

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.
The first time I met Rich Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO who suddenly died this past Thursday, was in early 2008. I had only been president of the Writers Guild of America, East, an AFL-CIO union, for a short time, and he was then the labor federation's secretary-treasurer.
"There would be no finer tribute to the life and work of Richard Trumka than to pass the PRO Act."
We and the Writers Guild West were still in the throes of an historic, nerve-wracking but ultimately successful 100-day strike against the Hollywood film and TV conglomerates and I had traveled to Washington, D.C. with our executive director to see Trumka about an issue involving a conflict with another union. He had arranged for a mediation and the problem quickly was handled in a spirit of conciliation and with efficiency and tact. It was impressive.
As was he: a big, mustachioed, funny but tough and smart guy who knew how to define the heart of any issue and get things done. Part of that was his legal and organizing experience, the rest was pure Trumka. "A truculent fighter who didn't give up easily," was how my friend, that knowledgeable labor journalist Steve Greenhouse, described him, and that was so. "A powerful orator who knew how to mobilize workers."
When we first met for that mediation, I'd been told that Trumka's office windows opened out on a panoramic view of the nearby White House but on this weekday afternoon the heavy curtains were closed. I asked him why and he growled, "I'm not gonna open them again until that son-of-a-bitch George Bush is out of there."
Significantly, one of the first to respond to Trumka's death was Bush's successor Barack Obama. He tweeted:
From the coal mines of Pennsylvania to the halls of Congress, Rich Trumka was a fierce advocate for working Americans. He loved this country, and he never missed an opportunity to remind us what we can be. Thinking of his family, friends, and federation on this difficult day.
Trumka, who at one time had been the United Mine Workers' youngest president (he was 33)--and who worked his way through school as a third-generation coal miner himself--performed a remarkable service for Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, making a heartfelt pitch not only for the election of the Democratic candidate but also doing his part to chip away, for a while at least, some of the deep-set racism that endangered an Obama victory. Rich traveled around the country talking to blue collar union workers, many of whom were reluctant to vote for the first Black American president.
He told them: "We can't tap dance around the fact that there are a lot of white folks out there who just can't get past this idea that there's something wrong with voting for a Black man. Those of us who know better can't afford to look the other way." Obama was the best choice for all working men and women, Trumka said, and there was "only one really, really bad reason to vote against Barack Obama. And that's because he's not white."
In his Washington Post obituary of Trumka, Harrison Smith told the story of Trumka meeting a woman in his Nemacolin, Pennsylvania, hometown who said she couldn't trust Obama because he was Black. Rich said to her:
Look around this town. Nemacolin's a dying town. There's no jobs here. Our kids are moving away because there's no future here. And here's a man, Barack Obama, who's going to fight for people like us, and you want to tell me that you won't vote for him because of the color of his skin?
Are you out of your ever-loving mind, lady?
Two years after we met for that first of many times, I was senior writer at Bill Moyers Journal on PBS and Trumka was a guest. I teased him about the capitalist cravat he wore, a dark red, Brooks Brothers special emblazoned with their Golden Fleece logo. But his necktie was just a minor concession to the inside-the-Beltway crowd. "There are two economies in this country," he told Bill. "There's the real economy that makes things. And there's the financial economy that was supposed to provide them with the capital to make things...
Somewhere along the line, that got turned on its head. And the financial community became the master. And they actually started sucking money out of the real economy... So, it's up to us to correct that imbalance. To make it so that the real economy is actually the dominant economy. And the financial economy is a servant to enable them to do their job.
Rich Trumka was helpful to and supportive of our union on many occasions, showing up when most needed, just as he was there for almost every other union in the AFL-CIO. But he also campaigned on behalf of virtually any and all groups that worked for working men and women whether they were unionized or not.
I will never forget accompanying him one early Friday morning in October 2011 when we visited the activists of Occupy Wall Street. They were just crawling out of their sleeping bags when we arrived and many of them didn't know who he was, but they could sense his interest and support as we quietly walked through the encampment at Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan's financial district. He spoke with everyone, including some hardhat-wearing workers from New Jersey who had come across the Hudson just to see what was going on and to offer their support.
From 2009, in the dozen years he served as AFL-CIO president, another friend, The Nation's John Nichols wrote, "Trumka worked to forge a more inclusive, and visionary, labor movement."
Said Nichols:
He was the first to say that there was more work to do. And he was willing to do that work--as when he positioned the AFL-CIO in clear opposition to Donald Trump's presidency; as when he championed Black Lives Matter protests, after the murder of George Floyd Jr., in 2020; as he did in the spring of 2021 with his "Immigrant Rights Are Worker Rights" advocacy.
During the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, a year before Trumka became AFL-CIO president, there was a meeting of union presidents at which we were told that the party and Barack Obama's pledge to us was passage of EFCA, the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation which, as Rich described it, "takes the choice of having a union away from the employer, which is where it is right now, and gives it to the employee." It would have been a major shot in the arm to the labor movement.
EFCA never happened during the Obama years, but it lives on in the Protecting the Right to Organize Act--the PRO Act--passed by the House and currently before the U.S. Senate. "To Mr. Trumka's mind," Steve Greenhouse writes, "the PRO Act was an essential tool for adding millions of workers to union rolls. It would make it easier for workers to join unions. It would limit management's ability to propagandize workers and would create hefty fines for when corporations break the law in battling union drives, for instance, by firing outspoken union supporters."
Almost every Democratic senator and Rich Trumka's friend President Joe Biden are behind the bill (although passage may be next to impossible until the filibuster is wiped out). Those curtains in the AFL-CIO offices have been flung back, showing off the view of a White House occupied by the most pro-labor president in a long time.
There would be no finer tribute to the life and work of Richard Trumka than to pass the PRO Act. And here's an added dividend: it would drive Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, most of the other GOP legislators--and their deep-pocketed corporate funders--out of their ever-loving minds.
Rich Trumka would love that.
When the brilliant songwriter George Gershwin passed away, the writer John O'Hara famously declared that Gershwin had died on July 11, 1937, "but I don't have to believe it if I don't want to."
My friend and colleague Walter Bernstein died over the weekend and I don't have to believe it either.
You should know about Walter. He was 101 years old and lived a remarkable, courageous life of bounteous creativity and fierce political commitment right up to the end. For many years, we served together on the governing council of the Writers Guild of America East, and during the decade when I was its president especially, I thought of him as my consigliere, the person I could call on for sage counsel and reassurance when the union was in a scrape and needed help. Many, many others felt the same.
He would hear the arguments pro and con, and then from his vast well of experience come up with a simple, fair solution. Often, he'd sum up with a succinct line from an old vaudeville sketch he liked: "Pay the two dollars." In other words, sometimes you have to concede a minor point because otherwise, you'll wind up with a much bigger problem. Compromise isn't always the enemy of progress.
"The government wanted him to name names and Walter would not, and so he lived in the shadows for all those years, until a few brave souls in the industry broke the fever of the blacklist and began putting those falsely accused of disloyalty to country back on the payroll."
A noted writer for movies and TV, and a fervent political advocate, Walter's credits include Fail Safe (about a nuclear confrontation between the US and Russia), Semi-Tough (pro football and EST!), The Molly Maguires (a hell of a film about coal mines, labor and social justice) and The Front, perhaps the film closest to his heart and most resonant with his own life.
That's because Walter was one of the last living survivors of the Hollywood blacklist. During the 1950s into the early '60s, it was an ugly, unholy registry of writers, producers, performers and directors who were unofficially banned from working in the TV and movie industry because of their left-wing political views and affiliations.
The Front tells the story of a night cashier/part-time bookie, played by Woody Allen, who agrees to pose as the author of television scripts actually written by a group of writers who have to keep their identities hidden for fear of McCarthyism's fierce retribution. At first apolitical and cynical, over the course of the movie Allen's character slowly grows a spine and ends up in prison when he tells the House Un-American Activities Committee to do something I continue to believe is anatomically impossible.
In any case, see the movie. Walter tells the story much better than I do.
The Front was based on personal experience. During the blacklist, he wrote scripts under a variety of pseudonyms for such TV shows as Danger and You Are There, a series hosted by Walter Cronkite in which historical incidents, from the death of Socrates to the trial of Susan B. Anthony, were covered as news events.
Walter was a member of the American Communist Party until 1956 but quit after the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Premier Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin's atrocities. "I had left the Party," he wrote, "but not the idea of socialism, the possibility that there could be a system not based in inequality and exploitation."
There was nothing illegal about his party membership and he felt no need to disavow or apologize for his beliefs. But for eight years in films and eleven years in television, his political views were used against him to deny his livelihood. He was listed in a notorious Cold War publication called "Red Channels"--a list of "151 actors, writers, directors, producers, painters and musicians, together with their alleged Communist or Communist-front affiliations," Walter wrote in his fascinating memoir, Inside Out. "'Red Channels' became the bible of the blacklist movement. There were eight listings for me, all of them true...
I would have felt insulted if I had not been included. On the other hand, inclusion in 'Red Channels,' however honorable, meant an automatic blacklisting. No one ever questioned this; it was simply accepted by the networks and movie studios. There was no government edict behind it, no proof of illegality, moral turpitude or, even worse, lack of talent.
As Associated Press national writer Hillel Italie wrote in Walter's obituary, the result of this rabid anti-Communist paranoia, "ruined the lives of many of his peers and led some to suicide. Job offers to Bernstein were rescinded and onetime friends stopped speaking to him. FBI agents looked through his trash, showed up at his door and followed him outside."
The government wanted him to name names and Walter would not, and so he lived in the shadows for all those years, until a few brave souls in the industry broke the fever of the blacklist and began putting those falsely accused of disloyalty to country back on the payroll.
A native Brooklynite descended from Jewish immigrants, he attended Erasmus Hall High School and was a movie nut from the start. Walter even was film critic for the Dartmouth College student newspaper, until he was fired for panning the movie Lost Horizon.
Six months of an intensive language course in pre-war Europe made him an eyewitness to the rise of fascism and helped stir his interest in communism as an alternative. Drafted in 1941, he served in the army during World War II and became a correspondent for the GI newspaper, Yank.
He scooped the world when he snuck behind enemy lines and interviewed Josip Broz Tito, the leader of partisan fighters against the Nazis and Yugoslavia's president for life. Framed in a bathroom in Walter's apartment is a page from a comic book that told the story of that adventure. Unfortunately, that journey was one of the things the political witch hunters used against him, citing it as evidence of treachery. Tito was, after all, a Communist.
The bathroom wall also displays a short letter from Harold Ross, the legendary founding editor of The New Yorker, written to the playwright and director Moss Hart, who had sent Ross a short piece of Walter's for publication. Walter wound up writing for the magazine both during and after the war.
His first trip to Hollywood came in 1947 when he went to work for the writer-director Robert Rossen. Rossen was in the middle of writing the screenplay for All the King's Men, novelist Robert Penn Warren's masterpiece about a Southern demagogue he modeled after Louisiana's Huey Long. The Hollywood Ten--a group of left-leaning writers, producers and directors--had just been called before the House Un-American Activities Committee but Walter knew he had done nothing seditious and thought he was low enough on the ladder to be safe. He was wrong.
My memories of Walter will include not only the many union meetings we shared but also the too few lunches and dinners, often with his wife the literary agent Gloria Loomis, including one for my 65th birthday. Each was stimulating, entertaining and infused with his characteristic wit and enthusiasm. He was a mentor and friend not only to me, my colleagues and many other screenwriters but also to the students he taught for years at NYU and the fledgling independent filmmakers at Robert Redford's Sundance Lab.
I also remember a train ride from New York to Washington with Walter and Victor Navasky, the wry and wonderful publisher emeritus of The Nation magazine. I was moderating and they were appearing on a panel at the National Press Club marking the 60th anniversary of the blacklist (Victor's book Naming Names is an essential history of the era). Walter was 88, Victor was 73 and I a boyish 56, but the laughter of our conversation--we tried to keep it down--almost got us kicked off the train's quiet car.
A decade ago, at the request of the Writers Guild Foundation, Walter and I sat down for a wide-ranging conversation about his life and career. You can view the whole thing here (or watch below):
And now he's gone. Walter lived just long enough to see Donald Trump come and blessedly go--for now, at least. Because if you don't think it can happen here, think again. It happened to Walter Bernstein.
In mid-May, this year's Pulitzer Prizes were announced, and as I scrolled down the list of recipients, I was surprised and delighted to see that the award for music had gone to Anthony Davis' opera The Central Park Five, its libretto written by my longtime friend and colleague Richard Wesley. The piece tells the now well-known story of the five innocent young men falsely accused of rape and assault by police and much of the public, including Donald Trump.
Two weeks after the Pulitzer announcement, George Floyd lay dead in Minneapolis, a policeman's knee to his throat. Within days, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, protests grew around the world as Black Lives Matter and many others rose up against police brutality and social and economic injustice.
I thought once again of Richard Wesley and the parallels of his life, the arc of civil rights in America and the fight for equality. He grew up in Newark, NJ, and was present during the 1967 uprising there. He attended Howard University at a time of tremendous change and turmoil, the time of the March on Washington, the Birmingham church bombing, the rise of the Black Panther Party. His writing career took off in the sixties and seventies as Black Power, Black Theater and the Black Arts Movement were blossoming. He was an eyewitness to it all.
"Most of the people in my age group are so very proud of these young people marching. We wish that we could go out and just hug each and every one of them and give them nothing but every ounce of support that we have. They're us 50 years ago. They're doing precisely what we did."
With his award-winning plays, including The Mighty Gents and The Talented Tenth; and such movie and television scripts as Uptown Saturday Night, an adaptation of Richard Wright's Native Son and Mandela and de Klerk, Richard Wesley has devoted himself to telling stories about the Black experience. He continues to this day, scripting the aforementioned Central Park Five, teaching at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts and recently publishing a memoir, It's Always Loud in the Balcony (Applause Books, 2019).
Given his experience and knowledge, I wanted to talk with him about his life and work and his reactions to what's happening today in the United States--how similar it is to events of the past and how different. We first spoke just as the deaths of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Daniel Prude in Rochester, NY, had occurred, and more nationwide demonstrations against police were underway.
"It brings back a flood of memories," Wesley said of the protests. "Most of the people in my age group are so very proud of these young people marching. We wish that we could go out and just hug each and every one of them and give them nothing but every ounce of support that we have. They're us 50 years ago. They're doing precisely what we did.
"For me personally, the fact that they are doing precisely what we did makes me want to go to them and say, "Look, don't do precisely what we did, instead build on what we did and learn from what we did. Don't repeat history, make history. Build on history...
"It's a question now of these kids taking what we did from the '60s and expanding on it and making something even better and stronger. And I have no doubt that they will."

He sees a real impact, a shift in American opinion, and even an effect on greater Black involvement in movies, theater and TV, a new generation of storytellers. As for the November 3 election, "I think a lot of people are going to come out of their houses, they're going to risk their health, and they are going to stand in line at those one, two or three voting places that are available to them, and they're going to stand in line and vote. And they're going to vote by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands...
"How many thousands died, how many millions became infected, because of what [Trump] did, and because of the corrective measures he failed to follow? So yeah, people are going to be giving a lot of side-eye to this President and the politicians who support him. And if that happens, then Donald Trump will be a lame duck president after November 3rd. And no matter what he tries to do on January 20, 2021, Joseph Biden will be president of this country. And then it's going to take years to fix up the mess that has been made to redress all of the things that have gone wrong."
Our Zoom conversation covers the contemporary crisis seen through the career and life of a Black writer who has lived through decades of racial struggle, who has been in the presence of some of the great pioneering creative and activist voices of his community--including his own--and who has reflected and utilized much of what he has experienced in the body of his work. You can read the entire interview below. It has been edited for length and clarity:
Physically I'm doing fine. I think psychologically, I'm up and down. Sometimes I find myself a little morose, uncertain about how things are proceeding... My daily routines, all of them have been completely destroyed, totally thrown off. And I'm having to learn new habits and new ways of keeping myself active physically.
Creatively, I've been doing a lot of writing since the start of the pandemic. I've written a couple short pieces for presentation via Zoom. And that's been exciting. It's given me some ideas about how one writes scripts for this particular technology. It's so different from television, it's different from film, yet it also seems to rely, I think, on some of the same creative processes that might've gone into serious writing for network radio 70 and 80 years ago.
You have to depend on the audience's willingness to suspend reality on the one hand and use their imagination on the other. At the same time, you still have access to contemporary technologies in terms of developing artificial backgrounds, where you place the actors, etc. But you're also fundamentally using a head and shoulder shot, just like the two of us now in the frame, and you're writing in a way in which the actors are not necessarily interacting directly with each other but with the audience. It's a kind of hybrid screenwriting. And I'm very excited about what I've been able to accomplish so far, what I've learned from it, so I'm just going to keep moving in that direction.
It was completely new territory for me. My involvement with it was through the Trilogy opera company, a small company headed by the singer Kevin Maynor over here in Newark, New Jersey. And in its original incarnation, the project was called Five. The libretto that I wrote at that time was developed entirely from material in the public domain. There were time constraints because of the grant that Kevin had received. We had a very short time in terms of my being able to write the script, then the libretto being sent off to [the composer] Anthony Davis, him being able to musicalize and then us getting into rehearsal and getting it up on its feet.
There was no opportunity to interview any of the five young men, no opportunity to get into the kind of in-depth research that I might like to have had the opportunity to do. I just used what I had in front of me and created a libretto from that. Rather than trying to recreate reality, I decide to write the script in an impressionistic format, and that allowed me a lot of leeway in terms of going in and out of reality, in and out of people's consciousness, getting into the inner lives a little more deeply.
I thought more of writing the script as a kind of performance piece and a little bit of Brecht's epic theater concepts from nearly a hundred years ago came in handy. It was kind of a pastiche of all of that. And certainly Melvin Van Peebles' ideas for Ain't Supposed to Die a Natural Death, his Broadway show from 1970. Those were all the influences that went into the writing of the libretto itself.
Yes. I think when it actually happened, I was in Los Angeles working on some projects there, but then when I came home to New Jersey, the reverberations of that being only 12 miles from the incident itself, and at the same time the feelings that emanated from all of that, all went into the writing of the script. I had to take myself back to that time. And then I became the victim, Tricia Meili, the woman who was attacked; I became the five men, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana, Korey Wise and Yusef Salaam, and when that happened, I had to think about how I felt as a black male, what I remembered viscerally from hearing and reading about Emmett Till, when I was ten years old, hearing and reading about the Scottsboro Boys, which happened even before I was born.
All of these different feelings came into the writing of the script and then putting myself in the shoes of various imaginary white people who were reading about this in the newspapers, experiencing it as a news broadcast via television. What must've been going through the minds of a white person who lived on East 90th Street near the entrance to the park, knowing the area where the woman was attacked, hearing, maybe even having been out that night when there were all those teenagers in the streets going in and out of the park.
And so I used all those feelings and all those assumptions to write lines that made up the opening of the libretto itself.
I didn't know about Donald Trump's ad until years later, and I happened to see a reproduction of it. And it was shocking. And then even years after that, to know that even when he knew that they were innocent, he never apologized, he never retracted his statement. All of that, it's not something that's easily forgotten.
Let's talk about your book. You've had such a distinguished career in theater and films. What led you to write this memoir, It's Always Loud in The Balcony, and why that title?
It didn't start as a memoir. It was supposed to be a very academic and scholarly nonfiction book on the history of the Black Arts Movement, Black Power...
... From the mid '60s forward. But my editors and the publisher, they all felt the book is really dry and kind of uninteresting, and you were there, why don't you put more of yourself into it? Well, I saw what they probably meant, I went back and did a rewrite and made the language a little more accessible and the note I got back was, "No, we mean, we want you to literally put yourself into it."
Once I did that, then it became a personal history and I kept saying, "I'm not going to write a memoir, I'm not going to write a memoir." And well, yeah, it turned into one.
It's Always Loud in the Balcony--when you go to a lot of shows, especially when you're going to the Apollo Theater to see a show, the people up in the balcony were usually the ones who were most likely to heckle the emcees, who, when they see an act that they don't particularly like, they're always the ones quickest to express their dissatisfaction.
They're people who work very hard, they spend hard-earned money to come and see a show, they're stuck way up in the balcony, they can barely see anything and then the show turns out not to be good at all. And so, yeah, they're going to speak up. They're the dissatisfied ones. Social movements are sparked by the dissatisfied ones, And the black theater movement itself started among the people who were dissatisfied.
Contemporary black theater in some ways owes its spark, not simply to Amiri Baraka's play, Dutchman, from 1964, but from a 1966 essay about how it may be time for a Negro theater. It was written in The New York Times by playwright Douglas Turner Ward ["American Theater: For Whites Only?" September 25, 1966]. It was in its own way a manifesto, and an outgrowth of that was an interest in finding or developing these heretofore unheard voices. That's how Doug [Turner Ward] got a grant from the Ford Foundation to start the Negro Ensemble Company.
Ford was also involved in grant money that went to Robert Macbeth further uptown in Harlem to found the New Lafayette Theater. And there were a number of other theater companies that grew out of the efforts by the Ford Foundation to plant these seeds of artistic development. The dissatisfied ones in the balcony, the Douglas Turner Wards, the Amiri Barakas, the Ed Bullins, the Sonia Sanchezes, they're the ones who were loud in America's theatrical balconies.
Yes, I was at the New Lafayette. The theater was founded in 1966, 1967. I joined the Black Theater Workshop, which was a division of the theater, I think in the fall of 1967, and then became a member of the theater itself in 1970.
Well, I'm a baby boomer, so we're the generation that pretty much made sure that television was going to be a thing. Every household had to have one because of us kids, and I grew up on TV. Certainly the anthology series of the '50s, Dick Powell's Four-Star Theater anthology series, the live theater presentations, which particularly had a very strong effect on me even at the age of 10 and 11 years old. Armstrong Circle Theater, Kraft Playhouse, US Steel Hour--these were the shows I watched all the time. And writers like Abby Mann and Rod Serling and Paddy Chayefsky became names that were very, very familiar to me. I knew if I saw their names in the credits I was going to see something interesting.
And that also is an indication of just how much of a writer I was and didn't realize at the time. I was looking to find out who wrote the script. To this day, I cannot tell you the name of most of the directors of those shows. And that was an era when people like Sidney Lumet and John Frankenheimer were establishing their careers. And I was looking right past all of that straight to the names of the writers. So whenever I saw a name like Abby Mann and certainly Paddy Chayefsky I was paying attention.
And I was dead into The Twilight Zone because I recognized Serling's name immediately. And Twilight Zone ultimately became my favorite television show. And that was the show I studied most closely in terms of how to write really interesting stories.
My mother had a sister and two brothers who lived in Washington at the time. And so I knew if I went to Howard, I'd always have family that I could run to if things got difficult. That was a big reason. And also at the time Howard in the brochure had indicated that they had courses in writing for television and film. It was supposed to be taught in the drama department. So that was another reason why I applied. Not the least of which also was because Howard was the only college that I was applying to at the time that didn't require a cash deposit when you returned the application.
Owen Dodson, the chair of the department, he was a fairly well-known poet and a writer at the time. And yes, that's exactly what he said: "Child, if I can teach you to write for the stage, you'll be able to write anything." He said it dramatically, fixed me with a stare and peered over the top of his glasses. And I said, "Well, okay." And I stayed.
I think, as I write in the book, there was still a buzz in Washington. Our orientation as freshmen began just weeks after the March itself. You could still see posters up on some of the walls and telephone poles announcing the March. There were people there talking about the march route. In the aftermath of the March there were signs all over DC at the time. And my newfound friend John Richards, one of my freshmen classmates, and I, when we walked from the campus down 7th Street into downtown Washington, it was everywhere.
It was very exciting. There was a real sense in the air of new possibilities and a real change. Everything about the Kennedy administration, it carried its own electricity for young people at that time. Because we had a president who didn't look so much like a dad the way Eisenhower did. He looked more like the cool big brother who really made it.
In terms of civil rights, he was there, in terms of the New Frontier, the space program, with the Peace Corps. These were things coming out of the conformist '50s that just promised whole new vistas and whole new possibilities. Everything seemed possible that particular late summer or early fall. And even though [there was] the bombing of the church in Birmingham, when the four little girls were killed, as horrific as that was and in spite of the assassination of Medgar Evers, just before I graduated from high school that previous spring, there was still this sense that there were other brighter, heftier promises going forward.
There were things that were going to be overcome, and there was just going to be a different America out there. And here I was, 18 years old, and I was going to be right at the beginning of it. And then the president was assassinated.
That was right after my graduation from college, and I was home. In fact, I told my parents when I came home from Howard that you all don't understand. Places like Newark are like a powder keg, it's about to blow. I don't think I fully realized that less than 10 days after I made that statement to them, Newark in fact really would.
It was deeply personal to me. My brother was managing a supermarket right at the epicenter of the rebellion itself. I remember being very worried about him because it was clear that there was shooting, there were crowds of people in the streets. There were already victims of gunshot wounds. We didn't hear from my brother until well into the night, and then we found out that he was basically hiding at a friend's apartment. They were all on the floor.
I remember the angst that my parents felt. I remember a certain grimness that I experienced. I was certainly aware of the possibility that something like that could happen
As I write in the book, three people that I knew growing up were killed during that time. My two younger cousins and my aunt and uncle lived in the Hayes Homes, which was a collection of apartment towers that was right across the street from the police precinct where all this gunfire, where the uprising itself started. And in those old newsreels that you see of the rebellion itself, occasionally you might see some film of some National Guardsmen crouched behind cars firing at tall buildings in the background. And then there's images of bullets ricocheting off the facade of large stone buildings--those are the Hayes Homes. Those were the buildings that my aunt and uncle and cousins were living in at the time, and they were forced to stay on the floor.
I know that it had a terrible effect on my aunt because it wasn't too long after that she had a nervous breakdown. And she had other emotional problems, because some of those gunshots were aimed at the building that she was living in. And Mrs. Eloise Spellman, the woman who was killed while she was cooking dinner for her children, she was killed by a stray bullet from a National Guardsman's rifle because he thought she was a sniper. And that was the tower that was diagonally across from the one that my aunt and uncle were living in at the time.
I've never really directly written about my experiences or memories of the uprising itself. But I think there have been residual effects. It's had to have turned up somewhere in my plays and things. Particularly a play like The Mighty Gents or The Sirens, because both those plays definitely take place in Newark. And they take place right around the time of the rebellion itself, even though they don't talk directly about it. But they talk about people who would have been in the middle of it had they actually been real characters. Another play, The Talented Tenth, about a black professional and former political activist in his youth who is now entering his 40s during the 1990s and experiencing a mid-life crisis, features another character, a young woman in her 20s, who was a child caught in the middle of the Newark Rebellion and has a completely different memory of those days, one that is neither rosy nor heroic.
Well, the area of black theater that I came from, we were the cultural arm of the Black Power Movement. We were the offshoot of the civil rights movement itself. After the Voting Rights Bill was passed in 1965, that was pretty much the culmination of the primary struggles of the civil rights movement; the next level after that had to do with, how do you use these newly acquired rights as far as voting is concerned?
How do you turn the right to vote in the South into a way to address the inequities there? And how do you turn this energy, this right to vote, into a real political power in the North? Newark was predominantly black going all the way back practically to the early to mid '60s. The same was true of Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Detroit--and certainly becoming true of New York City. Each ethnic group as it reached a certain critical mass has exercised that mass through the vote as a way of gaining some traction in the overall society. Every group has done it: Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Polish Americans, going back to the founding of the country.
Now, here was a time for black people to start doing some of the same things. And so what do we want to do with this vote and how are we going to use this vote to exercise our freedoms as citizens? That's what Black Power was all about. But Black Power was not necessarily a movement that was the brainchild of Dr. King. We felt we owed our legacy more to Malcolm X, who was much more assertive and took a stronger stance, and I think it was more reflective of his urban setting. Dr. King was in the South, in the Jim Crow South, a very violent area of the country at that time for black people. And nonviolence as a way of political expression made a lot of sense there, but in the North, it was different.
There were not the same kind of Jim Crow constraints, certainly not overtly in the North, so the ability to speak our minds and the ability to have an eyeball-to-eyeball conversation with the white power structure came out of a different kind of psychological or emotional stance. Malcolm represented that stance far more than Dr. King did. So we started looking more toward Malcolm. Once we started looking in Malcolm's direction, we started looking at other political influences, the liberation movements overseas. What were Chief Luthuli and Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress doing in South Africa? What was FRELIMO doing in Mozambique? What was going on with the political action movements and liberation movements in Angola? Their political philosophies were far more leftist.
So there was Marxist-Leninist thought, there was Chairman Mao and The Little Red Book. I think at least 40% of baby boomers in America, no matter what their race was, we could all cite the Little Red Book. That's where all of that came from. It was all of that, and I guess, when Amiri [Baraka] and Larry Neal codified the Black Arts Movement in a publication, an anthology called Black Fire--Larry Neal has an essay that talks about Black Arts in there. And then later on in a special edition of the Drama Review where Neal expanded that essay and literally laid out a manifesto that structured an ideological platform for the Black Arts Movement.
We moved in that direction. Black Theater grew out of that. One arm of it, the political and culturally oriented black theater that was deep inside our African American communities. The Negro Ensemble Company, they moved in another direction that was very strongly based in art but was not quite as militant or ideological as what we were doing uptown at the New Lafayette.
You had these two opposing lines of thought, but everybody was moving in the same direction, which was this greater expansion of expression. We had a lot to say. We had a lot that we wanted to do. We had writers, we had tons of things that they wanted to write about. And there seemed to be no real room in mainstream theater for us at all. Whether it was Broadway, off Broadway or even the regionals.
And since they didn't seem to have room for us, we had to create room for ourselves. And that's also where theater came along. And then when you had the National Endowment for the Arts, particularly the expansion arts division of the National Endowment, and Rockefeller grants and the Ford Foundation grants, everybody was trying to make a contribution. Everyone was trying to get involved. The same way everyone wants to get involved to support Black Lives Matter today. Suddenly, we had the financial means and we had these spaces, storefronts and old converted movie houses and flatbed trucks that can move through the communities, and everything like that and the funding to support these spaces, so we went out and we made art.
Yes, there was. There was a great deal of conflict. There were conflicts between the artists. Like I said, New Lafayette represented one train of thought, Ed Bullins and Bob Macbeth on this side, Robert Hooks and Douglas Turner Ward on that side. Each had a position about the direction the art should take, and each side was equally adept in advocating for their points of view.
At the same time we were all engaged in difficulties with those who were strictly politics. The ideologues, the brothers with the guns, that's how I describe them in the book. And it wasn't just the Black Panther Party, I know that's the first thing that everyone runs to when you say brothers with the guns. But it wasn't just the Black Panthers, there were others. There were black nationalist groups who were also armed. And they were committed to the idea of armed struggle. And we, the cultural nationalists, if you will, were not.
We felt that with the art that we were engaged in, we were busy trying to reconstruct the psychological lives of the black community. We were trying to get it to look inward, see themselves, rebuild themselves. And then we could start making decisions about the world outside, the world beyond us. The political brothers, the ones with the guns, they wanted direct confrontation: "We want to be at the table, if we can't get a seat at the table, then we are going to turn the whole table over. And if you guys are not with us, then you're against us and if you're against us, you will be dealt with." That was going on then, too.
Yes. That's an argument and a debate that is still ongoing. It's never been resolved. And I just think that it's two contending thoughts that are going to have to exist side by side. And I think the times are going to dictate how that argument is going to be resolved going forward. American society as a whole is going to determine the end of that argument. Inside the community, it's never going to be settled. Each side thinks they are absolutely right.
There's one side that believes we have to do art for the people, for black people, black art for black people. We have to be able to speak directly to them. We can't temper what we want to say. We can't be worried about other people's feelings. We can't be worried about, is this going to offend one segment of the audience if we say that? We want to be able to express ourselves 100%.
Then you have the other side. You're talking about ideological purity and we're talking about trying to develop an audience and we're trying to have everybody in on the conversation because we're in this space with everybody else. Everyone should be able to experience our art. Our art is human, it is as expressive of the human condition as anyone else's art, so why keep it confined? That debate is just going to go back and forth I think for the foreseeable future.
It brings back a flood of memories. Most of the people in my age group are so very proud of these young people marching. We wish that we could go out and just hug each and every one of them and give them nothing but every ounce of support that we have. They're us 50 years ago. They're doing precisely what we did. For me personally, the fact that they are doing precisely what we did makes me want to go to them and say, "Look, don't do precisely what we did, instead build on what we did and learn from what we did. Don't repeat history, make history. Build on history."
And I think even to some degree, I heard last week Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip who also is a veteran of the civil rights movement from the '60s, he said precisely the same thing. It's a question now of these kids taking what we did from the '60s and expanding on it and making something even better and stronger. And I have no doubt that they will.
Yes. He stated it differently, but there are a lot of us who had very similar feelings in the late '60s and early '70s. The artists who, for instance, who were interested in black theater for black people, would have said something very similar to what Charles Blow was saying there. Because back then, one of the things that used to drive us crazy, and was a big reason why we never really got very close to the Weather Underground or the Yippies, or some of the other groups, the white groups at that time, was this nagging sense that the same kids who were frolicking in the ponds, in the rain at Woodstock, would eventually cut their hair, shave their beards, hang up the tie dye dresses and blouses, wash their faces, and the next thing you know they're going to be in the banks rejecting our applications for home loans.
They'll be the ones who suddenly will turn into the Tucker Carlsons of the world: "It was all just a moment in our lives, we're grown up now and we're going to move on." And for us, that vision, certainly for those of us in Harlem at the time, that vision came true at the most interesting time around 1972, early 1973, when Richard Nixon ended the draft and suddenly all of the demonstrations in the streets, all of the strong push toward progressive politics seemed to literally quiet down.
All the young men who had drifted north of the border into Canada came sheepishly back into the United States, but there was still no strong drive coming up from the streets. All those kids who were out there, they suddenly turned into middle class America. And within 10, 15 years they had quieted down and were replaced by Dan and Marilyn Quayle.
Do you remember the speech that Marilyn Quayle gave at the onset of the 1992 political campaign? She basically denied the entirety of the anti-war movement, talked about how the anti-war movement was represented by only a small portion of the baby boom generation. The majority of that generation were the ones who were working two jobs, were the ones who had their noses buried in the books on college campuses to put their careers together so they'd be able to start an all-American life.
They were, she said, the ones who were part of the silent majority... But I remember hearing that speech and thinking back to our mistrust of those political alliances with the Weather Underground back in the '60s.
They're just what we always thought. There they are. Because 15 years ago, Marilyn Quayle had her hair halfway down her back. She was wearing sandals, then she was out in the streets and everything else with everybody else. Now, she's a Republican wife and her husband is the vice president of the United States. And she's somebody else entirely, and all that stuff is forgotten. And she's pointing fingers.
I remember a contemporary of mine, Ben Caldwell, wrote a play about it. It was a short piece where you have all these true believers and you're out front and you're leading the revolution, and the police roll up the big gigantic cannons and you are ready to run headlong into the cannon fire. Because even if I fall, I know that people will continue on. We will turn those cannons around. And the police commander yells, "Fire." And the cannon goes off with a loud boom. But when the smoke clears, it's all dollar bills floating down to the ground. And as the revolutionary leaders are running forward, the masses behind them are stooped over on the ground scooping up as many of those dollar bills as they can.
I think it's always a possibility. As excited as I am and happy for them moving forward, it's always a possibility. But they're the ones who are going to have to watch out for it. All of us older guys, the only thing we can do is advise them. What we can do is point to our own experiences, but I think this is something they're going to have to go through. Also as I mentioned in the book, it's a characteristic of America itself. It's the way the system is constructed.
You have the billy clubs and the tear gas and the militarization of the police and the police violence and all of that in terms of putting down demonstrations, but the way in which America really handles its threats always involves money and who gets access to it. And our movements always get bribed out of existence... I think about how the Black Panthers became props for television commercials; Right On, R-I-G-H-T, within two years became W-R-I-T-E On, and it was being used to sell Paper Mate pens.
Everyone wanted to wear a black Morena leather jacket at one point. The minute that Johnny Carson or Dick Cavett, once they had Kathleen Cleaver or Huey Newton on as a late-night guest, the revolution had turned into something else. It's not the same as Mao going all the way across to Yan'an province in exile and waiting for his chance to lead the Red Army back eastward to take Beijing. It's not Fidel Castro hiding out to the point of starvation in the mountains in central Cuba before he manages to turn things around and seize power, drive Batista into the sea.
That's just not how things are going to work in the United States. And no one has really figured out how to have a violent political revolution in America. At least not yet. You don't know what's going to come in the next four or five years. But that was something that I remember seeing and feeling very strongly in the '60s and '70s--the way in which revolution in this country became just another aspect of celebrity in America.
And of course my childhood hero, Paddy Chayefsky, he wrote about it and previewed it to some degree in the film Network.
In terms of some of the changes that I've seen, I'm really excited about the work of this young writer, Misha Green, with her show Lovecraft Country... There are elements that turned up in some of the writing in the Perry Mason series that HBO recently had. Lena Waithe with what she's trying to do with The Chi over on Showtime.
And also with the elevation of more young executives of color and women executives inside the industry itself... These are new possibilities, and I think some it is an outgrowth of Black Lives Matter, which itself [has had a resurgence after] the horrific deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and so much else, right on up [to Jacob Blake,] the young man shot down at close range in Wisconsin. And now we have more police violence revealed to have taken place in Rochester. Black police chiefs in Rochester and Seattle have resigned in the wake of the revelations of suspected misconduct in their police forces, and their inability to address and/or change things in the departments under their command. And still the marches continue.
All of these things are having an effect on our country. And I see parallels with the '60s, but at the same time I'm also aware that this is a new century. And the young people who are coming up, I know that they're different because I teach them over at NYU in dramatic writing. Those kids, they have a different way of looking at the world, and the world itself has had such an impact on them.
They're in the process of trying to figure out how to write a new set of rules that make the space that they have to live in livable. I'm interested to see what that's going to be. I've been teaching for 25 years at New York University. And some of the students that I was teaching early on are now moving into positions of influence and they've really settled into their careers.
And I'm interested in seeing what that means in terms of how things are shifting and changing. And I think I can already see it. Not only them, but other people in their age cohort. Ava DuVernay is in their age cohort. Ryan Coogler is in their age cohort. The older ones that I taught from way, way back; Dee Rees was in the film department upstairs from me, and she's making her presence felt.
I think the jury is still out. We still have yet to see all that's changing... The freshmen I taught last year were infants when 9/11 happened. They've grown up with America at war every year of their lives right up to this very day. No other generation in this country has ever experienced anything like that. And it's somewhere in the back of your consciousness. They've already lived through two economic upheavals, I mean, complete upheavals in their lives. And at the same time, they're the first generation that spent eight years of their lives with an African American as president.
So Kamala Harris is not necessarily a surprise. Kamala Harris is something more of an expectation. And because of that, there are certain things that they're going to expect of her that are going to be impacted by the other expectations they have about what all of this America is supposed to mean. They're the ones who are going to inherit and have to figure out how to navigate this post-pandemic America that's coming.
None of us can know until after the election exactly what that's going to look like. These kids are the ones who are going to be the most affected by it because they're going to live throughout most of the rest of the century. I even tell them in class--I know it goes in one ear and out of the other - they're saying, "What the hell is he talking about? That's years from now, and I'm only 20! " But with the modern advances in medicine and everything like that, a child born in 2001 has every expectation of living right through 'til the end of the century, of living 100 years.
The same way that a person living to the age of 80 today is sort of like, well, that's kind of normal. Toward the end of this century, living to be a hundred will be kind of normal. So that means, wow, in 2030, they're going to be adults taking over the reins of control in this society. And then from 2030, all the way down to 2070, they're going to be the voting bloc that determines the leadership, determines the legislative directions of the country, and determines, since I teach mostly screenwriters and playwrights, they're the ones who are going to be controlling the images that come on out through whatever the medium is - holograms!
I think they won't be doing TV anymore at all. Three dimensional images projected in some kind of special entertainment room in everyone's house or apartment for all I know. And what are those going to be? All of it is going to come out of the tumult, I think, of the times that we're living right now.
I think it's true. And in fact, I'm convinced of it because last night on MSNBC in an interview, Scott Walker, the former conservative governor of Wisconsin pretty much said that. He said, "We love Trump because he's given us everything we want." And he cited the Supreme Court, he cited the corporate tax breaks, he cited Trump making a deal in Afghanistan to end the war there, he cited the appointments to the appellate courts, he cited the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act and voter suppression around the country. Although he used softer language, that was pretty much what he was extolling the virtues of.
That's the battle we have to face. Yes, there are a lot of people who will profess to be upset with Trump, but at the same time they're secretly very happy at what he has delivered. But for those of us who had a completely different vision of America and what its promises represent, their vision is a nightmare. There are more of us than there are of them and the question is, will we motivate ourselves in the face of all of this opposition to get out there and vote?
There are days when I am incredibly optimistic about that. I think a lot of people are really angry about what happened with the post office most recently, and with the president's pretty much tacit admission that he was manipulating the postal service to thwart mail-in balloting. And I think a lot of people are going to come out of their houses, they're going to risk their health, and they are going to stand in line at those one, two or three voting places that are available to them, and they're going to stand in line and vote. And they're going to vote by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands.
And now we have Bob Woodward's book, with direct quotes from Donald Trump on tape, admitting that he knows and agrees that the coronavirus is airborne, saying this at precisely the time he was publicly decrying the virus as a "hoax," at the same time he was contradicting and undermining the top scientists in this country, men and women whose job it was to provide us with the facts and information necessary to fight the contagion. And this guy was deliberately pushing policies that kept our country wide open and vulnerable at exactly the time we should have been shut down. How many thousands died, how many millions became infected, because of what he did, and because of the corrective measures he failed to follow? So yeah, people are going to be giving a lot of side-eye to this President and the politicians who support him.
And if that happens, then Donald Trump will be a lame duck president after November 3rd. And no matter what he tries to do on January 20, 2021, Joseph Biden will be president of this country. And then it's going to take years to fix up the mess that has been made to redress all of the things that have gone wrong.
One of the things that I remember from the Reagan years, when Reagan became president, that comment that he made about government is the problem. That was, of course, an outgrowth of all of these efforts by Republicans and conservatives going all the way back to Robert Taft during the Truman administration to make people uncomfortable and distrust expansive government, to undermine the effects of Roosevelt's vast expansion of the federal government, with Social Security and the FDIC and all the other great things that he did during the New Deal. [This was their way] of getting rid of the New Deal.
And so conservatives in this country have always gone after the government, beating down the government, putting it down--"You can't trust the government...Government overreach, state's rights, the government can't be trusted, the government is inefficient. Market forces should determine the future of the country and the government should stay out of it." And now we've got a president who has succeeded. He has undermined almost every branch of the federal government that we have taken for granted. And he's made the government appear to be weak and unworkable.
He's gone in, he's eviscerated OSHA. He's done a number on the EPA. Right now today, because of what he did with this plasma that he wants everyone to get involved with, he's overridden the FDA and the CDC. Now we don't know what's approved and what is not. We don't know who to believe. And when in our lifetimes, because we're boomers, we've grown up with the FDA and the CDC and all of that. When have we ever not trusted the word of the FDA and the CDC? And now, we don't know who to believe.
Well, please do.
Well, yeah. When I first started the book, I had not expected to write much about my film work at all. But the powers that be in the publishing house said, "How can you write a book about the Black Arts Movement and not talk about black film and your involvement in it, Richard?" "I am, I am," and so I started to get into it in this book, but then I was also running up against a publishing deadline and so that's one of the reasons why it ends where it does... And I hope that I do have the opportunity to expand much further and talk about the times that I spent in Hollywood. And I look forward to that.
As a new interactive tool "paints a startling picture of how much Americans are spending on healthcare"--and bolsters the case for a single-payer system--new reporting sheds light on a powerful industry effort to make sure upcoming Medicare for All proposals are dead in the water.
As the New York Times lays out,
Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and insurers are intent on strangling Medicare for All before it advances from an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item. They have hired a top lieutenant in Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign to spearhead the effort. And their tactics will show Democrats what they are up against as the party drifts to the left on healthcare.
They've recently joined to form the Partnership for America's Health Care Future (PAHCF), with Lauren Crawford Shaver, a veteran of Clinton's 2016 campaign, at the helm. Politico previously reported on the coalition, as did The Intercept.
The group's focus is not on extending healthcare to all Americans but keeping the Affordable Care Act, and with members including powerful groups like the American Medical Association, Federation of American Hospitals, PhRMA, and HCA, PAHCF's "reach is undeniable," as the Times notes. Seeing legislative proposals, such as Rep. Pramila Jayapal's (D-Wash.) Medicare for All Act, fast approaching, the group is ready to "step up the tempo," the Times reports.
Indeed, last week, it announced a six-figure digital campaign "to inform the American public about ways to protect and strengthen our nation's existing healthcare system, while warning them that a one-size-fits-all health care program--whether called Medicare for All, Medicare buy-in, single-payer or public option, will lead to higher taxes and less patient choice for every American family." A recent analysis, however, showed that a single-payer system would slash healthcare costs, boost systemic efficiency, and expand coverage.
The coalition had similar remarks in reaction to Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign announcement, asserting that the American public doesn't back his long-championed Medicare for All system. Recent polling indicates that, in fact, most Americans do.
The new reporting in the Times comes days after the Kaiser Family Foundation released a "Household Health Spending Calculator." Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) reacted to the tool in a six-part Twitter thread, writing that while "as bad as this household health spending calculator makes things look, just remember...the complete picture is even worse."
"These outrageous costs are why we desperately need, and can absolutely afford, #SinglePayer," the group said. "Improved #MedicareForAll would reduce health spending for everyone but the very wealthiest Americans, and would improve coverage to boot. What are we waiting for?"
PNHP's new president, Dr. Adam Gaffney, recently acknowledged the deep-pocket forces at work to kill Medicare for All.
"The industry is not going to go down without a fight," he told Common Dreams's Michael Winship. "Obviously, they're going to pour money into Washington, they're going to pour money into lobbying, they're going to pour money into candidates, they're going to take out ads, they're going to smear it left and right, so our work is cut out for us."
Back in 2007, just a month and a half after I was first elected president of the Writers Guild of America East, we and our friends and colleagues at the Writers Guild West were plunged into a strike against the networks and studios. For me, it was one hell of an initiation.
The strike would last a grueling hundred days and the asymmetric warfare we waged was a success, but early on the first morning I arrived at Rockefeller Center concerned that no one would show up for the picket line.
I needn't have worried; within an hour or two, hundreds of us were marching, but as I was fretting and staring at piles of unused placards, a policeman came up to me.
"You guy are the writers?" he asked. I nodded. He pointed to the piles. "Then how come your signs aren't more clever?"
He had a point, and as time went on, we got much better at it. By comparison, originality and adroit wordplay have never been an issue at the women's marches, either last weekend or at the mass demonstrations a year before, held the day after Donald Trump's inauguration and believed to be the biggest single day protest in American history.
This January, at more than 300 events in every one of the fifty states, everyone who gathered to shake a fist in protest of the first year of the Trump White House - by some estimates, more than two million in America and worldwide - knew why they were there and they expressed it loudly and well with their chants, cheers and splendid signage: from the simple yet eloquent "Dump Trump" and "Banish the Bully" to "Grab 'em by the midterms" and "I would hate to be the guy who keeps pissing off all these women."
Those women and men hit the pavement everywhere from Chicago and Los Angeles to Denton, Texas, and Fayetteville, North Carolina. Here in Manhattan, by 10 am last Saturday, a bright and sunny, temperate day, the streets already were filling up. We talked our way through a police line at 72nd Street, got over to Central Park West and moved downtown toward the rally site at Columbus Circle.
But after ninety minutes of being penned in with thousands of others and nothing to do but mill around and wait, we exited near where Gays Against Guns were handing out song sheets and belting out, to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic, "He's the cherry on the sundae of the racist and the rich/So afraid to pay their taxes, they will scratch a fascist itch."
We worked our way west over to Lincoln Center and were thrilled to witness crowds surging up Columbus Avenue and Broadway working their way north and then east and south to join the march. They were angry at what's happening but still in high spirits, still able to rally and voice their concern for all that's misbegotten and misogynistic about our benighted White House.
Lamely, Trump tried to coopt Saturday's events, tweeting that women had a perfect day to "celebrate the historic milestones and unprecedented economic success and wealth creation that has taken place over the last 12 months." This was mansplaining at its lowest and just to make it worse, on Monday night there was presidential amanuensis Kellyanne Conway parroting the same disingenuous boasts of her boss. Shame on her. Again.
But more important and constructive, the creativity and commitment typical of the women who marched Saturday and Sunday translate into votes.
This week's Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Democrats leading among female voters 57-31 percent, "double the size of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's margin in the 2016 election," the Post reported. "Nonwhite women favor Democrats by a 53-point margin, somewhat smaller than Clinton's 63-point advantage over Trump in 2016. But white women have moved sharply in Democrats' direction, favoring them over Republicans by 12 points after supporting Trump by nine points in 2016..."
And don't dare discount the depth of women's dissatisfaction with Trump - six in ten female registered voters "strongly disapprove" of Trump - a feeling, if it holds, that will get them to the voting booth for sure. (According the Post/ABC News poll, on a generic ballot, Democrats are ahead of the GOP by fifteen points among those "absolutely certain" they'll vote.)
Columnist EJ Dionne notes "a condescending habit in the nation's capital of seeing voters as detached and indifferent to the day-to-day workings of government....
And yet coverage of the weekend's marches was lacking. "After the initial flurry of media attention - crickets," Helaine Olen at The Washington Post wrote, citing a Media Matters analysis that the Sunday morning news shows "were nearly silent on the historic protests."
Olen added, "While it's common sense to observe that the government shutdown is taking up some of our oxygen, the lack of attention also demonstrates how even with the #MeToo movement, it is ingrained to treat the concerns of women as secondary to, well, bigger things that are deemed more serious. And when opposition to the Trump administration and the Republican Party is framed as a women's issue, it receives less attention than it should."
She also quoted pollster Matt McDermott who told her that part of the problem is that the media has chosen to "course correct" because of the belief that they had failed to pick up on the extent of Trump's enraged white male support. "There is not coverage of the actual movement building on the left," McDermott said, "which is arguably by any measure the greatest political movement we've seen in decades in this country."
Contributing to that movement, "an unprecedented surge of first-time female candidates," Charlotte Alter at TIME magazine reports, "overwhelmingly Democratic, running for offices big and small, from the U.S. Senate and state legislatures to local school boards.
"At least 79 women are exploring runs for governor in 2018, potentially doubling a record for female candidates set in 1994, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. The number of Democratic women likely challenging incumbents in the U.S. House of Representatives is up nearly 350% from 41 women in 2016. Roughly 900 women contacted Emily's List, which recruits and trains pro-choice Democratic women, about running for office from 2015 to 2016; since President Trump's election, more than 26,000 women have reached out about launching a campaign."
In 1968, when insurgent Democratic candidate Gene McCarthy won more delegates than President Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, he thanked the college kids who had fueled his campaign. "People have remarked that this campaign has brought young people back into the system," he said, "but it's the other way 'round. The young people have brought the country back into the system."
Fifty years later, it's women of every race and creed working to bring the country back toward the ideal of a compassionate democracy. The media and establishment politicians, especially those who support and encourage our current kleptocracy of lies and inexcusable policy, ignore that power at their peril.
"Who do you think has been organizing things in America?" Harvard a professor of government and sociology Theda Skocpol asks. "It's women."
How does that grab you, Mr. President?
Over at BillMoyers.com, The Moyers team has been in the fight for net neutrality from the very beginning. Our documentary Net at Risk was perhaps the first on television to alert the nation to the danger of a corporate takeover of the internet. When the mainstream media largely ignored the story, we gave advocates for net neutrality a national hearing. We followed former FCC commissioner Michael Copps and others to unofficial town meetings when the George W. Bush FCC refused to sanction such events. And we celebrated in the public interest when the Obama FCC voted in 2015 to protect and enforce net neutrality.
But every time we think the battle to protect the internet is won, the forces of greed, power and control come right back at us. After he and the Republicans won the 2016 election, Donald Trump appointed Ajit Pai, a former executive from Verizon, to head the FCC. Pai is leading the corporate crusade to overturn net neutrality, doing his best to give Verizon and the other telecommunications giants exactly what they want. It's classic regulatory capture, a government agency capitulating to the very industry it's supposed to oversee, the old fox in the henhouse switch that means death to the chickens.
The crucial FCC vote to reverse the net neutrality rules is Thursday, Dec. 14. There remains time to make your voice heard. Follow the instructions in this link to file comments. Or you can call 1-888-225-5322 or email Chairman Pai at Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov. Twitter: @FCC or @AjitPaiFCC. Facebook: Federal Communications Commission.
You can contact your congressional representatives -- right now, there's little chance that the current House and Senate would pass network neutrality legislation, but they do control the FCC's purse strings. Call your representatives at (202) 224-3121, or email them -- go to www.house.gov or www.senate.gov to track them down.
And you can call the White House: (202) 456-1111. Or write a comment.
For more information on the current state of play, read the piece below by our senior writer, Michael Winship.
-- Bill Moyers
To understand why the internet's in big trouble again, first know this about how Washington works these days:
Donald Trump seems to irradiate and poison everyone who is sucked into his gravitational pull. There's a black hole in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Attorneys engaged in his defense twist themselves into questionable statements and behaviors as special counsel Robert Mueller's probe draws nearer. Members of Congress surrender their self-esteem and whatever shred of decency they may have left to put forward the plutocrats' agenda, while pandering to Trump's hardcore followers for fear of losing campaign donations or being primaried. Administration officials who are established enough to know better bow in obeisance or vigorously nod their heads in agreement with any dingbat thing the president says.
Mysteriously, some actually appear to enjoy the Kool-Aid; for all the buffoonery, Trump's cave-bear philosophy, such as it is, tends to favor the ideological and theocratic inclinations of people like Vice President Pence and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Others are more manipulative and cynical, using this special moment in American history to hold their noses, take advantage and use the clown show as cover to advance the wish list that corporate America has been mailing to Santa for decades.
In that latter category, place the ambitious current chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai. He was appointed a member of the FCC in 2011, and then named by Trump to take the chair earlier this year. Ever since, Pai has reshaped the commission as a pass-through for the telecommunications giants, giving them virtually everything they want. Acting more like the associate general counsel of Verizon that he once was and less like the government regulator he's supposed to be, Pai quickly began doing his utmost to wipe out whatever rules remain that keep open to citizens the lines of communication essential to a democracy.
Right now, his sights are aimed at net neutrality, the set of protections approved by the FCC in 2015 that keep the big internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Charter from completely taking over and deciding who can see what on the web, how fast and for how much.
Why is this important? In a recent interview, Annenberg School Professor Victor Pickard says that net neutrality "speaks to a core social contract between government, corporations and the public... how can members of the public obtain information and services, and express ourselves creatively and politically, without interference from massive corporations?"
That's the nub of it. Ending net neutrality will squelch competition, innovation and small internet startups, and limit freedom of expression, independent voices and diverse viewpoints. More than ever, Big Business, like Big Brother, will control what you read, see and hear and limit your own ability to speak up and share your opinions, your creativity, your life.
A commission vote has been set for Thursday, Dec. 14, and despite vast and continuing public opposition, the three Republican commissioners, including Pai, seem determined to overrule the two Democrats and once again give the big guys what they want.
In his obdurate denial of the desires of the public (both on the right and left, by the way) Pai embraces certain of the more delightful aspects of Trumpism: doublespeak, belittling the other side, blaming everyone else for problems and claiming fake news when presented with the facts. In a recent speech defending his position, sponsored by the conservative, free-market think tank R Street Institute and the Lincoln Network, Pai described what he called "wild accusations, fear-mongering and hysteria" and made fun of such celebrities as Cher, Mark Ruffalo and George Takei who have spoken out in support of net neutrality.
What's more, he claimed it wasn't the ISPs that were trying to take over the web, but that content providers Google, Facebook and Twitter were the real culprits: "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy."
Chairman Pai, this is called projection. You claim to be preserving internet freedom but in truth your attempt to destroy net neutrality does just the opposite. In pushing your case you're ignoring the people, the facts and the law.
A poll taken in July by Freedman Consulting reported: "Americans of all political parties overwhelmingly support the values of net neutrality and want to preserve existing net neutrality protections. A strong majority (77 percent) of Americans support keeping the existing net neutrality rules in place. This view crosses party lines, as 73 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Independents want to keep the FCC's Open Internet rules."
Millions of comments in support of net neutrality have been left on the FCC website, and in the first 24 hours after Pai released his draft of the net neutrality proposal (just before Thanksgiving), more than 200,000 phone calls were made to Congress. As of a week ago Sunday that number had reached 750,000. On Thursday, Dec. 7, 700 protests across all 50 states were held outside Verizon stores and other locations.
What's more, Chairman Pai, contrary to your claims that net neutrality has squelched the growth of investment in the internet, there has been a 5-percent increase since the rules were put into effect.
In fact, Tom Rutledge, CEO of Charter Communications, the second-largest cable company in the United States, told investors in 2016 that net neutrality "didn't really hurt us; it hasn't hurt us."
Finally, Chairman Pai, you and the telecommunications monoliths claim that Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, the law cited to classify ISPs as utilities (like telephones and electricity) and allow net neutrality rules, is out-of-date and irrelevant.
On the contrary, says Danny Kimball, who teaches communications and media studies at Goucher College. In The Washington Post, he wrote that Title II makes it possible "for the public to access information and communication on an equal basis... it's about basic principles of openness and nondiscrimination, no matter the technology used to communicate."
Title II is precisely the law under which the courts have ruled that the net neutrality rules are valid. And as Tim Wu, originator of the phrase "net neutrality" says, "A mere change in FCC ideology isn't enough" to change that.
So on Thursday the FCC may vote to overturn net neutrality, but that decision will go straight to the courts. Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow points out that "it stands a good chance of being struck down -- and in any event, the court battle may last until 2020 and serve as a good argument to spur voters to vote against Trump and thus change the FCC leadership, mooting the whole point."
Meanwhile, Chairman Pai makes jokes at a Washington dinner about Verizon having groomed him as a Manchurian Candidate to take over the FCC. He keeps promising a "light-touch regulatory framework," and the ISPs pinky swear that if net neutrality is revoked they won't ever, ever do anything bad: no blocking, no throttling, no fast and slow lanes, no preferential treatment, no overcharging. Any potential danger, they claim is merely theoretical, not real.
Trust us, they say.
No.
House Republicans have released their long-awaited tax giveaway plan. It's as bad as those of us who have been resisting the Trump administration and Republican efforts to hijack our economy and democracy have long feared it would be.
People's Action joins Americans for Tax Fairness and a broad range of organizations in the "Not One Penny" campaign to ask everyone to call this number - 877-795-7862 - and tell their Members of Congress to vote against this tax plan.
At a rally in front of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, several progressive members of Congress laid out the reasons why, in the words of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., "The bottom line is these tax cuts that they are pushing over here are an abomination."
"Don't be fooled, the Trump, GOP tax plan is one more attack on health care that puts working families, the elderly, poor and children at risk while padding the pockets of the one percent and wealthy corporations," said LeeAnn Hall, co-executive director of People's Action.
"Wealthy prescription drug corporations like Pfizer that put profits before patients, and have stashed profits overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes, are getting a break," said Hall. "Meanwhile, Medicare and Medicaid and people dependent on that care - from kids to those facing the ravages of the Opioid epidemic - face $1.5 trillion in cuts."
"This is a moment of truth for America," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "We cannot afford these tax breaks.
The GOP's tax plan takes advantage of last week's passage of a horrific budget resolution to set the stage for a $2 trillion tax giveaway over 10 years, 80 percent of which would land in the pockets of the top 1 percent of taxpayers.
While this fact sheet from the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee denies that this is true, it does not offer its own calculation of what percentage of its tax breaks would go to the top one percent.
These tax breaks will come at a steep cost to the families of working and retired Americans: $470 billion from Medicare, and $1.3 trillion from Medicaid and other health care programs over the next 10 years, plus trillions more in that period stolen from a broad range of support services for workers, families and retirees - everything from nutrition assistance to education and job training programs.
The argument is simple. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren put it, congressional Republican leaders have signed off on a plan that would increase the federal deficit in order to "give away $2 trillion to giant corporations." The bill would do that by lowering the statutory top tax rate from 39.5 perecent to 20 percent - below the global average of 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
If the Republicans want to spend $2 trillion, how about investing in roads and bridges and infrastructure? How about investing in the things that create good jobs right here in America? How about wiping out some of this student loan debt?... How about cheaper health care for millions of Americans?
"This is tax reform for the Koch brothers and the other billionaires in the country. This is a disaster for the working families of America," said Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who has a seat on the House Budget Committee, had tried to get an amendment inserted into the House budget bill that would prohibit any of the tax benefits in the tax bill from going to the top one percent. Needless to say, that amendment was blocked. Jayapal believes that congressional Republicans have a clear agenda.
"Number one on their agenda is a massive transfer of wealth. Number two, drive up the deficit. Number three, make sure they can cut spending even more than they are proposing," she said. On that latter point, several conservative Republicans have been openly promising even harsher cuts in the programs poor and working-class Americans depend on for support in next year's budget discussions.
As for the argument that the tax breaks the Republicans are proposing for the wealthiest Americans and big corporations will unleash a wave of economic growth that will benefit ordinary Americans, a chorus of voices are pointing out how history debunks that claim.
At BillMoyers.com, writer Michael Winship interviews Bruce Bartlett, economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan at the time Reagan was moving his much-vaunted tax cut plan. He called the Trump administration line that the middle class would "greatly benefit" from the GOP tax plan "just a lie."
You can very easily go to bls.gov, which is the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and look up real median wages and you can see what happened after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 [the Reagan tax cut], which lowered the tax rate on corporations from 46 percent to 34 percent. And if you look at what happened to wages in the 10 years after 1986, wages fell. They did not go up. They fell. Workers were worse off.
Robert Borosage wrote this week that one key feature of the GOP's tax bill - "repatriation," a a deep tax cut on corporate profits hoarded overseas if they are brought back into the United States - failed to deliver the investments in jobs that were promised when the George W. Bush administration tried the same gambit. Another feature of the tax plan, he adds, would actually incentivize corporations to send more jobs and profits overseas.
But one woman at the Wednesday Capitol rally did not have to reach far into history to be encouraged to speak out against this new tax plan. Sarah LaFrentz is a resident of Kansas, and explained what happened when that state's governor, archconservative Republican Sam Brownback, pursued a tax cut plan similar to the one the Republicans seek to impose on the country.
The results have been devastating: slow economic growth coupled with severe cutbacks in education spending and other vital services. Privatization initiatives spurred on and justified by spending cuts have often led to calamitous results, such as news in October that the companies running the state's foster care system lost track of 70 children.
"I am here today to implore you to learn from Kansas," LaFrentz said.
If we don't act now, what conservatives once called the Kansas experiment will become the American nightmare. Call 877-795-7862 and tell Congress we can't let the multinational corporations and the 1 percent get away with this tax heist.
In just a few short months, the Trump wrecking ball has pounded away at rules and regulations in virtually every government agency. The men and women the president has appointed to the Cabinet and to head those agencies are so far in sycophantic lockstep, engaged in dismantling years of protections in order to make real what White House strategist Steve Bannon infamously described as "the deconstruction of the administrative state."
The Federal Communications Commission is not immune. Its new chair, Republican Ajit Pai, embraces the Trump doctrine of regulatory devastation. "It's basic economics," he declared in an April 26 speech at Washington's Newseum. "The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you're likely to get."
His goal is to stem the tide of media reform that in recent years has made significant progress for American citizens. Even as we rely more than ever on digital media for information, education and entertainment, Pai and his GOP colleagues at the FCC seek to turn back the clock and increase even more the corporate control of cyberspace.
Net neutrality, the guarantee of an internet open to all, rich or poor, without preferential treatment, was codified by the FCC in 2015. Pai -- a former lawyer for Verizon -- wants net neutrality reversed and has taken the first steps toward its elimination. He has abandoned media ownership rules and attacked such FCC innovations as the Lifeline program that subsidizes broadband access for low income Americans. Among other rollbacks, he also has opposed rules capping the exorbitant cost of prison phone calls (that cap was overturned on June 13 by the US Court of Appeals).
A veteran of the FCC, Michael Copps vehemently opposes Pai's master plan to strengthen the grip of big business on our media. Copps served two terms as a commissioner, including a brief period as interim chair. He also has taught history, worked as chief of staff to former South Carolina Sen. Fritz Hollings and was an assistant secretary of commerce.
Today, Copps is special adviser for the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at the nonpartisan grassroots organization Common Cause. He "just may be," Bill Moyers once said, "the most knowledgeable fellow in Washington on how communications policy affects you and me."
Recently, I spoke with Copps to get his assessment of how the election of Donald Trump and Ajit Pai's FCC chairmanship are affecting Americans and the media landscape. "I remain convinced that the last presidential election we had was of, by, and for, big media," he said. "It made billions of dollars for these big media companies. We're entering into a period where there likely will be more mergers than we've ever had before. The political and marketplace atmosphere that we have in this country right now favors them."
The transcript that follows has been edited for length and clarity.
Michael Copps: [CBS CEO Les] Moonves said it best: "I don't know if Donald Trump is good for the country. but he's damn good for CBS." The election was just a glorified reality show and I do not think it was an aberration. Until we get that big picture straightened out and we get a civic dialogue that's worthy of the American people and that actually advances citizens' ability to practice the art of self-government -- that informs citizens so they can cast intelligent votes and we stop making such damn-fool decisions -- we're in serious trouble.
To me, that remains the problem of problems, it remains at the top of the list. Journalism continues to go south, thanks to big media and its strangulation of news, and there's not much left in the way of community or local media. Add to that an internet that has not even started thinking seriously about how it supports journalism. You have these big companies like Google and Facebook who run the news and sell all the ads next to it, but what do they put back into journalism? It isn't much.
I don't think right now that commercial media is going to fix itself or even that we can save it with any policy that's likely in the near-term, so we have to start looking at other alternatives. We have to talk about public media -- public media probably has to get its act together somewhat, too. It's not everything that Lyndon Johnson had in mind back in 1967 [when the Public Broadcasting Act was signed], but it's still the jewel of our media ecosystem. So I'm more worried than ever about the state of our media -- not just fake news but the lack of real news.
That's priority No. 1; I don't think you solve anything until you find some ways to repair our commercial media. That's not coming from inside the fabled Beltway anytime soon. It'll require major input from the grass roots. Big media won't cover its own shortcomings, so we have to have a national conversation and make some democracy-encouraging decisions. We just have to find a way.
Michael Winship: What about "fake news?"
MC: The fake news thing is a challenging phenomenon. No one has a viable solution yet that I know of. Again, don't look to Washington for much input under the present management. Maybe reinvigorating real news, the fact-based investigative journalism that big media has done so much to eliminate, would be the best solution. True journalism can do more than anything else to push aside fake news.
MW: So how do you characterize the Trump administration's attitude toward communications issues?
MC: This is not populism; this is a plutocracy. Trump has surrounded himself with millionaires and billionaires, plus some ideologues who believe in, basically, no government. And the Trump FCC already has been very successful in dismantling lots of things -- not just the net neutrality that they're after now, but privacy, and Lifeline, which is subsidized broadband for those who can't afford it. And just all sorts of things up and down the line. The whole panoply of regulation and public interest oversight -- if they could get rid of it all, they would; if they can, they will.
I think the April 26 speech that Ajit Pai gave at the Newseum, which was partially funded, I think, by conservative activist causes, was probably the worst speech I've ever heard a commissioner or a chairman of the FCC give. It was replete with distorted history and a twisted interpretation of judicial decisions. And then, about two-thirds of the way through, it became intensely political and ideological, and he was spouting all this Ronald Reagan nonsense -- if the government is big enough to do what you want, it's big enough to take away everything you have, and all that garbage. It was awful.
It's maybe the worst FCC I've ever seen or read about.
MW: How much of all this do you think is just simply the idea of destroying anything supported by the Obama White House? Is it that simple?
MC: Well, I think that some of it is the ego problem, but I think it goes beyond that. I think there is that right wing, pro-business, invisible hand ideology, and then there's just the unabashed and unprecedented and disgusting level of money in politics. I don't blame just the Republicans; the Democrats are just about as beholden to it, too.
MW: You mentioned Pai's speech at the Newseum; does he have any real philosophy?
MC: Yes, I think he believes this stuff, I think he's a true believer. He was in the Office of General Counsel when I was in there -- very articulate, very bright, very pleasant. He is an attractive personality, but he has this Weltanschauung or whatever you want to call it that is so out of step with modern politics and where we should be in the history of this country that it's potentially extremely destructive. And Michael O'Rielly, the other Republican commissioner, is about the same. He's an ideologue, too.
It's all about the ideology, the world of big money, the access that the big guys have and continue to have. It's not that the FCC outright refuses to let public interest groups through the door or anything like that; it's just the lack of resources citizens and public interest groups have compared to what the big guys have. The public interest groups don't have much of a chance, but I think they've done a pretty good job given the lack of resources.
MW: Did you expect Pai to move so fast against net neutrality?
MC: It doesn't surprise me, but it's so dangerous. Net neutrality is the sine qua non of an open internet -- "You can't have one without the other," as the old song goes. We'll need to hope for a good court outcome if the FCC succeeds in eliminating the rules. But I really don't see how big telecom or the commission can make a credible case to overturn what the court approved just two years ago, and then go back to what the court overturned before that. It's downright surreal. But citizens should not limit their pro-net neutrality messages to just the FCC; Congress needs to understand how popular these rules are, so they keep their hands off it, which they may be more inclined to do as the 2018 elections come closer.
MW: There's so much of an X factor to everything.
MC: There really is. I just hope we can get the media covering it better. I think if we get a couple of really big mergers, and of course we have AT&T and Time Warner out there now, which Trump said he was going to oppose. I don't think he really will, but that itself should be an issue. And then, if we can join that to the net neutrality issue, then I think we can get some media attention. If we can do that with Time Warner and AT&T or whatever other mergers come along, certainly including Sinclair-Tribune, then we can actually make some progress. I sure hope so.
MW: There still seems to be a lot public support for net neutrality.
MC: No question about it, but there would be an avalanche if more people were informed about the issue by the media. Many Trump voters, I am convinced, are not consumers who support $232 a year for a set-top box or who like constantly rising bills for cable and internet service, or who want a closed internet. That's not why they voted for him.
MW: Have the net neutrality rules passed in 2015 had a chance to work? Have they had a chance to be effective?
MC: Yes, I think so. Some say they are a solution in search of a problem, but that's not true. I think the companies have been on their good behavior over the last few years, by and large -- but there have been numerous abuses, too. But once you throw out the rules we have now, it'll be "Katy bar the door," and by the time we get another administration in, either the FCC or the Congress, it'll probably be too late to reverse the tide.
MW: What are the implications for free speech?
MC: They are huge. If you have an internet service provider [ISP] that's capable of slowing down other sites, or putting other sites out of business, or favoring their own friends and affiliates and customers who can pay for fast lanes, that's a horrible infringement on free speech. It's censorship by media monopolies.
It's tragic: here we have a technology, the internet, that's capable really of being the town square of democracy, paved with broadband bricks, and we are letting it be taken over by a few gatekeepers. This is a first amendment issue; it's free speech versus corporate censorship.
MW: I want to talk to you about privacy, about protecting consumer information that's on the net.
MC: If the huge internet service providers are going to glean all manner of personal information about us and share it with others or sell it to others, we ought to have a right to say, "Yes, count me in, I don't mind that," or "No, I don't want any part of that." And I think the vast majority would say, "No, thank you, I don't want any part of that." So privacy is a huge issue. We've talked about it some in national security terms, but it's a much bigger issue in citizen terms and what it does to the average person
MW: You mentioned Lifeline; I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about that...
MC: Lifeline is directed toward those who cannot afford to be connected to broadband. How do they find a job when most corporations don't accept paper resumes or don't want to interview you in person? Nowadays you have to email something to potential employers. How do you and your kids educate yourselves? How do kids do their homework when they don't have broadband, and the kid in the next town or even in the next block has high-speed broadband? How do you care for your health -- especially that now we're getting seriously into tele-health and tele-medicine?
You cannot be a fully functioning 21st-century citizen in this country unless you have access to high-speed broadband. It's as simple as that. We shouldn't settle for less. I don't know that the FCC can do this by itself, and we need a national mission to do this. And we need everybody pushing for it. I hope it's going to be included in Trump's infrastructure plan, but I'll be surprised if it's in such a meaningful way that it's going to get coverage for all the people in the inner cities and rural America.
And, you know, we're way, way down in the rankings in broadband penetration, adoption and affordability. And without competition, even when you have broadband, without competition people are paying through the ceiling for inferior service. They've got to feed families and find shelter, but broadband is also essential to them.
MW: I think another issue that a lot of people aren't aware of is the whole prison telephone problem.
MC: Commissioner Mignon Clyburn has done a fantastic job on that. We have such a high percentage of our population in the United States incarcerated and for their families to communicate with them or vice versa has become just very, very expensive. It's an industry that has made a lot of money off of other people's distress, and if you have a son in prison, and you can't afford to communicate with them, that doesn't help anybody, including the person who's in prison. Commissioner Clyburn made some good progress on interstate calling in this regard, but then you've got to go state by state, and now the court has just thrown some obstacles in the way of the intrastate calls. So, there's work to be done, and we'll see how far it goes. But we were on the track of making good progress under the previous commission.
MW: Do you think there's any interest in consumer service remaining among the Republicans on the FCC or in Congress?
MC: It's mighty hard to find if you look at all the party-line votes and partisanship at work. I think there will be some cooperation for infrastructure if broadband is included. It depends on how much. Some Republicans will vote for that, but you can't find a Republican for net neutrality, and you can't find a Republican for doing anything to counteract the outrageous influence of money in the political bloodstreams.
MW: With so many of these American Enterprise Institute types and various other conservative groups and people wielding influence, would they lobby to eliminate the FCC completely?
MC: Oh, yes indeed. There were reports during the transition that some of those people were actually saying, "Do we even need an FCC? Why don't we just get rid of it?"
MW: So what can we all do at this point?
MC: Figure out how you really make this a grass-roots effort -- and not just people writing, in but people doing more than that. In July, we will have a day devoted to internet action, so stay tuned on that. In addition, as Bill Moyers says, "If you can sing, sing. If you can write a poem, write a poem." Different initiatives attract different audiences, so whatever you can do, do. John Oliver made a huge difference in getting us to net neutrality and now he's helping again. If you went up to the Hill right after that first John Oliver show on net neutrality [in 2014], you saw immediately that it made a difference with the members and the staff.
There's no one silver bullet, no "do this" and it suddenly happens. You just have to do whatever you can do to get people excited and organized. It's as simple as that.
MW: So that's where the hope is?
MC: Well, that's where my hope is. I don't see anything else unless we get a change in power in Washington, and not just the name of the party in control but candidates who really are ready for a change and ready to do something to make it more reflective of what, I think, is the popular will.
MW: Which of the Democrats are good on these issues?
MC: There are a lot of them. I hesitate to get into names for fear of missing some. The problem is that Republicans inside the Beltway are joined in lockstep opposition on almost all these issues, and the level of partisanship, lobbying, big money, and ideology have thus far been insurmountable obstacles. But I believe if members of Congress spent more time at home, holding more town hall meetings, they would quickly learn that many, many of their constituents are on the pro-consumer, pro-citizen side of these issues.
It's just such a formative time, and in many respects the future is now. I don't know how long you can let this go on. How long can you open the bazaar to all this consolidation, how much can you encourage all this commercialization, how much can you ignore public media until you get to the point of no return where you can't really fix it anymore? And I also think that the national discourse on the future of the internet has really suffered while we play ping pong with net neutrality; one group comes in, does this, the other group, comes in and reverses it, boom, boom, boom. And net neutrality is not the salvation or the solution to all of the problems of the internet. As you know, it's kind of the opening thing you have to have, it lays a foundation where we can build a truly open internet.
But net neutrality alone doesn't solve consolidation, it doesn't solve commercialization, it doesn't solve, really, the big questions of the future of the internet. Add to the list issues of artificial intelligence and is AI going to put us out of work? These aren't strictly communication issues, but they are internet issues. What does AI mean for the future of work in our society? Are we even going to be working? Or, can we say the internet is throwing people out of work without sounding Luddite, because that's been said throughout history and it's been proven wrong, but I think now it looks like a lot of people already have been thrown out of work by it.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected, I would have gone down and talked with her and suggested a White House conference on the future of the internet. You can't answer all these questions that I just posed but you can ask the questions and you can get the best minds in the country talking about them. Give the conference a mandate and get them to come back with a report and some recommendations and at least put people on it with enough visibility that the media has to cover it.
If we could win net neutrality, which is a stretch, there will be a lot of people who say, "Well, that takes care of the internet, everything's fine and dandy right now." But that's not true at all. It's just not true.
Last Wednesday, I sat down to write a piece about the late Jimmy Breslin, the newspaper columnist whose blunt yet eloquent and crafted prose captured New York and its environs as no one has since Damon Runyon.
Jimmy died a little more than a week ago and I wanted to say a few words to note -- as so many others have -- how he was an inspiration to anyone who on a regular basis has to put some thoughts together in a column for publication, often straining until tiny beads of blood pop out on their foreheads.
But there were distractions. As I started to write, news came from London of the lone wolf terrorist who barreled his SUV into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, then dashed to Parliament and stabbed to death a policeman. Five died, including the attacker, and more than 50 were injured.
Then there was California Republican Devin Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, dashing to the White House to give to Donald Trump new info he'd received, allegedly on the surveillance of Trump associates who may have been colluding with Russia to mess with the election. None of this was shared with his fellow committee members.
I think I know what Breslin would have thought of the toadying Nunes and I know for sure what Breslin thought about Trump, because he wrote about him on at least three occasions.
The last was on June 7, 1990. Breslin was describing how easily Trump played the press for suckers, simply by returning their phone calls and bragging his way onto the front page. He was able to con financial types, too, getting them to sink more money into his grandiose real estate ventures. Breslin wrote,
"All Trump has to do is stick to the rules on which he was raised by his father in the County of Queens:
"Never use your own money. Steal a good idea and say it's your own. Do anything to get publicity. Remember that everybody can be bought."
As you can see, more than 25 years ago, he had Trump down cold. In fact, another great journalist, Pete Hamill, told the New York Daily News that Breslin saw Trump as the kind of guy who's "all mouth and couldn't fight his way out of an empty lot."
In another piece, Breslin described Trump as toastmaster at a celebration of greed. This was a column about the full-page ad Trump took out in the New York newspapers in 1989, demanding the death penalty for the Central Park Five, teenagers wrongly accused of the rape and attack of a woman jogger.
That last piece of his suggests to me that had Breslin lived to give us a column last Wednesday he would not have been as distracted as I was. He would not have been writing about the London attack or weaselly congressman Nunes. Instead, he would have tracked down the family and friends of Timothy Caughman, the 66-year-old African-African man who was stabbed to death on a Manhattan street late last Monday night, allegedly by a sword-wielding, self-proclaimed white supremacist named James Harris Jackson.
Reports indicate that Jackson intended his hate crime against Caughman as a test run for a mass murder of black men in Times Square. He's from Maryland but thought he'd get more attention by doing his worst in the media capital of the world. He turned himself in before committing more mayhem.
Some described his victim Caughman as a man rummaging though the trash for bottles and cans. But Breslin would have gone deeper, learned from acquaintances that Caughman had attended college, worked with young people, collected autographs and took selfies with celebrities; that he was cherished by the people who knew him.
It's possible Breslin would have cited New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, son of Breslin's friend Mario, who said, "We must continue to deny that the ideas behind this cowardly crime have any place in democratic society." And he probably would have pointed out that while President Trump was quick to condemn the deaths in London at the hands of a British-born Muslim, he has yet to issue a peep or a tweet about the death of Timothy Caughman at the hands of a homegrown American racist.
It would have made Breslin really mad. "Rage is the only quality," he said, "which has kept me, or anybody I have ever studied, writing columns for newspapers."
I was very young when I first became aware of Jimmy Breslin. It was in the days just after the death of President John F. Kennedy. One of the local newspapers in my area picked up the columns Breslin was writing about the assassination for the New York Herald Tribune.
There was the now-famous piece about Clifton Pollard, the $3.01-an-hour gravedigger who used a backhoe to dig Kennedy's grave at Arlington Cemetery. That Pollard story was mentioned in almost every Breslin obit, but the column I especially remember was "A Death in Emergency Room One." Much of it was about Dr. Malcolm Perry, the Dallas surgeon summoned to do what he could:
"The president, Perry thought. He's much bigger than I thought he was.
"He noticed the tall, dark-haired girl in the plum dress that had her husband's blood all over the front of the skirt. She was standing out of the way, over against the gray tile wall. Her face was tearless and it was set, and it was to stay that way because Jacqueline Kennedy, with a terrible discipline, was not going to take her eyes from her husband's face.
"Then Malcolm Perry stepped up to the aluminum hospital cart and took charge of the hopeless job of trying to keep the 35th president of the United States from death."
I read a paperback collection of Breslin's Herald Tribune columns and then his first book, Can't Anybody Here Play this Game? -- an account of the New York Mets' disastrous first season. They lost 120 games, still a major league baseball record. The title was a quote from Mets manager Casey Stengel, who also said, "Been in this game 100 years, but I see new ways to lose 'em I never knew existed before."
And yet New Yorkers loved the hapless Mets. Breslin wrote:
"This is a team for the cab driver who gets held up and the guy who loses out on a promotion because he didn't maneuver himself to lunch with the boss enough. It is the team for every guy who has to get out of bed in the morning and go to work for short money on a job he does not like. And it is the team for every woman who looks up ten years later and sees her husband eating dinner in a T-shirt and wonders how the hell she ever let this guy talk her into getting married. The Yankees? Who does well enough to root for them, Laurance Rockefeller?"
I wanted to write like Breslin, cracking tough and wise, just as I wanted to write like Pete Hamill and Gay Talese, Hunter Thompson, Tom Wolfe, Molly Ivins and Chicago's Mike Royko. After I moved to Manhattan, our paths crossed from time to time. Once I shot a television segment with Jimmy in the old Daily News city room. He talked about Sinclair Lewis' novel Babbitt and how its portrayal of conformity and jingoism made it a perfect book for the Reagan years. On top of everything else, he was a very well-read fellow.
But our oddest encounter was in 1976, when I briefly held a job as Jimmy Breslin's bodyguard. I am not making this up.
He was receiving an honorary degree from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, and delivering the commencement address. A friend of mine who worked there called and asked me to accompany Breslin on the short plane ride to Worcester. In those days, Jimmy had a reputation for two-fisted drinking and I was charged by my friend with the task of getting Breslin to graduation sober.
It turned out to be just about the easiest job I ever had. Jimmy and I met up at LaGuardia Airport and the first words out of his mouth were, "I've got the worst effing hangover in my life." The thought of a drink repulsed him.
So we safely arrived in Worcester. But the friend who had hired me thought it would be a swell idea to take Breslin to a working-class bar and have him interact with the locals. And not only that, my somewhat obtuse friend had invited the NBC affiliate to come shoot the proceedings for the 11 o'clock news.
This joint was hardcore, with picnic tables and folding chairs inside and sawdust on the wooden floor, a hangout for serious blue-collar imbibers. They valued their alcohol but even more their privacy because the second those bright TV lights went on in that dark saloon, patrons scattered, howling profane variations on, "What if my boss/wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend, etc., sees me!?"
Jimmy handled the difficult situation with aplomb and that night in his hotel room, hangover be damned, wrote a hell of a commencement speech. Two of the other degree recipients were Mother Teresa and federal judge Arthur Garrity, who two years before had ordered mandatory busing to desegregate Boston's public schools. There was violence and Garrity received death threats. The college was honoring the jurist's brave and difficult decision and in his speech, Breslin did, too:
"As we are here this morning, men in power meet in Washington to discuss ways of getting around Arthur Garrity's decisions. Is there, these men ask, some way to use polite meaningless words as a method of avoiding moral obligations? To Arthur Garrity the answer is clear. The answer is no."
Ceremony over and hangover forgotten, Breslin headed for the hotel bar, the rest of us in tow. At the graduation, he had run into a pal from his old neighborhood, a military officer of high rank, and by the end of that boozy afternoon, the two were on the phone long distance to Queens, shouting to a character who frequently popped up in Breslin's columns, Fat Thomas the bookie.
It was quite a day. Somewhere I still have a copy of the Worcester newspaper from that afternoon with Breslin's commencement speech featured as the lead story. Jimmy autographed the front page.
He stopped drinking a decade or so later -- "Whiskey betrays you when you need it most," he said -- but kept pouring out the prose, brilliant and rude and irascible, looking out for the underdog, calling out the bad guys; always to the point and a perpetual pain in the neck, usually for the right reasons.
Of his vast range of experience, good and bad, Jimmy Breslin said, "I was about 67 people in my life." Lucky for the rest of us, all of them could write.
Matching a growing popular demand, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee on Saturday urged Congress to create an independent commission to investigate the possible role that members of President Donald Trump's campaign or transition teams may have had with alleged Russian interference in last year's presidential election.
In a video message released on Twitter, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) informed his colleagues why he believes new revelations--coupled with the recent troubling behavior of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Intelligence Committee--make a nonpartisan, independent commission necessary. Watch:
Though serious questions remain regarding the depth and veracity of the government's claims that Russia interfered in last the 2016 elections and what, if any, coordination members of Trump's team may have played, Schiff argues his committee, under the leadership of Rep. Nunes, has now lost the necessary credibility to complete its probe. Schiff further explained his reasoning in a op-ed published in the Sacramento Bee on Saturday:
In order to do a proper investigation of Russian intervention, Congress must commit itself to a truly nonpartisan effort that follows the facts wherever they lead, and looks at questions like these: When did the Russians decide to turn intelligence gathering into data weaponization, and why? What was the U.S. government response and how do we protect ourselves in the future? And did the Russians have the help of U.S. citizens in this compromise of our democracy, including people associated with the campaign they assisted?
The opportunity to conduct that type of investigation had two severe setbacks this week. The first occurred after the Intelligence Committee's Monday hearing - in which FBI Director James Comey revealed that persons associated with the Trump campaign are under an investigation to determine whether they acted as agents of a foreign power. Within days of that hearing, the chairman of our committee announced to the press he had obtained information that he was unwilling to share with his own committee and presented it to the White House.
The second setback occurred at the end of the week, when the chairman decided on his own to cancel the open hearing scheduled for Tuesday with former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
It was the cancellation of that public hearing, it appears, that sent Schiff from earlier saying an independent probe "might" be necessary, to Saturday's outright call for creating one.
In the wake of Comey's testimony at the beginning of the week, as Common Dreams reported, demands escalated for Democrats to put a hold on all "Trump-related appointments and legislation" until a full and open establishment of the facts could be presented to the American people. And while some are cautioning the Democrats in Congress against putting too much emphasis on the Trump-Russia storyline, the calls for a complete and credible probe into the matter continue to surge.
As Jo Comerford, a campaign director for MoveOn.org, said in a statement, "How can Congress, with good conscience, agree to further Trump's agenda amid such serious allegations regarding possible illegal activity? The answer is simple: It can't."
And Michael Winship, senior writer for BillMoyers.com, argued the "craziness" that emerged this week between Rep. Nunes and Rep. Schiff clarifies the limits of their committee.
These events, Winship wrote, "make the need for an bipartisan investigation and/or independent prosecutor all the stronger. The crisis deepens. Is democracy unable to solve the problems it has created for itself? Please, if there are still grown-ups in the GOP, the Senate or the House, give Americans what they need to save the republic: the truth."
As of this writing, #FollowtheFacts was created quite active conversation on social media: