Elections executive committee member Estevan Munoz-Howard described the initiative as "our best chance at reducing the role of money in Seattle politics. We already have some of the most expensive city council races in the country, which are funded by less than one percent of our city's population. This initiative will amplify the voices of regular people and reduce the role that wealthy donors and paid lobbyists play in setting our city's priorities."
And on Monday, Campaign for America's Future blogger Terrance Heath speculated about what a 'Yes' vote could mean: "Will Seattle's Democracy Vouchers catch on? If I-122 passes on Tuesday, the idea could spread to other cities, giving state and local governments important tools to limit the influence of big money in a post-Citizens United world," he wrote. "If Seattle shows the way, changing local politics may prove the key to change on the national political scene."
Maine voters also approved a clean elections ballot initiative on Tuesday.
Maine voters on Tuesday reaffirmed their desire to keep the influence of big money out of politics by passing the Clean Elections Initiative, a move that campaigners say serves as a "flare to a nation" desperate to "reclaim control of our democracy" in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
According to the Bangor Daily News, the Initiative passed 55 to 45 percent. The measure strengthens the state's Clean Election Act by bolstering financing for the state's Clean Election Fund, increasing penalties for violations of campaign finance disclosure rules, amending ad disclosure rules to require the disclosure of a campaign's top three funders, and allowing a candidate to apply for additional funds.
When Maine voters passed the Clean Election Act in 1996, it marked the first statewide system for the public financing of elections in the nation.
"As is their custom, Mainers are leading the way for the nation," said Miles Rapoport, president of the national pro-democracy group Common Cause in a statement celebrating Tuesday's vote. "Their strong vote today for accountable elections further underscores their determination to make our democracy work for everyone; it reflects the sentiments of millions of Americans who are determined to rein in the power of big money and refocus our politics on issues important to citizens."
Citizens in Seattle, Washington on Tuesday also passed a landmark public financing law and in Ohio voters overwhelmingly backed a constitutional amendment that put an end to partisan gerrymandering in the state.
"There's a direct link between the big votes in Maine for accountable elections and Ohio for fair redistricting," Rapoport continued.
"Voters in Maine, like almost all Americans in both parties, are mad as hell about money in politics, so they stopped talking about the problem and did something about it," he added. "They sent a signal to Big Money that common sense rules governing our politics are possible, indeed essential if we're to have truly robust political debates, and that the people will pass them through citizen action if legislatures fail to act."
From clean elections to transgender rights to marijuana legalization, voters across the United States will weigh in on progressive issues via local and statewide ballot questions this Tuesday.
Here, Common Dreams runs down the high-profile races to watch:
Maine's Question 1 would strengthen the state's Clean Election Act by:
Supported by a wide range of local and national pro-democracy organizations, Question 1 would ensure that "candidates throughout Maine can run for office without being reliant on special interests and big money donors," U.S. Sen. Angus King, an Independent, wrote in an op-ed last month.
The state's Republican governor, Paul LePage, who has called taxpayer-funded political campaigns "welfare for politicians" and a "scam," opposes Question 1, saying recently that the proposal was "like giving my wife my checkbook."
Maine's largest city, Portland, will also vote Tuesday on an initiative to raise the city's standard minimum wage for workers at large businesses to $15 per hour by 2017 and boost the minimum pay for all private employees in the city to $15 per hour by 2019.
Seattle voters in King County, Washington will say 'Yes' or 'No' to Initiative Measure No. 122, which seeks to increase public participation in government through laws regulating campaign finance and elections--and, with its "democracy vouchers," would be the first system of its kind in the country.
According to Ballotpedia, the ballot measure would set up a voucher system by which all Seattle voters would be given four $25 vouchers that they could give to a candidate or candidates of their choosing, provided the candidate adheres to certain campaign contribution limits. The vouchers would be funded, in part, by a 30-year annual property tax levy of about $3,000,000, requiring a rate of approximately $1.94 per 100,000 assessed property value.
Among other provisions, the initiative would also:
"Honest Elections Seattle is our best chance at reducing the role of money in Seattle politics," said Seattle City Council member Estevan Munoz-Howard. "We already have some of the most expensive city council races in the country, which are funded by less than 1% of our city's population. This initiative will amplify the voices of regular people and reduce the role that wealthy donors and paid lobbyists play in setting our city's priorities."
