SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gloria steinem
'Vote Them Out': Tennessee GOP Ends Special Session Without Major Gun Reforms
"The biggest consequence from this whole session is the embarrassment of the General Assembly through offensive measures used to keep people out of the building, silence members of the House, and eject grieving moms from committees," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Aug 29, 2023
The Tennessee General Assembly's special session on public safety ended Tuesday with weeping parents and chants of "vote them out" after the Republican-controlled Legislature refused to pass significant gun violence prevention measures.
GOP Gov. Bill Lee
called the special session earlier this month amid mounting demands for stricter state gun laws in the wake of a shooter killing three children and three adults at the Covenant School, a Christian elementary school in Nashville, in March.
"We had high hopes that after the shooting at Covenant School, politicians would understand the urgent need to prevent another senseless tragedy. They had the opportunity to do the right thing and once again, they failed to act," said Zack Maaieh, head of the Students Demand Action Tennessee chapter and a student at Vanderbilt University, in a statement.
"Despite their inaction, we showed the power of our voices—refusing to back down even as mothers were being forcibly removed from hearings—and lawmakers were forced to reject a bill to arm teachers and put more guns in our schools," Maaieh continued. "But we aren't going anywhere—we'll be back in January, showing out in droves to demand that lawmakers advance gun safety laws that protect our right to live and if they refuse to listen, we'll come for their seats next November."
The Washington Post noted that "even before the session began, GOP leaders quashed Lee's proposal for an extreme-risk protection order law that would have prevented mentally unstable individuals from possessing guns for a limited period."
According to the Tennessee Lookout:
Ultimately, the Senate concurred with a House version of a weapons storage bill that will offer sales tax breaks on gun safes and gun locks, in addition to spending $1.1 million for a public service campaign to give away gun locks.
As part of an agreement to adjourn, the Senate also opted to pass the House's version of a spending bill that will put $30 million toward safety upgrades at state universities, $12 million toward behavioral health staff, and $4 million into behavioral health safety grants, in addition to $50 million for community mental health agencies, with the latter money coming from a TennCare fund. Another $10 million will be spent on school safety officers, mainly for charter schools.
The Senate also went along with House versions of a human trafficking bill and a measure to codify the governor's executive order on background checks.
"While we are encouraged by proposals meant to promote the secure storage of firearms, this session fell woefully short, so we're tracking votes, we're taking names, and we will show up to the ballot box to vote out lawmakers who refuse to take action to save lives," said Moms Demand Action volunteer Leeann Hewlett.
Sarah Shoop Neumann, a Covenant mother who sobbed outside the House chamber Tuesday morning, responded similarly, telling The Tennessean, "We held a special session following the extraordinary tragedy of a mass shooting that took place at the Covenant School, and we took no meaningful action."
"The divisiveness we have all witnessed makes us long for a unified community. We need legislators on both sides of the aisle to be able to have respectful, thoughtful debate regarding potential solutions to end gun violence," she said, adding that legislators who don't want to work together "do not deserve a seat in the House or the Senate."
"We will work towards ensuring every one of those seats is replaced by someone who has a true desire to listen to their constituents over firearm association lobbyists," she vowed. "We will be back in January."
Describing the special session as "a farce," State Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D-21) said that "the biggest consequence from this whole session is the embarrassment of the General Assembly through offensive measures used to keep people out of the building, silence members of the House, and eject grieving moms from committees."
As Common Dreams previously reported, the Tennessee House's GOP supermajority on Monday barred state Rep. Jones (D-52) from speaking after House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-25) determined that he violated the chamber's rules—which came shortly after the Democratic lawmaker announced plans to call for a vote of no confidence targeting the Republican speaker.
A member of the "Tennessee Three," Jones was expelled from the House in April alongside Rep. Justin Pearson (D-86) over a gun control protest at the chamber; Republican lawmakers narrowly voted against also expelling Rep. Gloria Johnson (D-13).
Both Jones and Pearson were ultimately reelected to their seats. Carrying signs demanding action on gun violence, the pair attempted to approach as the special session ended Tuesday—and the speaker appeared to shoulder-check Pearson.
The Lookout reported that Pearson said Sexton "leaned his shoulder into me and then one of his minions pushed me toward the clerk," while the speaker claimed his security guard nudged him into Pearson and the lawmaker then pushed him.
"It looks like Justin Pearson could file charges for that assault the speaker committed as well as Jason Zachary," Johnson said on social media, referring to a Republican from District 14. "The speaker literally tucked his shoulder to go in on Rep Pearson."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Are Beautiful. You Are Loved': Allies Show Solidarity on Transgender Day of Visibility
"It is time for the long history of assaults—legislative, physical, social, and verbal—against trans women and girls to end."
Mar 31, 2021
Democratic elected officials, LGBTQ leaders and allies, and human rights defenders of many stripes on Wednesday expressed their support for trans people on International Transgender Day of Visibility, acts of solidarity that stood in stark contrast with Republican-led legislation and other efforts to deny rights, privileges, and even the humanity of more than 1.5 million Americans.
"The crisis of violence against transgender women, especially transgender women of color, is a stain on our nation's conscience."
--President Joe Biden
In a complete reversal from the anti-trans policies of the Trump administration, President Joe Biden issued the first-ever presidential proclamation to "honor and celebrate the achievements and resiliency of transgender individuals and communities" on Transgender Day of Visibility.
"Their trailblazing work has given countless transgender individuals the bravery to live openly and authentically," the proclamation states. "This hard-fought progress is also shaping an increasingly accepting world in which peers at school, teammates and coaches on the playing field, colleagues at work, and allies in every corner of society are standing in support and solidarity with the transgender community."
