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.
Growing local organic food may be the best path toward economic
recovery. It may also be key to building stronger and healthier
communities.
"Our [struggling] economy is making a compelling case that we shift
toward more local food," said Ken Meter of the Crossroads Resource
Center in Minneapolis. "The current system fails on all counts and
it's very efficient at taking wealth out of our communities."
Meter spoke at the annual conference of the Midwest Organic &
Sustainable Education Service (MOSES) held recently in La Crosse, Wisc.
Growing local organic food may be the best path toward economic
recovery. It may also be key to building stronger and healthier
communities.
"Our [struggling] economy is making a compelling case that we shift
toward more local food," said Ken Meter of the Crossroads Resource
Center in Minneapolis. "The current system fails on all counts and
it's very efficient at taking wealth out of our communities."
Meter spoke at the annual conference of the Midwest Organic &
Sustainable Education Service (MOSES) held recently in La Crosse, Wisc.
The bank bailouts have stabilized the crisis but they haven't addressed
wealth in local communities, he said. It's likely that change may come
through food because it is the third largest household expense (12.4
percent or $6,133) and $1 trillion nationally. The average consumer
spends $49,638 per year with housing the largest expense (34 percent or
$16,900), transportation number three (17.6 percent or $8,753) and
insurance number four (10.8 percent or $5,336) (https://www.visualeconomics.com/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/).
"Everyone needs to eat and a local food economy forces us to think
differently," said Meter.
Meter shared figures from his study of southwestern Wisconsin where
106,000 residents earn a total income of $2.7 billion. However, 30
percent of the people live below the poverty line. Out of 6,804 farms,
586 farmers sell less than $10,000 per year while 11 percent sell more
than $100,000. Only 382 farms sell directly to consumers and 133 farms
are organic. Such disparities result in lop-sided and unfair policies
that need to be changed to meet everyone's needs, Meter pointed out.
The past 40 years have seen rising sales and new markets for farm
products, he said, but the expense of running these operations is
mounting faster than the income. In fact, there has been a steady
decline in income every year since 1969 except during the OPEC crisis
in 1973-74. That's the year former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz
ramped up production and sold wheat to the Soviet Union.
However, overproduction eventually led to the farm credit crisis in
the1980s, which resulted in much pain over family farm foreclosures
including over 913 farmer suicides in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North
Dakota, South Dakota and Montana (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/14/us/farmer-suicide-rate-swells-in-1980-s-study-says.html).
For example, since 1969, farmers in southwestern Wisconsin made $166
million less despite the fact that they doubled their productivity.
Meanwhile, they spent $429 million more equipment and chemical inputs.
"A community-based system of agriculture is all about relationships,"
said Meter who predicts that "over time, communities will choose
organic food...because they know the farmer is taking care of the
land."
Meter believes that in general, community-based organic farms make four
major contributions: good health and nutrition for the population; a
fair distribution of wealth among farmers; connections between people
since food is so central to American and ethnic cultures; and the
capacity for farmers, not corporations, to decide what foods to
produce.
Government subsidies keep the industrial food system afloat because
farmers are paid to produce below cost, said Meter. In southwestern
Wisconsin, it took $434 million to raise $404 million in produce per
year. Subsidies amounted to $21 million, which left a $10 million
loss. Farmers made up this loss in off-farm income (89 percent of farm
family income), renting out land, and other money-making ventures.
Since 2002, 53 percent of farmers reported losses after subsidies,
according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
"This is not a healthy farm economy especially since $135 million in
food is purchased outside the region," said Meter. "We need to cut
down that $135 million by sourcing food locally."
As it is, the national average of buying local is only .8 percent and
the effect is insidious. Wisconsin made $2 billion less on its farm
products than it did in 1969. In 2009, it made the same
income-adjusted for inflation-as it did in 1932.
"This is a startling reality the general public is not thinking about
because it is so far removed from farms," said Meter. "These are
losses in the breadbasket of America! This is not a lucrative way to
farm."
Meter believes that if buyers commit themselves to invest in organic
and locally-grown agricultural products, farm income would change.
However, people would have to understand how such a strategy would
benefit them and their community at the same time. It would require a
sense of community or ownership over a place where people were unified
on the basis of trust, mutuality, and support and not just a shared
geography.
For example, if people in southwestern Wisconsin bought just 25 percent
of their food from local sources, all production costs would be offset
and create $33 million in new farm income.
"It is not a trivial thing to source food through local people," said
Meter. "That helps fund communities and their schools."
Meter cited several examples where farmers have been able to invest in
local and organic production AND make a difference in their
communities.
Organic Valley started out in 1988 with $0 in sales and last year it
made $532 million.
"This is a stellar example of a farmers cooperative where the price is
fair and farmers work to make it good for all" said Meter. "It is
strong, sensible thinking."
Black Hawk, Iowa, created 475 new jobs in fruits and vegetables
totaling $6.3 million in income for the community.
Will Allen started out with earthworm compost and has reduced
Milwaukee's cost of garbage dumping significantly.
A factory shut down in Viroqua, Wisc. and moved its operations to
another state. City leaders confronted the company and asked what it
would do for the community. In response, the company ended up selling
its 100,000 square foot building, which allowed the city to create a
regional food processing center, a fitness center, a bakery and
cafeteria. The building is now 96 percent occupied.
In Eau Claire, Wisc., farmers, the hospital food service, distributors,
and truckers teamed up to create the Food Buyers Co-op.
In Burlington, Vermont, a bakery-to-school program was developed where
2,000 extra artisan loaves were sold for $4 with $2 going to the bakery
and $2 going to the school. It created a new profit margin for the
bakery.
Such arrangements break down self-interest motives to help move
everyone in the community forward, said Meter.
In Northfield, Minn., Home on the Range Poultry created a Latino/Anglo
cooperative on quarter-acre sites where they raise chickens. There are
30 to 40 sites and the company owns its own processing center.
"The food systems of the future will also involve rethinking our habits
of getting our food cheaply," concluded Meter. "Such change can build
wealth in our communities."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Growing local organic food may be the best path toward economic
recovery. It may also be key to building stronger and healthier
communities.
"Our [struggling] economy is making a compelling case that we shift
toward more local food," said Ken Meter of the Crossroads Resource
Center in Minneapolis. "The current system fails on all counts and
it's very efficient at taking wealth out of our communities."
Meter spoke at the annual conference of the Midwest Organic &
Sustainable Education Service (MOSES) held recently in La Crosse, Wisc.
The bank bailouts have stabilized the crisis but they haven't addressed
wealth in local communities, he said. It's likely that change may come
through food because it is the third largest household expense (12.4
percent or $6,133) and $1 trillion nationally. The average consumer
spends $49,638 per year with housing the largest expense (34 percent or
$16,900), transportation number three (17.6 percent or $8,753) and
insurance number four (10.8 percent or $5,336) (https://www.visualeconomics.com/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/).
"Everyone needs to eat and a local food economy forces us to think
differently," said Meter.
Meter shared figures from his study of southwestern Wisconsin where
106,000 residents earn a total income of $2.7 billion. However, 30
percent of the people live below the poverty line. Out of 6,804 farms,
586 farmers sell less than $10,000 per year while 11 percent sell more
than $100,000. Only 382 farms sell directly to consumers and 133 farms
are organic. Such disparities result in lop-sided and unfair policies
that need to be changed to meet everyone's needs, Meter pointed out.
The past 40 years have seen rising sales and new markets for farm
products, he said, but the expense of running these operations is
mounting faster than the income. In fact, there has been a steady
decline in income every year since 1969 except during the OPEC crisis
in 1973-74. That's the year former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz
ramped up production and sold wheat to the Soviet Union.
However, overproduction eventually led to the farm credit crisis in
the1980s, which resulted in much pain over family farm foreclosures
including over 913 farmer suicides in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North
Dakota, South Dakota and Montana (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/14/us/farmer-suicide-rate-swells-in-1980-s-study-says.html).
For example, since 1969, farmers in southwestern Wisconsin made $166
million less despite the fact that they doubled their productivity.
Meanwhile, they spent $429 million more equipment and chemical inputs.
"A community-based system of agriculture is all about relationships,"
said Meter who predicts that "over time, communities will choose
organic food...because they know the farmer is taking care of the
land."
Meter believes that in general, community-based organic farms make four
major contributions: good health and nutrition for the population; a
fair distribution of wealth among farmers; connections between people
since food is so central to American and ethnic cultures; and the
capacity for farmers, not corporations, to decide what foods to
produce.
Government subsidies keep the industrial food system afloat because
farmers are paid to produce below cost, said Meter. In southwestern
Wisconsin, it took $434 million to raise $404 million in produce per
year. Subsidies amounted to $21 million, which left a $10 million
loss. Farmers made up this loss in off-farm income (89 percent of farm
family income), renting out land, and other money-making ventures.
Since 2002, 53 percent of farmers reported losses after subsidies,
according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
"This is not a healthy farm economy especially since $135 million in
food is purchased outside the region," said Meter. "We need to cut
down that $135 million by sourcing food locally."
As it is, the national average of buying local is only .8 percent and
the effect is insidious. Wisconsin made $2 billion less on its farm
products than it did in 1969. In 2009, it made the same
income-adjusted for inflation-as it did in 1932.
"This is a startling reality the general public is not thinking about
because it is so far removed from farms," said Meter. "These are
losses in the breadbasket of America! This is not a lucrative way to
farm."
Meter believes that if buyers commit themselves to invest in organic
and locally-grown agricultural products, farm income would change.
However, people would have to understand how such a strategy would
benefit them and their community at the same time. It would require a
sense of community or ownership over a place where people were unified
on the basis of trust, mutuality, and support and not just a shared
geography.
For example, if people in southwestern Wisconsin bought just 25 percent
of their food from local sources, all production costs would be offset
and create $33 million in new farm income.
"It is not a trivial thing to source food through local people," said
Meter. "That helps fund communities and their schools."
Meter cited several examples where farmers have been able to invest in
local and organic production AND make a difference in their
communities.
Organic Valley started out in 1988 with $0 in sales and last year it
made $532 million.
"This is a stellar example of a farmers cooperative where the price is
fair and farmers work to make it good for all" said Meter. "It is
strong, sensible thinking."
Black Hawk, Iowa, created 475 new jobs in fruits and vegetables
totaling $6.3 million in income for the community.
Will Allen started out with earthworm compost and has reduced
Milwaukee's cost of garbage dumping significantly.
A factory shut down in Viroqua, Wisc. and moved its operations to
another state. City leaders confronted the company and asked what it
would do for the community. In response, the company ended up selling
its 100,000 square foot building, which allowed the city to create a
regional food processing center, a fitness center, a bakery and
cafeteria. The building is now 96 percent occupied.
In Eau Claire, Wisc., farmers, the hospital food service, distributors,
and truckers teamed up to create the Food Buyers Co-op.
In Burlington, Vermont, a bakery-to-school program was developed where
2,000 extra artisan loaves were sold for $4 with $2 going to the bakery
and $2 going to the school. It created a new profit margin for the
bakery.
Such arrangements break down self-interest motives to help move
everyone in the community forward, said Meter.
In Northfield, Minn., Home on the Range Poultry created a Latino/Anglo
cooperative on quarter-acre sites where they raise chickens. There are
30 to 40 sites and the company owns its own processing center.
"The food systems of the future will also involve rethinking our habits
of getting our food cheaply," concluded Meter. "Such change can build
wealth in our communities."
Growing local organic food may be the best path toward economic
recovery. It may also be key to building stronger and healthier
communities.
"Our [struggling] economy is making a compelling case that we shift
toward more local food," said Ken Meter of the Crossroads Resource
Center in Minneapolis. "The current system fails on all counts and
it's very efficient at taking wealth out of our communities."
Meter spoke at the annual conference of the Midwest Organic &
Sustainable Education Service (MOSES) held recently in La Crosse, Wisc.
The bank bailouts have stabilized the crisis but they haven't addressed
wealth in local communities, he said. It's likely that change may come
through food because it is the third largest household expense (12.4
percent or $6,133) and $1 trillion nationally. The average consumer
spends $49,638 per year with housing the largest expense (34 percent or
$16,900), transportation number three (17.6 percent or $8,753) and
insurance number four (10.8 percent or $5,336) (https://www.visualeconomics.com/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/).
"Everyone needs to eat and a local food economy forces us to think
differently," said Meter.
Meter shared figures from his study of southwestern Wisconsin where
106,000 residents earn a total income of $2.7 billion. However, 30
percent of the people live below the poverty line. Out of 6,804 farms,
586 farmers sell less than $10,000 per year while 11 percent sell more
than $100,000. Only 382 farms sell directly to consumers and 133 farms
are organic. Such disparities result in lop-sided and unfair policies
that need to be changed to meet everyone's needs, Meter pointed out.
The past 40 years have seen rising sales and new markets for farm
products, he said, but the expense of running these operations is
mounting faster than the income. In fact, there has been a steady
decline in income every year since 1969 except during the OPEC crisis
in 1973-74. That's the year former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz
ramped up production and sold wheat to the Soviet Union.
However, overproduction eventually led to the farm credit crisis in
the1980s, which resulted in much pain over family farm foreclosures
including over 913 farmer suicides in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North
Dakota, South Dakota and Montana (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/14/us/farmer-suicide-rate-swells-in-1980-s-study-says.html).
For example, since 1969, farmers in southwestern Wisconsin made $166
million less despite the fact that they doubled their productivity.
Meanwhile, they spent $429 million more equipment and chemical inputs.
"A community-based system of agriculture is all about relationships,"
said Meter who predicts that "over time, communities will choose
organic food...because they know the farmer is taking care of the
land."
Meter believes that in general, community-based organic farms make four
major contributions: good health and nutrition for the population; a
fair distribution of wealth among farmers; connections between people
since food is so central to American and ethnic cultures; and the
capacity for farmers, not corporations, to decide what foods to
produce.
Government subsidies keep the industrial food system afloat because
farmers are paid to produce below cost, said Meter. In southwestern
Wisconsin, it took $434 million to raise $404 million in produce per
year. Subsidies amounted to $21 million, which left a $10 million
loss. Farmers made up this loss in off-farm income (89 percent of farm
family income), renting out land, and other money-making ventures.
Since 2002, 53 percent of farmers reported losses after subsidies,
according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
"This is not a healthy farm economy especially since $135 million in
food is purchased outside the region," said Meter. "We need to cut
down that $135 million by sourcing food locally."
As it is, the national average of buying local is only .8 percent and
the effect is insidious. Wisconsin made $2 billion less on its farm
products than it did in 1969. In 2009, it made the same
income-adjusted for inflation-as it did in 1932.
"This is a startling reality the general public is not thinking about
because it is so far removed from farms," said Meter. "These are
losses in the breadbasket of America! This is not a lucrative way to
farm."
Meter believes that if buyers commit themselves to invest in organic
and locally-grown agricultural products, farm income would change.
However, people would have to understand how such a strategy would
benefit them and their community at the same time. It would require a
sense of community or ownership over a place where people were unified
on the basis of trust, mutuality, and support and not just a shared
geography.
For example, if people in southwestern Wisconsin bought just 25 percent
of their food from local sources, all production costs would be offset
and create $33 million in new farm income.
"It is not a trivial thing to source food through local people," said
Meter. "That helps fund communities and their schools."
Meter cited several examples where farmers have been able to invest in
local and organic production AND make a difference in their
communities.
Organic Valley started out in 1988 with $0 in sales and last year it
made $532 million.
"This is a stellar example of a farmers cooperative where the price is
fair and farmers work to make it good for all" said Meter. "It is
strong, sensible thinking."
Black Hawk, Iowa, created 475 new jobs in fruits and vegetables
totaling $6.3 million in income for the community.
Will Allen started out with earthworm compost and has reduced
Milwaukee's cost of garbage dumping significantly.
A factory shut down in Viroqua, Wisc. and moved its operations to
another state. City leaders confronted the company and asked what it
would do for the community. In response, the company ended up selling
its 100,000 square foot building, which allowed the city to create a
regional food processing center, a fitness center, a bakery and
cafeteria. The building is now 96 percent occupied.
In Eau Claire, Wisc., farmers, the hospital food service, distributors,
and truckers teamed up to create the Food Buyers Co-op.
In Burlington, Vermont, a bakery-to-school program was developed where
2,000 extra artisan loaves were sold for $4 with $2 going to the bakery
and $2 going to the school. It created a new profit margin for the
bakery.
Such arrangements break down self-interest motives to help move
everyone in the community forward, said Meter.
In Northfield, Minn., Home on the Range Poultry created a Latino/Anglo
cooperative on quarter-acre sites where they raise chickens. There are
30 to 40 sites and the company owns its own processing center.
"The food systems of the future will also involve rethinking our habits
of getting our food cheaply," concluded Meter. "Such change can build
wealth in our communities."
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."
Mamdani won the House minority leader's district by double digits in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, prompting one critic to ask, "Do those voters not matter?"
Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—whose district Mamdani won by double digits—is still refusing to endorse him, "blue-no-matter-who" mantra be damned.
Criticism of Jeffries (D-N.Y.) mounted Friday after he sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the democratic socialist Mamdani's proposed policies—including a rent freeze, universal public transportation, and free supermarkets—during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" earlier this week.
"He's going to have to demonstrate to a broader electorate—including in many of the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn—that his ideas can actually be put into reality," Jeffries said in comments that drew praise from scandal-ridden incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who opted to run independently. Another Democrat, disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is also running on his own.
"Shit like this does more to undermine faith in the institution of the Democratic Party than anything Mamdani might ever say or do," Amanda Litman, co-founder and executive director of Run For Something—a political action group that recruits young, diverse progressives to run for down-ballot offices—said on social media in response to Jeffries' refusal to endorse Mamdani.
"He won the primary! Handily!!" Litman added. "Does that electorate not count? Do those voters not matter?"
Writer and professor Roxane Gay noted on Bluesky that "Jeffries is an establishment Democrat. He will always work for the establishment. He is not a disruptor or innovator or individual thinker. Within that framework, his gutless behavior toward Mamdani or any progressive candidate makes a lot of sense."
City College of New York professor Angus Johnston said on the social network Bluesky that "even if Jeffries does eventually endorse Mamdani, the only response available to Mamdani next year if someone asks him whether he's endorsing Jeffries is three seconds of incredulous laughter."
Jeffries has repeatedly refused to endorse Mamdani, a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation and vocal opponent of Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza. The minority leader—whose all-time top campaign donor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker—has especially criticized Mamdani's use of the phrase "globalize the intifada," a call for universal justice and liberation.
Mamdani's stance doesn't seem to have harmed his support among New York's Jewish voters, who according to recent polling prefer him over any other mayoral candidate by a double-digit margin.