As John Light wrote for Moyers & Company on Monday: "Advocates think that the initiative will incentivize candidates to spend more time with voters, hoping to win their vouchers, and less time with well-heeled special-interest donors. Influential Seattle companies seem to agree: Microsoft and a number of other heavy hitters have mobilized money to oppose the initiative."
In its run-down of Election Day 2015, Daily Kos notes that it's "a crowded race" to become the next mayor of Houston, America's fourth-largest city.
However, there's another major outcome to watch for in Houston on Tuesday--the referendum on the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO).
On the ballot as Proposition 1, HERO would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity--criteria not covered by federal anti-discrimination laws--especially "in city employment, city services, city contracting practices, housing, public accommodations, and private employment."
Supported by civil rights groups including the ACLU of Texas, the NAACP Houston Branch, and Equality Texas, the ordinance has garnered the support of more than 60 local businesses. It would exempt religious institutions.
Still, "religious conservatives are focused on defeating HERO, and they have some big money backing on their side," Daily Kos reported on Monday. "In particular, they've tried to drum up fears that HERO would make it easier for rapists to pose as transgendered women and prey on female victims in bathrooms." That myth has been debunked.
According to the Houston Chronicle last week, polls show that one in five Houston voters are still undecided about how to vote on the proposition.
On Tuesday, Ohio could become the fifth state to legalize pot for medicinal and personal use if voters approve Issue 3. If it does so, the New York Times noted on Sunday, it would be the first state to okay recreational use without first legalizing medical marijuana.
The Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative (pdf) would:
It's that final provision that has engendered criticism from more than the usual suspects--so much so, in fact, that "many legalization advocates are finding themselves sleeping with the enemy in the prohibitionist camp," Politico reported Sunday.
Critics charge that the initiative, bankrolled by wealthy investors who spent nearly $25 million to put it on the ballot and sell it to voters, would create a "monopoly for a small group of wealthy investors." ("Technically 'oligopoly' would be a more accurate accusation," Politico noted, "since there will be 10 companies--but the popular board-game title rings a little clearer in campaign literature.")
As Politico explained:
Many advocates in Ohio have openly argued voting against Issue 3, imploring fellow legalizers to wait a year for a more policy-oriented, less profit-minded ballot initiative. To a degree, their opposition is couched in economic policy: repulsed by the specter of monopoly, many longtime legalization activists say they want low barriers to entry, safeguards for medical patients, looser possession limits and more grow-your-own plants at home. But only part of this typology is economic: many legalizers' opposition to this form of legalization speaks less to policy then it does to culture--and the tidal shift in a movement increasingly transforming tie-dye into suit and tie.
Given all this controversy, "polls are of little help in predicting the outcome on Tuesday," the Columbus Dispatch wrote on Monday.
Indeed, a recent survey by the University of Akron suggested that while a majority of voters support legalizing and taxing recreational and medical marijuana in theory, the oligopoly clause could undermine the anti-prohibition mindset.
"Pollsters concluded that if voters cast their ballots on the basis of legalizing or taxing marijuana, Issue 3 will likely pass," the Northeast Ohio Media Group reported last month. "But 53 percent of voters agreed Issue 3 is a 'bad idea because it will grant ten wealthy landowners a monopoly on growing marijuana in Ohio'."
Meanwhile, voters in Ohio will also be asked to weigh in on Issue 1 (pdf), which would create a new, bipartisan commission to draw legislative districts that are compact and do not favor one political party or another.
"Districts that overwhelmingly favor one party or the other don't only disenfranchise minority-party voters; they lead to lousy legislatures," the Columbus Dispatch wrote in its editorial urging a 'Yes' vote. "Elections effectively are decided in the partisan primary, by candidates who know they'll have no need to appeal to voters of the opposite party. This tends to stock the Statehouse not with thoughtful problem-solvers but ideologues. Issue 1 could change that, by creating districts in which candidates have to earn votes by appealing to a broader spectrum of voters, rather than competing to outpander partisan rivals."
Even as Canadian environmentalists and social justice advocates celebrated Monday's electoral ouster of right-wing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, they vowed to push Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau and his new ruling government on key campaign issues such as austerity, trade, and fossil fuel extraction.
Over 68 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in Monday's national election, according to Elections Canada, marking the highest turnout in two decades and signaling a sharp rejection of Harper's Conservative rule. Notably, there appears to have been a large voter turnout from First Nation communities, with several polling stations in those communities running out of ballots.
But though Trudeau's sweeping win was, as he declared in his victory speech, a repudiation of "negative, divisive politics" in favor of "a positive vision that brings Canadians together," the new prime minister and his majority government still have much to prove.
"While we welcome Prime Minister-elect Justin Trudeau's election night speech that focused on hope, inclusion and the end of the politics of division and fear evident under the Harper government, we are deeply concerned by his party's support for 'free trade' agreements like the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)," wrote Brent Patterson of the Council of Canadians on Tuesday.
"And with about 40 days until the critical United Nations COP 21 climate talks begin in Paris," he added, "the Liberals have only pledged 'real climate change solutions' rather than more concretely an end to export pipelines and no new approvals for the tar sands."
Joanna Kerr, executive director of Greenpeace Canada, urged (pdf) the Liberal government to seize the "unprecedented opportunity to reject boom and bust polluting industries by stopping tar sands expansion and making Canada a leader in renewable energies."
"It's now time to say yes to a brighter future and farewell to politics of fear and environmental degradation," Kerr added.
To that end, climate justice activists from across the country are planning an action for November 5-8, during which they will welcome the incoming prime minister to his new residence in Ottawa by presenting gifts that "tell a story of people power growing and demanding real climate action and a new, clean energy economy in Canada."
The call-to-action, supported by 350.org, explains further:
On the first day, we'll deliver the evidence that confirms we must keep tar sands under the ground. On this day, we'll present a basket of broken treaties -- with documentation of the hundreds of violations of Indigenous rights that have taken place in the tar sands. We'll also supply the Prime Minister with scientific journal papers that confirm the majority of tar sands must stay in the ground in order to prevent climate catastrophe, along with reports which confirm that reliance on fossil fuels will have devastating impacts on our economy.
The second, third, and fourth days of the nonviolent direct action will see the delivery of thousands of signatures from people who oppose tar sands and pipelines; water samples from the rivers, lakes, and coastlines that tar sands pipelines would--and have already--put at risk; and a "surprise gift" meant to show the new prime minster "that we have the technological solutions, we just need the right policies to begin the transition to a clean energy economy."
Trudeau made "many, many promises during this campaign," journalist Karl Nerenberg wrote on Tuesday. For example, Nerenberg said, the prime minister-elect vowed "[t]o make a major investment in on-reserve First Nations education, without imposing Harper's humiliating and draconian conditions on First Nations communities, all in the context of a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Metis people."
In fact, a series of tweets from former Rabble editor Derrick O'Keefe on Monday night on that exact topic illustrated how Trudeau's victory is simultaneously eliciting hope and skepticism.
As the Council of Canadians' Patterson wrote on Tuesday: "We should rightly celebrate the defeat of Stephen Harper, a significantly increased voter turnout, and an election apparently relatively free of the voter suppression evident in the last federal election, but we will have to campaign even harder now to ensure that the 70 per cent of Canadians who said 'it was the time for change' in Ottawa this election, get the change they deserve."
After this country's most famous niqab-wearing woman, Zunera Ishaq, was finally sworn in as a Canadian citizen, I went to the gym. I found myself sandwiched on the treadmill between a woman wearing a hijab and a young woman sporting blue hair, sleeve tattoos, and stretched earlobes.
After this country's most famous niqab-wearing woman, Zunera Ishaq, was finally sworn in as a Canadian citizen, I went to the gym. I found myself sandwiched on the treadmill between a woman wearing a hijab and a young woman sporting blue hair, sleeve tattoos, and stretched earlobes.
No one batted an eye, least of all the hijab-wearing woman, whose "Muslim agenda" -- despite panicked xenophobes interpreting Ishaq's Federal Court win as a sign of soon-to-be-implemented sharia law -- looked like my plan for the morning: burn some calories and get in shape.
Both women's looks were nothing more than decisions taken on how to present themselves in public, based on personal beliefs and preferences, religious or otherwise. As far as images go, full-sleeve tattoos, blue hair, and stretched earlobes are more eye-catching than a beige-coloured hijab coupled with a shirt and yoga pants. The former image, however, doesn't elicit the same level of pearl clutching and angst.
As unattractive as it may seem to some Canadians, coloured hair and tattoos are seen as personal decisions, while the niqab and hijab have been twisted by the Harper government and reduced to regressive symbols of women's unequal treatment and harbingers of all we don't understand and ultimately fear.
Judging by the outrage and the proud groups of misguided potato-sack-wearing "patriots" who showed up at advance polls, you'd think Ishaq tried to circumvent the law and defiantly thumbed her nose at us, when in reality all she did was follow the letter of the law. A Federal Court ruling and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms say so.
In 2012 I watched in utter shame as the Quebec Charter of Values was touted by the Parti Quebecois as some sort of solution to the religious accommodation and secularism debate. They tried to sell Quebecers on a plan that targeted vulnerable minorities and their beliefs, while making convenient allowances for what constituted Quebec's own majority Christian "cultural heritage."
And the rest of Canada pointed fingers at Quebec's xenophobic tendencies, while ignoring the national surveys indicating the rest of the country was ripe to be just as easily manipulated.
The PQ gambled with anachronistic notions of the values that constitute Quebec, and it backfired spectacularly. With just a few days left in the longest and probably dirtiest federal electoral campaign this country has seen, I remain optimistic that Canadians will also see through the manipulation and demagoguery.
Political distractions like the niqab work because they are simple and tangible. Manipulating a majority into demonizing a minority is the oldest trick in the book of wedge politics. Later, we look back and wonder how so many were played, and yet we never learn. We sink to the lower rungs of dirty politics and then complain about the stink.
As we head to the polls, the Conservatives have introduced the McCarthy-esque "barbaric cultural practices" snitch line and unleashed a wave of xenophobia and racism across the country. Noam Chomsky's warning rings true for Canada: "As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome."
I can only hope that the majority of Canadians see through Harper's dirty and destructive politics and vote accordingly.
The Washington Post just ran an attack on Bernie Sanders that distorts not only what he's saying and seeking but also the basic choices that lie before the nation. Sanders, writes the Post's David Fahrenthold, "is not just a big-spending liberal. And his agenda is not just about money. It's also about control."
The Washington Post just ran an attack on Bernie Sanders that distorts not only what he's saying and seeking but also the basic choices that lie before the nation. Sanders, writes the Post's David Fahrenthold, "is not just a big-spending liberal. And his agenda is not just about money. It's also about control."
Fahrenthold claims Sanders's plan for paying for college with a tax on Wall Street trades would mean "colleges would run by government rules."
Apparently Fahrenthold is unaware that three-quarters of college students today attend public universities financed largely by state governments. And even those who attend elite private universities benefit from federal tax subsidies flowing to wealthy donors. (Meg Whitman's recent $30 million donation to Princeton, for example, is really $20 million from her plus an estimated $10 million she deducted from her taxable income.) Notwithstanding all this government largesse, colleges aren't "run by government rules."
The real problem is too many young people still can't afford a college education. The move toward free public higher education that began in the 1950s with the G.I. Bill and was extended in the 1960s by leading public universities was reversed starting in the 1980s because of shrinking state budgets. Tuition has skyrocketed in recent years as states slashed education spending. It's time to resurrect that earlier goal.
Besides, the biggest threats to academic freedom these days aren't coming from government. They're coming as conditions attached to funding from billionaires and big corporations that's increasing as public funding drops.
When the Charles Koch Foundation pledged $1.5 million to Florida State University's economics department, for example, it stipulated that a Koch-appointed advisory committee would select professors and undertake annual evaluations. The Koch brothers now fund 350 programs at over 250 colleges and universities across America. You can bet that funding doesn't underwrite research on inequality and environmental justice.
Fahrenthold similarly claims Sanders's plan for a single-payer system would put healthcare under the "control" of government.
But health care is already largely financed through government subsidies - only they're flowing to private for-profit health insurers that are now busily consolidating into corporate laviathans. Anthem purchase of giant insurer Cigna will make it the largest health insurer in America; Aetna is buying Humana, creating the second-largest, with 33 million members.
Why should anyone suppose these for-profit corporate giants will be less "controlling" than government?
What we do know is they're far more expensive than a single-payer system. Fahrenthold repeats the charge that Sanders's healthcare plan would cost $15 trillion over ten years. But single-payer systems in other rich nations have proven cheaper than private for-profit health insurers because they don't spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing.
So even if the Sanders single-payer plan would cost $15 trillion over ten years, Americans as a whole would save more than that.
Fahrenthold trusts the "market" more than he does the government but he overlooks the fact that government sets the rules by which the market runs (such as whether health insurers should be allowed to consolidate even further, or how much of a "charitable" tax deduction wealthy donors to private universities should receive, and whether they should get the deduction if they attach partisan conditions to their donations).
The real choice isn't between government and the "market." It's between a system responsive to the needs of most Americans, or one more responsive to the demands of the super-rich, big business, and Wall Street - whose economic and political power have grown dramatically over the last three decades.
This is why the logic of Sanders's ideas depends on the political changes he seeks. Fahrenthold says a President Sanders couldn't get any of his ideas implemented anyway because Congress would reject them. But if Bernie Sanders is elected president, American politics will have been altered, reducing the moneyed interests' chokehold over the public agenda.
Fahrenthold may not see the populism that's fueling Bernie's campaign, but it is gaining strength and conviction. Other politicians, as well as political reporters, ignore this upsurge at their peril.
The agency that oversees elections in Canada issued a warning to its staff last year to keep a lookout for U.S.-style tricks aimed at suppressing the vote in the national elections that are slated for October 19, The Canadian Press revealed on Monday.
In May 2014, the agency Elections Canada delivered the presentation "An Introduction to Emerging Trends and Threats in Electoral Operations"--which was later obtained by The Canadian Press through an Access to Information Act request.
"We need look no further than the United States to find a vast overview of contemporary voter suppression and surveillance practices," the presentation notes reportedly state, citing 17 cases in 15 American states between 2004 through 2012.
Such U.S. acts include the prevention of suspected "non-supporters" from voting through "scare tactics, misinformation or systemic challenging of registrations," as well as by contesting eligibility or identification and employing outright intimidation at the polls, the presentation states.
The agency cited specific examples in which such tactics were levied against Spanish speaking and black voters in the U.S., according to The Canadian Press. "They often harass voters in predominantly minority voting districts, create anxiety and agitate voters," the presentation notes continue.
"We have seen through the 'Unfair Elections Act' that marginalized and racialized communities--and people with disabilities, Indigenous people, and homeless people--are disproportionately impacted by voter suppression."
--Dylan Penner, Council of Canadians
Canada is no stranger to such techniques. Conservative Tory party staff member Michael Sona was convicted of voter suppression for using robocalls in 2011 to prevent suspected non-conservatives from casting their votes by giving them false information about their polling stations.
But Dylan Penner, democracy organizer with Council of Canadians, told Common Dreams that Sona's conviction is part of a much larger story.
"What we saw in 2011 was a widespread campaign of voter suppression, and we've seen in rulings from the federal court that its purpose was to deter people who were not likely to vote conservative from casting their votes, and the likely source was the conservative party database," said Penner. "The ringleaders of the voter suppression campaign are still at large despite many calls on the commissioners of Canada elections to reopen the investigation."
But the scandals do not stop there. In response to the outcry over the 2011 election fraud scandal, the conservative government implemented the Fair Elections Act in 2014, which Penner refers to as the "Unfair Elections Act" because it "makes it easier for perpetrators of elections fraud to get away with it and compounds the problem by making it more difficult for many people to vote."
"We are entering a new era of voter suppression in Canada," Penner continued. "We have seen through the 'Unfair Elections Act' that marginalized and racialized communities--and people with disabilities, Indigenous people, and homeless people--are disproportionately impacted by voter suppression."
Polling suggests distrust runs deep. A survey released late last year found that nearly 70 percent of people in Canada are worried that political parties will try to "manipulate the outcome of future elections through illegal activities."