"In spite of our progress in advancing civil rights for LGBTQ+ Americans, too many transgender people--adults and youth alike--still face systemic barriers to freedom and equality," it continues. "Transgender Americans of all ages face high rates of violence, harassment, and discrimination. Nearly one in three transgender Americans have experienced homelessness at some point in life. Transgender Americans continue to face discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and public accommodations."
"The crisis of violence against transgender women, especially transgender women of color, is a stain on our nation's conscience," asserts the proclamation. "The Biden-Harris administration is committed to fulfilling the promise of America for all Americans by stamping out discrimination and delivering freedom and equality for all."
Noting that he signed an executive order aimed at preventing discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation on his first day in office, Biden then urges passage of the Equality Act--approved by the House of Representatives last month--"to more fully protect the civil rights of transgender Americans."
Numerous Democratic lawmakers marked the day with messages of solidarity--and with action.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation that would ban use of the so-called "gay panic" and "trans panic" defenses in federal court. Markey said such dubious legal strategies "only encourage systemic bigotry, corrode the legitimacy of federal prosecutions, and blame victims for the violence committed against them."
Democratic Reps. Jennifer Wexton (Va.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), and Marie Newman (Ill.)--leaders of the Transgender Equality Task Force--led a resolution "supporting the ideals and goals" of Transgender Day of Visibility.
"As the proud parent of a transgender child, I am honoring this Transgender Day of Visibility by committing to taking on the urgent legislative work necessary to finally guarantee that every transgender person can live freely as themselves and free from discrimination," Jayapal said in a statement announcing the resolution. "This is a pivotal moment in our fight for equality, and I stand with my child and every LGBTQ+ person in America as we defeat hate, end discrimination, and secure full civil rights across this country."
Hundreds of feminist leaders signed an open letter authored by Black trans activist Raquel Willis and the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD in observance of Women's History Month and Transgender Day of Visibility.
"We acknowledge with clarity and strength that transgender women are women and that transgender girls are girls," states the letter, whose prominent signers include Gloria Steinem, Laverne Cox, Selena Gomez, and Halle Berry. "All of us deserve the same access, freedoms, and opportunities. We deserve equal access to education, employment, healthcare, housing, recreation, and public accommodations. And we must respect each person's right to bodily autonomy and self-determination."
The letter continues:
It is time for the long history of assaults--legislative, physical, social, and verbal--against trans women and girls to end. For far too long, lawmakers have worked to strip trans women of their civil liberties--in 2021, once again, we've seen a wave of bigoted governmental policies and legislation. Many of these laws target the rights of girls to play school sports or criminalize doctors for treating trans youth and their families...
These bigoted efforts are also aided by a contingent of self-identified feminists, who have been promoting damaging and violent ideas about trans people for years in the United States and internationally. Their vitriol is, in fact, not feminist at all. True feminists do not wish to limit any woman's identity or freedom to fully be herself. Allowing transphobic rhetoric to go unchecked also strengthens the legislative efforts of anti-trans politicians--who now cloak their bigotry in language about protecting or supporting women.
Further, all verbal attacks support the ongoing epidemic of murder and violence plaguing Black and Latinx trans women--2020 was the deadliest year on record for the transgender community, seeing more than 44 killings, and, so far, there have been at least nine deaths reported this year.
"We all must fight against the unnecessary and unethical barriers placed on trans women and girls by lawmakers and those who co-opt the feminist label in the name of division and hatred," the letter concludes.
Other prominent figures, from governors to mayors to former NBA superstar Dwayne Wade--whose daughter is trans--also expressed their support for transgender equality.
Wednesday's outpouring of trans solidarity occurred against a backdrop of a wave of GOP-led anti-transgender legislation across the nation. More than 50 bills in 28 states attempting to prohibit trans youth from participating on teams reflecting their gender identity have been passed or introduced this year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Championing Female Voters as Powerful 'Supermajority,' Organizers Launch Movement to Fight for Women's Agenda
"One of us can be dismissed. Two can be dismissed. But together, we aren't just the majority, we are a Supermajority—and we are unstoppable."
Apr 29, 2019
Several influential progressive women on Monday launched a new grassroots movement aimed at building on the energy and political power of American women, who make up the majority of the U.S. population, voters, and grassroots donors--forming what the group calls a "Supermajority."
Created by former Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza, and National Domestic Workers Alliance director Ai-jen Poo, the Supermajority is aimed at building on the political power women have demonstrated since President Donald Trump was elected in 2016.
"In many ways, women have been doing all this work--whether it's running their PTA, or organizing around reproductive healthcare--but we haven't been doing it together." --Cecile Richards, Supermajority co-founder"In the past two years, we've seen what happens when women mobilize," reads a statement on the group's website. "Women donated $100 million more to campaigns and causes in 2018 than they did in 2016. We've been the majority of voters in every national election since 1964. In 2018, women helped elect a Congress with a record-breaking 127 women members."
"Women are on the cusp of becoming the most powerful force in America," the statement adds. "But to fundamentally transform this country, we need to work together."
The group launched with a video featuring its slogan, taken from Richards' speech at the Women's March in 2017: "One of us can be dismissed. Two can be dismissed. But together, we aren't just the majority, we are a Supermajority--and we are unstoppable."
The Supermajority plans to gather the input of millions of women across the country in order to "create a women's agenda that puts our issues first--from economic equity and opportunity to dignity and safety on the job to keeping families and communities safe."
Headed by women who have dedicated their careers to organizing around causes affecting marginalized communities, the group also plans to provide on-the-ground training to women who are new to activism and include a "Supermajority Education Fund" which will research and educate women about civic participation, visibility, and political power.
"We've spent the last year going around the country to all kinds of communities--urban, suburban, rural--and talking to women, listening to their stories," Poo told CNN's "New Day" on Monday morning. "And it's been so inspiring. They're already much more engaged in unprecedented ways...and they want to do more. They don't want to stop here, they want to do more and they want to be connected."
The group argues that while women have become more politically engaged in recent years, there hasn't yet been a platform where they can join together to build on and learn from one another's efforts and activism.
"In many ways, women have been doing all this work--whether it's running their PTA, or organizing around reproductive healthcare--but we haven't been doing it together," Richards told the Washington Post. "What are we going to do to make this moment not something that is just a fleeting flash point of activism, but actually creating a permanent organizing ability for women?"
On social media, one supporter of the new movement likened its agenda to a "Women's New Deal," aimed at pushing for affordable childcare, universal healthcare, pay equity, and other reforms that would help American women--and the rest of the country.
"There's a majority of Americans who want to see better, affordable healthcare, there's a majority of Americans that are impacted by childcare issues and elder care issues," Garza told CNN. "These are issues that are often sidelined as women's issues or special interests but what the Supermajority is saying is actually these are issues that are impacting all Americans and they should be addressed as the national issues and the national emergencies that they are."
In its statement of values, the Supermajority writes that women's equity is essential to "fighting for the basic human needs of all people, including universal healthcare, public education, a living wage, a clean environment, and affordable housing."
On Twitter, other influential women applauded the group for creating a new space in the political landscape in which women can work together to fight for economic, political, and social justice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Endorse House Resolution Calling for Formal End to Korean War
After nearly 70 years of conflict, former president Jimmy Carter called ending the war "the only way to ensure true security for both the Korean and American people."
Feb 25, 2019
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.) introduced a House resolution to end the Korean War on Tuesday after 69 years of conflict. The resolution comes as President Donald Trump is in Hanoi, Vietnam, in advance of a historic meeting with North Korean President Kim Jong Un to discuss North Korean denuclearization.
"Historic engagement between South and North Korea has created a once-in-a-generation opportunity to formally end this war," Khanna said in a statement. "President Trump must not squander this rare chance for peace."
Khanna's resolution (pdf) was cosponsored by 18 House progressives, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wa.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Ca.), and Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.).
Kim's openness to dialogue with the American president comes after a thawing of relations with South Korean President Moon Jae-in. Moon and Kim met at the DMZ, or demilitarized zone, on April 26, 2018, as a show of unity in friendship. Since that meeting, Kim and Moon have pushed to end hostilities, but the push is complicated by the U.S. presence in South Korea and decades of tension.
A number of U.S. commentators and experts have treated the coming summit with suspicion and fear, claiming that simply by meeting with Kim, Trump is giving the North Korean leader an aura of legitimacy that's undeserved and damaging American standing in the world.
Kim Jong Un has murdered at least 340 people, runs a network of prison gulags where prisoners "are starved, forced to work, tortured and raped," and spends much of his country's resources creating a personality cult.
Trump thinks he's a good kid. https://t.co/BshM8RlyAG https://t.co/J0PnnwuUkx
In the resolution, however, Khanna and his cosponsors pointed to statements from Moon that assert U.S. military personnel will remain in the peninsula irrespective of the war, thereby assumedly negating a threat to national security. The resolution also states that ending hostilities should not be confused with an acceptance of a nuclear North Korea. "An end to the state of war would not legally imply recognition of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state," reads the resolution.
The resolution was met with support in progressive circles.
In a statement, Kevin Martin, president of the anti-war group Peace Action and the coordinator of the Korea Peace Network, said that he was hopeful the diplomatic process would win out this time.
Khanna's legislation, Martin said, "offers a common sense vision for achieving peace and advancing nuclear disarmament on the Korean Peninsula that all members of Congress should be able to get behind."
The timely introduction of the bill, he added, "offers a blueprint for diplomacy that rightly acknowledges that real progress cannot be made in negotiations without reciprocal steps and confidence-building measures by all parties at the table."
The resolution also received public backing from former President Jimmy Carter.
"Ending the threat of war is the only way to ensure true security for both the Korean and American people," Carter said in a statement, "and will create the conditions to alleviate the suffering of the ordinary North Koreans who are most harmed by ongoing tensions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Women Marched for Korean Reconciliation. Washington Is in Our Way.
All too often, we’ve witnessed women being left out of peace talks, even though studies show that when women play authoritative roles, agreements are far more likely to be signed and to last.
Feb 24, 2019
In 2015, we were among 30 women from around the world who came together to cross the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ), the infamous strip of land that has separated North and South Korea since a "temporary" cease-fire halted the Korean War 65 years ago.
We marched to show this anachronistic conflict need no longer separate families, prohibit communication, and provide excuses for land mines, nuclear weapons and an expensive, ongoing U.S. military commitment. Among us were women who had won Nobel Peace Prizes for helping to bring peace to Liberia and Northern Ireland.
Despite criticism that we were naively playing into the sinister plans of one side or the other, we held a peace symposium in Pyongyang with hundreds of North Korean women, and marched with thousands in the capital and in Kaesong. After crossing the DMZ, we walked with thousands of South Korean women along the barbed-wire fence in Paju.
We never could have predicted that only three years later, the leaders of South and North Korea would meet in the DMZ and declare that "there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula." This put in motion the kind of steps toward peace that we had marched for -- soldiers from both sides shaking hands and removing guard posts, the beginning of land-mine removal from the DMZ. The new reality is a tribute to Korean leaders and their determination to end the standoff that has separated their people for three generations.
Sadly, the chances for peace depend on Washington, where the division of Korea along the 38th parallel was first drawn on a National Geographic map by two U.S. officers. Yet much of the U.S. leadership is singularly focused on forcing North Korea to unilaterally denuclearize as a precondition for peace talks.
It should show America's commitment to peace by introducing a resolution that formally ends U.S. participation in the Korean War and calls on the president to begin a process toward the signing of a peace agreement.
This approach is backward. To convince somebody to put down a gun, you first have to convince them they will not be harmed. We need to establish peace first to create the necessary conditions for denuclearization.
Although most likely driven by his desire to do what prior presidents could not -- truly end the Korean War -- President Trump might actually achieve a breakthrough on this front. Stephen E. Biegun, the U.S. special representative on North Korea, said this month, "President Trump is ready to end this war. It is over. It is done." His second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, at the end of this month, provides a perfect opening. A process for ending America's oldest war and moving toward peace should be on their agenda.
Still, it's risky to let hopes rest on the president's credibility given Trump's erratic nature and lack of respect for such past nuclear agreements as the Iran deal and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.
That's where the new Congress comes in. It should show America's commitment to peace by introducing a resolution that formally ends U.S. participation in the Korean War and calls on the president to begin a process toward the signing of a peace agreement.
And now that Congress has the greatest number of women in history, it should seek to ensure that women are involved in every part of the process. All too often, we've witnessed women being left out of peace talks, even though studies show that when women play authoritative roles, agreements are far more likely to be signed and to last.
Recognizing this, Congress passed, and Trump signed into law, the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017, aimed at increasing women's participation in peace processes to prevent, end and rebuild after conflict. Now is the time to implement it.
The women elected to Congress brought with them commitment to such popular issues as Medicare-for-all, free college tuition and confronting climate change. Yet these goals will remain dreams as long as funding is constrained by the $700 billion a year the United States spends on the military. Thus, ending the Korean conflict is crucial not only to Koreans, but to Americans as well.
Most Americans don't know what a pivotal role the Korean War played in creating the military-industrial complex. As University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings has written, it "was the occasion for transforming the United States into a very different country than it had ever been before: one with hundreds of permanent military bases abroad, a large standing army and a permanent national security state at home."
As two women who defied naysayers by crossing the DMZ, we may never know what difference we made. But we saw firsthand the impact of the war on Korean lives, and we know the impact of massive U.S. military spending on our own lives. It is time to end this longest war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Resisting Trump Is Not Enough: 20,000 Activists Ask Democratic Candidates Where They Stand on Bold Agenda
The message behind a new pledge is this: "Yes, fight Trump – but Americans also want to hear big solutions to the large economic problem our country faces."
Feb 20, 2019
Suddenly Americans are debating big ideas that used to be off the table.
New ways to raise taxes on the rich and big corporations have been proposed by candidates Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders.
A Medicare-style public health system to expand coverage and cut costs has the support of millions and many Presidential candidates - even as we defend Obamacare.
The Green New Deal has been swept onto the national debate by the dynamic grass-roots Sunrise Movement and by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and colleagues in Congress. With new urgency, sponsors call for massive public investment to retool our economy to stop global warming and create the next generation of good jobs.
Perhaps because of the huge public support for these big ideas, Donald Trump has tried to tar them with the old Cold War scare word: Socialism. This is likely to backfire - just as the Southern racists' attacks on civil rights workers as "Communist agitators" just helped spread the movement. SNCC organizers were greeted at Mississippi doorsteps with "We are so glad you Communists have come to help us vote."
Some cautious Democrats have greeted these big ideas with a warning about the dangers of going too far. "Stick to attacking Trump and his policies," they lecture, "that's what helped us win in the Congressional campaigns 2018."
But over 90 well-known veterans of the successful 2018 campaign have signed a bold new Pledge to Fight for Good Jobs, Sustainable Prosperity and Economic Justice. And these initiators (including myself) have now been joined by 20,000 (and growing) grass-roots activists. Our message is "Yes, fight Trump - but Americans also want to hear big solutions to the large economic problem our country faces."
The Pledge document declares:
We will (continue to) resist Trump. But resistance is not enough. We therefore pledge that:
- We will fight for good jobs, sustainable prosperity and economic justice.
- We will work to build a movement that can make that agenda a reality.
Real change begins with a clear and coherent vision of a better America, and with citizens' movements dedicated to bringing that world into being. We offer this agenda for economic change in that spirit.
The group challenges the inside-the-beltway idea that Democrats need to choose between candidates that are "electable" and those who champion a bold agenda for change. Our signers make the case--and cite extensive polling--that the voters want candidates who know how the system has been rigged against working Americans. They argue that the most electable candidates are the ones with a plan to "un-rig" our government and to grow the economy and reverse inequality.
Note: I was one of the authors of the Pledge, and we found a great deal of enthusiasm from leaders we invited to join us, including the following leaders and thinkers:
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich; economists Thea Lee, Robert Pollin and James K. Galbraith; African-American activists Rashad Robinson, Janet Dewart Bell, and Dedrick Asante-Muhammad; feminist leaders Gloria Steinem, Nita Chaudhary, and Toni Van Pelt; think tank directors Heather McGhee, Dorian Warren, Chuck Collins, and Angela Glover Blackwell; environmental leaders Bill McKibben, Annie Leonard, and Michael Brune; labor leaders Leo Gerard, Larry Cohen, Randi Weingarten, Chris Shelton, and Bonnie Castillo; business leaders like Leo Hindery Jr. and Charles Rodgers; activists and public intellectuals Manuel Pastor, Robert Borosage, Maria Echaveste, Jeff Faux, Heather Gautney, Eddie Glaude Jr., Zephyr Teachout, Richard Eskow, and Naomi Klein. Signers also include leaders of "resistance movement" groups, including MoveOn, People's Action, Democracy for America, Solidaire, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Center for Popular Democracy Network, Public Citizen, Working Families Party, Ultra-Violet, Progressive Democrats of America, and Our Revolution. See all 90 initial signers.
The group will not endorse candidates. Individual signers will make those decisions on their own. But the group will ask candidates to tell Americans where they stand on the 11 planks of our economic agenda. And we will publish those positions on the website. Here is the Agenda that all signers of the Pledge have endorsed.
Pledge to Fight for Good Jobs, Sustainable Prosperity and Economic Justice
I. Jobs for All - by Investing in Rebuilding America and a Green New Deal
The first two planks of the group's agenda call for a strategy for economic growth and job creation that grows out of large-scale public investment to address real and pressing needs of our economy. They represent a dramatic contrast to the perpetual Republican "economic growth" plans which always involves tax cuts for the wealthy (and shredding important regulations). Progressives, often characterized as "redistributionist," clearly have a plan for sustainable economic growth.
1. Jobs for All by Rebuilding America
This plank takes seriously the warnings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, who have been ranking our infrastructure with marks of D or worse for decades. It also allows progressives to show they have a plan to achieve one of the major promises of candidate Trump, who has failed to deliver on infrastructure because he capitulated to the billionaire corporate wing of his party by giving away the revenue he needed in order to give them massive tax cuts.
2. Invest in a Green New Deal
The Green New Deal plank calls for retooling the US economy to dramatically reduce carbon pollution and make our systems, from housing to transportation much more energy efficient. It sets a goal of dramatically reducing carbon pollution in order to meet (and exceed) the goals set by the UN Climate Panel in order to stop the disastrous warming of the planet. And, as the labor-environmentalist Apollo Alliance told Americans a decade ago, this transition can be a boon to the economy, creating a new generation of good jobs and putting us on the path to sustainable (not wasteful growth that will lead us off a cliff. If we act quickly, we can also become a global leader in the new manufacturing industries we need to create the green transition.
II. Fight Inequality
3. Empower Workers to Reduce Inequality
Lots of people (and candidates) are now talking about growing inequality and trends finding that the 400 richest Americans control more wealth than the bottom 60 percent. One essential key to raising wages and reversing inequality is strong unions. So signers pledge to fight for the right of workers to form unions and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits. Guaranteed labor rights should be complemented by action to lift the floor under every worker by guaranteeing a living wage, paid sick and vacation days, and affordable health care. We must curb CEO compensation policies that give executives personal incentives to plunder their own companies. And we should use the tax system to reward companies that pay their workers a decent proportion to what they pay their executives.
4. Opportunity and Justice for All - With Focus on Communities Harmed by Racism
In theory full employment and labor rights should provide opportunity for all. But we insist that special attention must be invested in those communities harmed by the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, deindustrialization, and destruction of the public sector. Neglected urban and rural communities and working people victimized by the worst economic and social effects of neoliberalism must be given targeted attention and investment. We also call for a fair and humane immigration policy, fundamental reform of our criminal justice system, an end to mass incarceration and targeted investment in areas of need are all central to meeting the promise of economic justice.
5. Guarantee Women's Economic Equality
Addressing women's economic problems will improve our economy for all. We should guarantee that women earn the same pay, protections and opportunities as men in the workplace and in society - including strengthened laws for reporting and preventing sexual harassment. Women must also be guaranteed affordable health care and the right to make choices about their own health and reproduction. Families must have access to high-quality child care, and all women must be guaranteed paid leave from the workplace for childbirth, illness and vacation, and a secure retirement - with Social Security credit for work in the household.
III. A New Social Contract - for Economic Security, Healthcare, and Education
6. Medicare for All - And Shared Economic Security
The group declares health care is a right, not a privilege. And that requires moving to a Medicare for All universal public health care system. Our fight to defend Obamacare from Trump and his allies is a crucial first step to a promise of a high-quality and cost-effective health care for everyone. In addition, America needs a more robust social insurance system. Every worker deserves a secure retirement-- and we will work to create new pension systems, while we secure Social Security by "lifting the cap" that now exempts wealthy people from paying their fair share of Social Security taxes. We will strengthen and expand America's shared security programs -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, food support and housing assistance. No one in America should go hungry or homeless. Greater shared security makes the economy more robust by making our society more fair - and giving all people the confidence that comes from solidarity.
7. High-Quality Public Education - Pre-K to University
Every young person must have the right to high-quality, free public education from preschool through college. Public education must be controlled by the public, not by charter school hucksters. This requires that every community, in partnership with the state and Federal Governments must have the financing necessary to strengthen public schools, providing the necessary basics - preschool, smaller classes, summer and after-school programs, and skilled, well-paid teachers with rights on the job.
College education or skills training should be available without tuition at all public universities as a right of civic membership -- as was the policy in many states in the 1950s and 1960s. Education should be a public good that benefits all of society, not a commodity that indentures students to debt. We call for a national student debt jubilee that will cancel the debt burden imposed upon several generations seeking an education. Free college and debt cancellation will not only allow students and former students to live their lives without that burden, but it will also stimulate economic growth and unleash new civic activism.
IV. Stop Corporations, Banks and the Wealthy from Controlling Our Economy and Our Democracy
8. Make Corporations and the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share
Our public investment/growth, green transition, and justice agenda requires tax revenues. Yet the corporations and the rich do not pay their fair share in taxes--even though they pocket the greatest benefits from public investments.
It is time for the rich and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. It is time to shut down the tax havens and tax dodges that enable companies to avoid taxes altogether. We should lift the cap on Social Security taxes, so rich people pay the same percentage of their income as the rest of us. We should tax the income of investors at the same rates we tax income from work. We need clear, simple, progressive corporate and individual taxes, closing loopholes and exemptions. And a tax on financial transaction can produce significant revenues. A fair tax system will allow us to invest in an economy that will work for all.
9. Close Wall Street's Casino
Financial deregulation has devastated our economy, and it has protected banks that are too big to fail, too big to manage, and too big to jail. The financial casino fosters ever more dangerous speculation, while investment in the real economy lags. The resulting booms and busts devastate families and small businesses.
In a new age of corporate concentration, American must revive the concept of anti-trust action to reduce corporate power. We need to break up the big banks, levy a speculation tax, and provide low-income families with safe and affordable banking services. We should crack down on payday lenders and other schemes that exploit vulnerable working families, offering instead safe and inexpensive banking via the postal system.
10. Rescue Democracy from the Special Interests
Big money has corrupted our democracy. Some might say democracy is not part of an economics agenda. But the same financial elites and corporations that buy and sell politicians use that political power to rig the economy so the top .01 percent gets massively richer while incomes decline for the rest of us. We pledge to reverse the Citizens United decision which gave corporations the right to spend unlimited money in politics. We will stop the attack on voting rights which has escalated just as a new majority of people of color, young people and working women has begun to exercise new power. We will fight for public financing of elections that bans corporate and big money - and for electoral reforms, like public matching of small donations, so people's candidates can compete with the candidates of the plutocrats. Finally, we pledge to change national and local political party structures so that progressive candidates get a fair shake in the nominating process and in general elections. And we will build a new progressive majority that can take back our democracy and our economic system.
V. A Global Economic Strategy for Working People
11. A Global Economic Strategy for Working Americans
Our global trade and tax policies have been created for and by multinational companies. We must renegotiate trade deals and rethink tax policies that benefit the already-wealthy, while they encourage the export of whole American industries, drive down pay and worker protections, and harm the environment. We need more but balanced trade, and global standards that protect the rights of workers, consumers and the environment. That requires a crackdown on tax havens, currency manipulation, and deals that allow corporations to trample basic labor rights here and abroad. Finally, we need new policies that allow us to help existing US industries, by having our government buy American, policies that are now outlawed by trade deals. And we need active investment policies that grow new cutting-edge industries, like green energy systems. Our current national security policies commit us to policing the world. The result costs lives and drains public resources. We need a real security policy that makes military intervention a last resort, and focuses on global threats like climate change, poverty and inequality. We should reduce military budgets and properly support humanitarian programs.
We will see what impact the Pledge/Agenda will have on the 2020 political debate. The multiple-candidate field will create a dynamic very different from 2016. But polling shows a wide spectrum of voters want politicians to talk about (and fight for) a bold economic agenda. Senator Bernie Sanders got historic support in 2016 because he talked about an agenda that challenged corporate power and put forward a plan for big economic change. And, because Hilary Clinton didn't want to be crosswise with that progressive agenda, she took positions she might not have - and walked away from the TPP trade deal, which was very unpopular with the Democratic base. And, thanks to pressure from Sanders supporters, the Democratic Platform was more progressive than ever. Unfortunately, Clinton didn't talk about it much.
Bernie Sanders just got into the 2020 race this week, rightly reminding interviewers that many of the ideas candidates are now discussing - and that our Agenda is promoting - first gained respectability and widespread support as a result of his pioneering 2016 Presidential campaign. This year many other candidates are embracing some of those ideas. Using and online comparison, we will publicly keep track of the economic agenda positions each of these candidates take. What the voters will have to determine how much each candidate really means his/her promises - and whether they are willing to fight for the jobs, wages, pensions - and their economic futures - of working Americans.
Who knows? Some of the best candidates may cancel each other out. Even if the eventual nominee ends up being the most conventional Democrat in the race, all progressives will work hard to get rid of Trump. And after that we will unite to organize to push the new President--and a larger Congressional majority--to fight for a plan for economic transformation. This Agenda will not go away, no matter who wins the elections. Because the growing number of Americans who are endorsing the Pledge to Fight for Good Jobs, Sustainable Growth and Economic Justice see themselves as enlisting for a long-term movement for change - not just for the next campaign.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climb Down From the Summit of Hostile Propaganda
Contempt for diplomacy with Russia is now extreme
Jul 16, 2018
Throughout the day before the summit in Helsinki, the lead story on the New York Times home page stayed the same: "Just by Meeting With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead." The Sunday headline was in harmony with the tone of U.S. news coverage overall. As for media commentary, the Washington Post was in the dominant groove as it editorialized that Russia's President Vladimir Putin is "an implacably hostile foreign adversary."
Contempt for diplomacy with Russia is now extreme. Mainline U.S. journalists and top Democrats often bait President Trump in zero-sum terms. No doubt Hillary Clinton thought she was sending out an applause line in her tweet Sunday night: "Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which team you play for?"
A bellicose stance toward Russia has become so routine and widespread that we might not give it a second thought -- and that makes it all the more hazardous. After President George W. Bush declared "You're either with us or against us," many Americans gradually realized what was wrong with a Manichean view of the world. Such an outlook is even more dangerous today.
The Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).
Since early 2017, the U.S. mass media have laid it on thick with the rough political equivalent of a painting technique known as chiaroscuro - "the use of strong contrasts between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition," in the words of Wikipedia. The Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).
Countless stories with selective facts are being told that way. But other selectively fact-based stories could also be told to portray the United States as a sinister victimizer and Russia as an angelic victim. Those governments and their conformist media outlets are relentless in telling it either way. As the great journalist I.F. Stone observed long ago, "All governments lie, and nothing they say should be believed." In other words: don't trust, verify.
Often the biggest lies involve what remains unsaid. For instance, U.S. media rarely mention such key matters as the promise-breaking huge expansion of NATO to Russia's borders since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the brazen U.S. intervention in Russia's pivotal 1996 presidential election, or the U.S. government's 2002 withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the more than 800 U.S. military bases overseas -- in contrast to Russia's nine.
For human survival on this planet, an overarching truth appears in an open letter published last week by The Nation magazine: "No political advantage, real or imagined, could possibly compensate for the consequences if even a fraction of U.S. and Russian arsenals were to be utilized in a thermonuclear exchange. The tacit pretense that the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations does not worsen the odds of survival for the next generations is profoundly false."
The initial 26 signers of the open letter - "Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security" -- included Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, writer and feminist organizer Gloria Steinem, former UN ambassador Gov. Bill Richardson, political analyst Noam Chomsky, former covert CIA operations officer Valerie Plame, activist leader Rev. Dr. William Barber II, filmmaker Michael Moore, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR Jack F. Matlock Jr., Pulitzer Prize-winning writers Alice Walker and Viet Thanh Nguyen, The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, former senator Adlai Stevenson III, and former longtime House Armed Services Committee member Patricia Schroeder. (I was also one of the initial signers.)
Since its release five days ago, the open letter has gained support from a petition already signed by 30,000 people. The petition campaign aims to amplify the call for protecting the digital infrastructure of the electoral process that is now "vulnerable to would-be hackers based anywhere" -- and for taking "concrete steps... to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers."
We need a major shift in the U.S. approach toward Russia. Clearly the needed shift won't be initiated by the Republican or Democratic leaders in Congress; it must come from Americans who make their voices heard. The lives -- and even existence -- of future generations are at stake in the relationship between Washington and Moscow.
Many of the petition's grassroots signers have posted comments along with their names. Here are a few of my favorites:
- From Nevada: "We all share the same planet! We better learn how to do it safely or face the consequences of blowing ourselves up!"
- From New Mexico: "The earth will not survive a nuclear war. The weapons we have today are able to cause much more destruction than those of previous eras. We must find a way to common ground."
- From Massachusetts: "It is imperative that we take steps to protect the sanctity of our elections and to prevent nuclear war anywhere on the earth."
- From Kentucky: "Secure elections are a fundamental part of a democratic system. But this could become meaningless in the event of thermonuclear war."
- From California: "There is only madness and hubris in talk of belligerence toward others, especially when we have such dangerous weapons and human error has almost led to our annihilation already more than once in the past half-century."
Yet a wide array of media outlets, notably the "Russiagate"-obsessed network MSNBC, keeps egging on progressives to climb toward peaks of anti-Russian jingoism. The line of march is often in virtual lockstep with GOP hyper-hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The incessant drumbeat is in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."
Meanwhile, as Dr. King said, "We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security
Tensions are festering between two nations with large quantities of nuclear weapons on virtual hair-trigger alert; yet the current partisan fixations in Washington are ignoring the dangers to global stability and, ultimately, human survival.
Jul 11, 2018
Many Americans remain deeply concerned about reports of Russian interference with the 2016 election. Meanwhile, relations between the United States and Russia are at their lowest and most dangerous point in several decades. For the sake of democracy at home and true national security, we must reach common ground to safeguard common interests--taking steps to protect the nation's elections and to prevent war between the world's two nuclear superpowers.
Whatever the truth of varied charges that Russia interfered with the election, there should be no doubt that America's digital-age infrastructure for the electoral process is in urgent need of protection. The overarching fact remains that the system is vulnerable to would-be hackers based anywhere. Solutions will require a much higher level of security for everything from voter-registration records to tabulation of ballots with verifiable paper trails. As a nation, we must fortify our election system against unlawful intrusions as well as official policies of voter suppression.
"As a nation, we must fortify our election system against unlawful intrusions as well as official policies of voter suppression."
At the same time, the U.S. and Russian governments show numerous signs of being on a collision course. Diplomacy has given way to hostility and reciprocal consular expulsions, along with dozens of near-miss military encounters in Syria and in skies above Europe. Both sides are plunging ahead with major new weapons development programs. In contrast to prior eras, there is now an alarming lack of standard procedures to keep the armed forces of both countries in sufficient communication to prevent an escalation that could lead to conventional or even nuclear attack. These tensions are festering between two nations with large quantities of nuclear weapons on virtual hair-trigger alert; yet the current partisan fixations in Washington are ignoring the dangers to global stability and, ultimately, human survival.
The United States should implement a pronounced shift in approach toward Russia. No political advantage, real or imagined, could possibly compensate for the consequences if even a fraction of U.S. and Russian arsenals were to be utilized in a thermonuclear exchange. The tacit pretense that the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations does not worsen the odds of survival for the next generations is profoundly false. Concrete steps can and must be taken to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers.
Signed,
Andrew Bacevich, Professor Emeritus, Boston University
Phyllis Bennis, Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies
Noam Chomsky, Professor, Author, and Activist
Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics, NYU and Princeton University, and Board Member, American Committee for East-West Accord
John Dean, Former Nixon White House Counsel
Phil Donahue, Journalist and Talk-Show Pioneer
Thomas Drake, Former NSA Senior Executive and Whistle-blower
Daniel Ellsberg, Activist, "Pentagon Papers" Whistle-blower, and Author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner
Jack Matlock, Former US Ambassador to the USSR and Board Member, American Committee for East-West Accord
Walter Mosley, Writer and Screenwriter
Viet Thanh Nguyen, Pulitzer Prize-Winning Novelist
Frances Fox Piven, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, CUNY Graduate School
Valerie Plame, Former Covert CIA Operations Officer and Author
Adolph Reed Jr., Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
Bill Richardson, Former Governor of New Mexico
Patricia Schroeder, Former Congresswoman
Norman Solomon, National Coordinator, RootsAction.org
Gloria Steinem, Writer and Feminist Organizer
Adlai Stevenson III, Former US Senator and Chairman, Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy
Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor and Publisher, The Nation
Alice Walker, Writer, Poet, and Activist
Jody Williams, Professor and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
James Zogby, President, Arab American Institute
Signers have endorsed this Open Letter as individuals and not on behalf of any organization.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Democratic Party's 2018 View of Identity Politics Is Confusing, and Thus Appears Cynical and Opportunistic
Given its rhetoric, how does the Democratic Party justify supporting white, male machine politicians over credible female challengers, LGBT people, and people of color?
Jun 13, 2018
The 2016 presidential election was the peak, at least thus far, for the tactics of identity politics in U.S. elections. In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton's potential status as the first female candidate was frequently used not only to inspire her supporters but also to shame and malign those who supported other candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders.
In February 2016 -- at the height of the Clinton-Sanders battle -- former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire rally by predicting a grim afterlife for female supporters of Sanders, while Clinton and Cory Booker cheered: "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" she announced.
Though Albright apologized in the New York Times for her insensitive phrasing after a backlash ensued, she did reaffirm her central point: "When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits. They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or oppose."
At roughly the same time, Clinton supporter Gloria Steinem said female supporters of Sanders were motivated by a primitive impulse to follow "the boys," who, she claimed, were behind Sanders. Just this week, the Clinton loyalist and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte said Trump won "because some dudes had mommy issues," then clarified that she was referring to left-wing misogynists who did not support Clinton: "I also have those moments where I'm like, 'Maybe we need to run Bland White Guy 2020 to appease the fake socialists and jackass mansplainers.'"
By no means did these rhetorical tactics make their debut appearance in the 2016 Democratic primary. Indeed, the far more vitriolic 2008 primary -- between Clinton and Barack Obama -- was driven in large part by similar identity-based accusations from both camps.
Clinton supporters constantly accused Obama supporters of being driven by misogyny for opposing the first female president (a charge voiced by Clinton herself), while Obama supporters routinely depicted the Clintons and their supporters as racist due to the nature of their opposition to the first African-American president.
The term "Bernie bros," which became so widespread as a term of recrimination against Sanders supporters in 2016, was actually conceptually invented in 2008 to malign Obama supporters. Rebecca Traister, then of Salon, wrote under the headline: "Hey, Obama boys: Back Off Already!" about women reporting "the sexism they felt coming from their brothers and husbands and friends and boyfriends [who supported Obama over Clinton]; some described the suspicion that their politically progressive partners were actually uncomfortable with powerful women."
Read the full piece, with possible updates, at The Intercept.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Fend Off Progressive Primary Challenger Marie Newman, Anti-Choice Group Throws Big Money at Blue Dog Democrat
With endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders, Gloria Steinem, and reproductive rights advocates, Newman aims to defeat anti-choice incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois
Mar 15, 2018
Now that progressive primary challenger Marie Newman is "within striking distance" of ousting Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois's 3rd District, a right-wing group that typically backs Republicans has made a "six-figure investment" in a "last-minute push" to bolster the anti-choice incumbent.
Ahead of the primary vote on Tuesday March 20, the anti-choice group Susan B. Anthony List has dispatched 70 canvassers and spent thousands of dollars on digital advertisments and a mail campaign for Lipinski, McClatchy reported Thursday. "The group has also helped the incumbent Democrat raise $40,000 this cycle, an SBA List official said, and $80,000 since 2012."
In a Bold Progressives fundraising email for Newman, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue called Lipinski "one of the worst Democrats in Congress," pointing out that he "has repeatedly let his solidly blue district of constituents down by voting to restrict abortion 52 times. Even in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger."
Lipinski is co-chair (pdf) of the Bi-Partisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus and the Democratic Party's centrist Blue Dog Coalition. In addition to his opposition to constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights, Lipinksi also voted against the 2010 DREAM Act as well as the final version of the Affordable Care Act, and has been heavily criticized for his spotty record on LGBTQ rights.
He's also come under fire from local labor leaders, with SEIU Illinois state council president Tom Balanoff declaring earlier this month that "Lipinski's refusal to support a $15 minimum wage for working people shows how deeply out of touch he is with the working families of his district."
By contrast, Newman--one of the many progressive primary candidates working to push the party left--is not only an advocate of reproductive rights, but according to her campaign platform, she also supports moving toward "Healthcare-For-All solutions"; fighting to reverse the Citizens United decision; measures to protect LGBTQ Americans from discrimination; enhanced gun safety; and efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions to address the climate crisis.
As the Chicago Tribune noted, Newman has won the support of high-profile groups such as EMILY's List, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, MoveOn.org, and NARAL Pro-Choice America. She has also garnered the backing of feminist icon Gloria Steinem, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.).
Illinois's 3rd District, which encompasses part of the Southwest Side of Chicago as well as surrounding suburbs, is historically a blue district and the lone GOP candidate--Holocaust-denying white supremacist Arthur "Art" Jones--is not expected to pose a serious challenge to whoever wins the Democratic nomination.
Public Policy Polling results published two weeks ago showed the pair of Democrats "in a statistical dead heat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy