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.
AOC symbolizes integrity, the courage of her political convictions, and the kind of passionate egalitarianism that the Democratic party must nourish if it is to have a future. (Photo: Senate Democrats/flickr/cc)
Since Super Tuesday, it has been clear that barring some completely unexpected development, the Democratic presidential nominee will be Joe Biden. And in the past two weeks, there has been an extraordinary public display of political unity behind the Biden campaign, with Bernie Sanders, then Barack Obama, and then Elizabeth Warren issuing full-throated endorsements. The appeal to party unity in the face of the twin crises of Covid-19 and Trump is real and compelling. The unity will need to be solidified in the weeks and months to come.
At the same time, there continues to be a real debate about how far to the left the Biden campaign should be pressed, and to what extent Biden must navigate a balancing act between the left and the center if he is to win in November. This debate is legitimate, and it is incumbent on the various leaders of the party's "centrist" and "progressive" wings to work out an effective compromise that is capable of sustaining party unity in November and beyond.
Biden surely cannot embrace every one of her policy preferences. But he should embrace her, because of who she is, what she has done, what she can bring to the campaign trail, and what she symbolizes--a new generation of progressive leadership capable of moving the party forward.
I believe that there are limits to how far left Biden can be expected to move.
I also believe that it is imperative for him to be pressed to test those limits.
It is even more important for him to clearly oppose moves to the right that can generate bad faith in the party and undermine the unity that is being called for, a unity that is being delivered by progressive leaders and that should be reciprocated by all leaders.
One such move to the right is the effort of Michelle Caruso-Cabrera to defeat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York's June 23 primary, and thereby to run as the Democratic party's candidate for New York's 14th Congressional District.
This move is terrible, and it ought to be opposed by responsible Democratic leaders for three related reasons: because the effort to "primary" AOC is cynical, because it undermines the unity that is important now more than ever, and because AOC is an exceptional young political leader.
Her decision this week to be the lone House Democrat to vote against the Republican Senate-crafted stimulus bill is being criticized by her detractors, none more loudly than Caruso-Cabrera herself. But the Democratic party is not a Leninist organization that demands submission to the will of the leader-enforced majority. And AOC's decision--along with her passionate and articulate explanation of this decision-- is one further example of the important role she plays in the party, in the House, and in public life, as a critic of Republican priorities and a defender of justice, who votes with her party when it counts but also dissents when a dissenting voice counts more (according to ProPublica, AOC has voted with the Democrats 95.2% of the time).
Caruso-Cabrera is one of many seeking to unseat AOC. But she appears to be the most well-funded and viable of the primary challengers. And her candidacy seems motivated by an especially cynical effort to defeat both AOC and what she represents--the progressive wing of the Democratic party. As a terrific recent piece in The Intercept points out, Caruso-Cabrera is a recent former-Republican best known as a CNBC business journalist and author of a 2010 book, You Know I'm Right: More Prosperity, Less Government.
The book is a manifesto of free-market libertarianism. Here is how the right-wing Cato Institute described the book in introducing a 2010 Forum at the Institute at which Caruso-Cabrera began by thanking her parents, Wellesley College, and Milton Friedman as "the three greatest influences on my life":
"To CNBC business reporter Michelle Caruso- Cabrera, both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the government's massive spending increases and excessive social interference over the last 10 years -- strangling businesses and crippling the economy, while abandoning all those who believe government should stay out of private lives and pocketbooks. And her criticism also extends to her home field -- to opportunistic media pundits who exploit issues to cultivate audiences while promulgating personal ideologies. Expanding on this in her new book, You Know I'm Right, Caruso- Cabrera uses her exceptional business and news experience in partnership with her commitment to fiscal conservatism, limited government, and personal responsibility to analyze a wide range of critical issues. . . . "
Caruso-Cabrera, as The Intercept reports, is being funded by "over four dozen finance industry professionals, including several prominent private equity executives and investment bankers." She is also being backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as recently explained by its senior political strategist: "Michelle is one of the most qualified and competent candidates we have met with this cycle. Her communication skills on jobs and growth will create a clear contrast with AOC. We plan on using our national network to get her the financial resources to win this race."
Caruso-Cabrera has a right to run in the primary to unseat the incumbent, as AOC herself did only two years ago. But she should be strongly opposed by every Democrat who is serious about the importance of party unity and is committed to broaden the party's base moving forward.
It is one thing for Wall Street donors to back a conservative insurgent. It is another thing for responsible political leaders in the Democratic party establishment to support or even merely welcome this.
The Democratic party has long been reliant on big-ticket donors. Biden might even need to draw on some of the same networks that are clearly backing Caruso-Cabrera. This might not have been the case had Sanders or Warren won the nomination. But neither did, and both have backed Biden. Biden will not overnight become a leftist. But he must now take responsibility, as leader of the Democratic party, for walking the talk of party unity, and of standing behind every single one of the Democratic members of the Senate and the House up for re-election, including AOC and the other members of "the squad."
AOC combines intellectual acuity, ethical passion, energy, and charisma in a way that is truly extraordinary.
The Caruso-Cabrera campaign symbolizes what activists on the left have long feared: that the Democratic party is at bottom a corporate party beholden to financial interests and deaf and blind to progressive values. Furthermore, her candidacy is designed to foment division at precisely the moment when unity is being proclaimed.
AOC, on the other hand, symbolizes integrity, the courage of her political convictions, and the kind of passionate egalitarianism that the Democratic party must nourish if it is to have a future.
AOC continues to display remarkable political responsibility, in the positions she takes and in the way that she takes them (see here, here, here, and here). She has truly grown into her position as a Congresswoman. And while she has continued to be a standard bearer of the progressive left, she has also proven adept at building bridges, and has been particularly savvy about the need to wholeheartedly support Democratic efforts to defeat Trump and Trumpism.
A recent Politico article created much controversy with its headline: "The 'New' AOC Divides the Left." AOC quickly responded that she has not "moved to the right" and has been consistent in her positioning. She was right to have done so. The article's headline does a disservice to her and to the piece's own reporting. At the same time, what the article itself makes clear is that AOC is a nuanced politician who understands the importance of party unity at this moment. She distanced herself from some of the more ambitious positions of the Sanders campaign when it seemed wise for her to do so. (While refusing to backtrack on her commitment to Medicare for All, she has acknowledged that it would take time to build legislative support for this, and that compromises would be necessary). She has distanced herself from some Justice Democrat efforts to "primary" incumbent House Democrats, because she understands how wasteful and divisive such contests can now be. She is against the fomenting of division within the party, even as she supports healthy debate. At the same time, she is also very clear that the Democratic party leadership still has a way to go if it is to earn the enthusiastic support of those constituencies for which she speaks. (She developed these themes with great subtlety in a recent New York Times interview.) This week she also stated very clearly that she supports Biden's candidacy and will vote for him in the Fall--even as she bravely dissented from the House Democratic leadership on the stimulus package.
As many commentators have pointed out after the "Blue Wave" of November 2018, while the victories of AOC and her "squad" colleagues symbolized the growing appeal of the millennial left, most of the House seats flipped by Democrats went won by centrist candidates.
AOC is not your typical House Democrat: she is much more progressive than most Democratic voters, and she is a long way from representing a progressive consensus in the Democratic Party.
But she is also not typical in another way: she combines intellectual acuity, ethical passion, energy, and charisma in a way that is truly extraordinary. She might not be able to win a Congressional seat in Indiana. But she won big in her Queens-Bronx district, and she has served in Congress with distinction, and has stood by the commitments on which she ran in serving her district and mobilizing voters far beyond her district. Indeed, she almost single-handedly carried the Sanders campaign on her back while Sanders was in Washington, D.C. during the impeachment trial.
Whether or not AOC represents "the future" of the Democratic party, she clearly represents an important part of its future, if it is to have a future.
If the Democratic leadership is serious about uniting the wings of the party for a decisive November victory, then it must recognize that AOC is a necessary part of this effort. Biden surely cannot embrace every one of her policy preferences. But he should embrace her, because of who she is, what she has done, what she can bring to the campaign trail, and what she symbolizes--a new generation of progressive leadership capable of moving the party forward. Indeed, it would be a brilliant move if he were to actually endorse her, right now. There is little downside, and enormous upside, to such a move. It is perhaps the easiest way for Biden to prove to those Sanders supporters still unsure about him that he is serious about engaging progressive ideas and uniting the party.
And such unity will surely be needed if the Democrats are to prevail in November.
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. |
Since Super Tuesday, it has been clear that barring some completely unexpected development, the Democratic presidential nominee will be Joe Biden. And in the past two weeks, there has been an extraordinary public display of political unity behind the Biden campaign, with Bernie Sanders, then Barack Obama, and then Elizabeth Warren issuing full-throated endorsements. The appeal to party unity in the face of the twin crises of Covid-19 and Trump is real and compelling. The unity will need to be solidified in the weeks and months to come.
At the same time, there continues to be a real debate about how far to the left the Biden campaign should be pressed, and to what extent Biden must navigate a balancing act between the left and the center if he is to win in November. This debate is legitimate, and it is incumbent on the various leaders of the party's "centrist" and "progressive" wings to work out an effective compromise that is capable of sustaining party unity in November and beyond.
Biden surely cannot embrace every one of her policy preferences. But he should embrace her, because of who she is, what she has done, what she can bring to the campaign trail, and what she symbolizes--a new generation of progressive leadership capable of moving the party forward.
I believe that there are limits to how far left Biden can be expected to move.
I also believe that it is imperative for him to be pressed to test those limits.
It is even more important for him to clearly oppose moves to the right that can generate bad faith in the party and undermine the unity that is being called for, a unity that is being delivered by progressive leaders and that should be reciprocated by all leaders.
One such move to the right is the effort of Michelle Caruso-Cabrera to defeat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York's June 23 primary, and thereby to run as the Democratic party's candidate for New York's 14th Congressional District.
This move is terrible, and it ought to be opposed by responsible Democratic leaders for three related reasons: because the effort to "primary" AOC is cynical, because it undermines the unity that is important now more than ever, and because AOC is an exceptional young political leader.
Her decision this week to be the lone House Democrat to vote against the Republican Senate-crafted stimulus bill is being criticized by her detractors, none more loudly than Caruso-Cabrera herself. But the Democratic party is not a Leninist organization that demands submission to the will of the leader-enforced majority. And AOC's decision--along with her passionate and articulate explanation of this decision-- is one further example of the important role she plays in the party, in the House, and in public life, as a critic of Republican priorities and a defender of justice, who votes with her party when it counts but also dissents when a dissenting voice counts more (according to ProPublica, AOC has voted with the Democrats 95.2% of the time).
Caruso-Cabrera is one of many seeking to unseat AOC. But she appears to be the most well-funded and viable of the primary challengers. And her candidacy seems motivated by an especially cynical effort to defeat both AOC and what she represents--the progressive wing of the Democratic party. As a terrific recent piece in The Intercept points out, Caruso-Cabrera is a recent former-Republican best known as a CNBC business journalist and author of a 2010 book, You Know I'm Right: More Prosperity, Less Government.
The book is a manifesto of free-market libertarianism. Here is how the right-wing Cato Institute described the book in introducing a 2010 Forum at the Institute at which Caruso-Cabrera began by thanking her parents, Wellesley College, and Milton Friedman as "the three greatest influences on my life":
"To CNBC business reporter Michelle Caruso- Cabrera, both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the government's massive spending increases and excessive social interference over the last 10 years -- strangling businesses and crippling the economy, while abandoning all those who believe government should stay out of private lives and pocketbooks. And her criticism also extends to her home field -- to opportunistic media pundits who exploit issues to cultivate audiences while promulgating personal ideologies. Expanding on this in her new book, You Know I'm Right, Caruso- Cabrera uses her exceptional business and news experience in partnership with her commitment to fiscal conservatism, limited government, and personal responsibility to analyze a wide range of critical issues. . . . "
Caruso-Cabrera, as The Intercept reports, is being funded by "over four dozen finance industry professionals, including several prominent private equity executives and investment bankers." She is also being backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as recently explained by its senior political strategist: "Michelle is one of the most qualified and competent candidates we have met with this cycle. Her communication skills on jobs and growth will create a clear contrast with AOC. We plan on using our national network to get her the financial resources to win this race."
Caruso-Cabrera has a right to run in the primary to unseat the incumbent, as AOC herself did only two years ago. But she should be strongly opposed by every Democrat who is serious about the importance of party unity and is committed to broaden the party's base moving forward.
It is one thing for Wall Street donors to back a conservative insurgent. It is another thing for responsible political leaders in the Democratic party establishment to support or even merely welcome this.
The Democratic party has long been reliant on big-ticket donors. Biden might even need to draw on some of the same networks that are clearly backing Caruso-Cabrera. This might not have been the case had Sanders or Warren won the nomination. But neither did, and both have backed Biden. Biden will not overnight become a leftist. But he must now take responsibility, as leader of the Democratic party, for walking the talk of party unity, and of standing behind every single one of the Democratic members of the Senate and the House up for re-election, including AOC and the other members of "the squad."
AOC combines intellectual acuity, ethical passion, energy, and charisma in a way that is truly extraordinary.
The Caruso-Cabrera campaign symbolizes what activists on the left have long feared: that the Democratic party is at bottom a corporate party beholden to financial interests and deaf and blind to progressive values. Furthermore, her candidacy is designed to foment division at precisely the moment when unity is being proclaimed.
AOC, on the other hand, symbolizes integrity, the courage of her political convictions, and the kind of passionate egalitarianism that the Democratic party must nourish if it is to have a future.
AOC continues to display remarkable political responsibility, in the positions she takes and in the way that she takes them (see here, here, here, and here). She has truly grown into her position as a Congresswoman. And while she has continued to be a standard bearer of the progressive left, she has also proven adept at building bridges, and has been particularly savvy about the need to wholeheartedly support Democratic efforts to defeat Trump and Trumpism.
A recent Politico article created much controversy with its headline: "The 'New' AOC Divides the Left." AOC quickly responded that she has not "moved to the right" and has been consistent in her positioning. She was right to have done so. The article's headline does a disservice to her and to the piece's own reporting. At the same time, what the article itself makes clear is that AOC is a nuanced politician who understands the importance of party unity at this moment. She distanced herself from some of the more ambitious positions of the Sanders campaign when it seemed wise for her to do so. (While refusing to backtrack on her commitment to Medicare for All, she has acknowledged that it would take time to build legislative support for this, and that compromises would be necessary). She has distanced herself from some Justice Democrat efforts to "primary" incumbent House Democrats, because she understands how wasteful and divisive such contests can now be. She is against the fomenting of division within the party, even as she supports healthy debate. At the same time, she is also very clear that the Democratic party leadership still has a way to go if it is to earn the enthusiastic support of those constituencies for which she speaks. (She developed these themes with great subtlety in a recent New York Times interview.) This week she also stated very clearly that she supports Biden's candidacy and will vote for him in the Fall--even as she bravely dissented from the House Democratic leadership on the stimulus package.
As many commentators have pointed out after the "Blue Wave" of November 2018, while the victories of AOC and her "squad" colleagues symbolized the growing appeal of the millennial left, most of the House seats flipped by Democrats went won by centrist candidates.
AOC is not your typical House Democrat: she is much more progressive than most Democratic voters, and she is a long way from representing a progressive consensus in the Democratic Party.
But she is also not typical in another way: she combines intellectual acuity, ethical passion, energy, and charisma in a way that is truly extraordinary. She might not be able to win a Congressional seat in Indiana. But she won big in her Queens-Bronx district, and she has served in Congress with distinction, and has stood by the commitments on which she ran in serving her district and mobilizing voters far beyond her district. Indeed, she almost single-handedly carried the Sanders campaign on her back while Sanders was in Washington, D.C. during the impeachment trial.
Whether or not AOC represents "the future" of the Democratic party, she clearly represents an important part of its future, if it is to have a future.
If the Democratic leadership is serious about uniting the wings of the party for a decisive November victory, then it must recognize that AOC is a necessary part of this effort. Biden surely cannot embrace every one of her policy preferences. But he should embrace her, because of who she is, what she has done, what she can bring to the campaign trail, and what she symbolizes--a new generation of progressive leadership capable of moving the party forward. Indeed, it would be a brilliant move if he were to actually endorse her, right now. There is little downside, and enormous upside, to such a move. It is perhaps the easiest way for Biden to prove to those Sanders supporters still unsure about him that he is serious about engaging progressive ideas and uniting the party.
And such unity will surely be needed if the Democrats are to prevail in November.
Since Super Tuesday, it has been clear that barring some completely unexpected development, the Democratic presidential nominee will be Joe Biden. And in the past two weeks, there has been an extraordinary public display of political unity behind the Biden campaign, with Bernie Sanders, then Barack Obama, and then Elizabeth Warren issuing full-throated endorsements. The appeal to party unity in the face of the twin crises of Covid-19 and Trump is real and compelling. The unity will need to be solidified in the weeks and months to come.
At the same time, there continues to be a real debate about how far to the left the Biden campaign should be pressed, and to what extent Biden must navigate a balancing act between the left and the center if he is to win in November. This debate is legitimate, and it is incumbent on the various leaders of the party's "centrist" and "progressive" wings to work out an effective compromise that is capable of sustaining party unity in November and beyond.
Biden surely cannot embrace every one of her policy preferences. But he should embrace her, because of who she is, what she has done, what she can bring to the campaign trail, and what she symbolizes--a new generation of progressive leadership capable of moving the party forward.
I believe that there are limits to how far left Biden can be expected to move.
I also believe that it is imperative for him to be pressed to test those limits.
It is even more important for him to clearly oppose moves to the right that can generate bad faith in the party and undermine the unity that is being called for, a unity that is being delivered by progressive leaders and that should be reciprocated by all leaders.
One such move to the right is the effort of Michelle Caruso-Cabrera to defeat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York's June 23 primary, and thereby to run as the Democratic party's candidate for New York's 14th Congressional District.
This move is terrible, and it ought to be opposed by responsible Democratic leaders for three related reasons: because the effort to "primary" AOC is cynical, because it undermines the unity that is important now more than ever, and because AOC is an exceptional young political leader.
Her decision this week to be the lone House Democrat to vote against the Republican Senate-crafted stimulus bill is being criticized by her detractors, none more loudly than Caruso-Cabrera herself. But the Democratic party is not a Leninist organization that demands submission to the will of the leader-enforced majority. And AOC's decision--along with her passionate and articulate explanation of this decision-- is one further example of the important role she plays in the party, in the House, and in public life, as a critic of Republican priorities and a defender of justice, who votes with her party when it counts but also dissents when a dissenting voice counts more (according to ProPublica, AOC has voted with the Democrats 95.2% of the time).
Caruso-Cabrera is one of many seeking to unseat AOC. But she appears to be the most well-funded and viable of the primary challengers. And her candidacy seems motivated by an especially cynical effort to defeat both AOC and what she represents--the progressive wing of the Democratic party. As a terrific recent piece in The Intercept points out, Caruso-Cabrera is a recent former-Republican best known as a CNBC business journalist and author of a 2010 book, You Know I'm Right: More Prosperity, Less Government.
The book is a manifesto of free-market libertarianism. Here is how the right-wing Cato Institute described the book in introducing a 2010 Forum at the Institute at which Caruso-Cabrera began by thanking her parents, Wellesley College, and Milton Friedman as "the three greatest influences on my life":
"To CNBC business reporter Michelle Caruso- Cabrera, both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the government's massive spending increases and excessive social interference over the last 10 years -- strangling businesses and crippling the economy, while abandoning all those who believe government should stay out of private lives and pocketbooks. And her criticism also extends to her home field -- to opportunistic media pundits who exploit issues to cultivate audiences while promulgating personal ideologies. Expanding on this in her new book, You Know I'm Right, Caruso- Cabrera uses her exceptional business and news experience in partnership with her commitment to fiscal conservatism, limited government, and personal responsibility to analyze a wide range of critical issues. . . . "
Caruso-Cabrera, as The Intercept reports, is being funded by "over four dozen finance industry professionals, including several prominent private equity executives and investment bankers." She is also being backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as recently explained by its senior political strategist: "Michelle is one of the most qualified and competent candidates we have met with this cycle. Her communication skills on jobs and growth will create a clear contrast with AOC. We plan on using our national network to get her the financial resources to win this race."
Caruso-Cabrera has a right to run in the primary to unseat the incumbent, as AOC herself did only two years ago. But she should be strongly opposed by every Democrat who is serious about the importance of party unity and is committed to broaden the party's base moving forward.
It is one thing for Wall Street donors to back a conservative insurgent. It is another thing for responsible political leaders in the Democratic party establishment to support or even merely welcome this.
The Democratic party has long been reliant on big-ticket donors. Biden might even need to draw on some of the same networks that are clearly backing Caruso-Cabrera. This might not have been the case had Sanders or Warren won the nomination. But neither did, and both have backed Biden. Biden will not overnight become a leftist. But he must now take responsibility, as leader of the Democratic party, for walking the talk of party unity, and of standing behind every single one of the Democratic members of the Senate and the House up for re-election, including AOC and the other members of "the squad."
AOC combines intellectual acuity, ethical passion, energy, and charisma in a way that is truly extraordinary.
The Caruso-Cabrera campaign symbolizes what activists on the left have long feared: that the Democratic party is at bottom a corporate party beholden to financial interests and deaf and blind to progressive values. Furthermore, her candidacy is designed to foment division at precisely the moment when unity is being proclaimed.
AOC, on the other hand, symbolizes integrity, the courage of her political convictions, and the kind of passionate egalitarianism that the Democratic party must nourish if it is to have a future.
AOC continues to display remarkable political responsibility, in the positions she takes and in the way that she takes them (see here, here, here, and here). She has truly grown into her position as a Congresswoman. And while she has continued to be a standard bearer of the progressive left, she has also proven adept at building bridges, and has been particularly savvy about the need to wholeheartedly support Democratic efforts to defeat Trump and Trumpism.
A recent Politico article created much controversy with its headline: "The 'New' AOC Divides the Left." AOC quickly responded that she has not "moved to the right" and has been consistent in her positioning. She was right to have done so. The article's headline does a disservice to her and to the piece's own reporting. At the same time, what the article itself makes clear is that AOC is a nuanced politician who understands the importance of party unity at this moment. She distanced herself from some of the more ambitious positions of the Sanders campaign when it seemed wise for her to do so. (While refusing to backtrack on her commitment to Medicare for All, she has acknowledged that it would take time to build legislative support for this, and that compromises would be necessary). She has distanced herself from some Justice Democrat efforts to "primary" incumbent House Democrats, because she understands how wasteful and divisive such contests can now be. She is against the fomenting of division within the party, even as she supports healthy debate. At the same time, she is also very clear that the Democratic party leadership still has a way to go if it is to earn the enthusiastic support of those constituencies for which she speaks. (She developed these themes with great subtlety in a recent New York Times interview.) This week she also stated very clearly that she supports Biden's candidacy and will vote for him in the Fall--even as she bravely dissented from the House Democratic leadership on the stimulus package.
As many commentators have pointed out after the "Blue Wave" of November 2018, while the victories of AOC and her "squad" colleagues symbolized the growing appeal of the millennial left, most of the House seats flipped by Democrats went won by centrist candidates.
AOC is not your typical House Democrat: she is much more progressive than most Democratic voters, and she is a long way from representing a progressive consensus in the Democratic Party.
But she is also not typical in another way: she combines intellectual acuity, ethical passion, energy, and charisma in a way that is truly extraordinary. She might not be able to win a Congressional seat in Indiana. But she won big in her Queens-Bronx district, and she has served in Congress with distinction, and has stood by the commitments on which she ran in serving her district and mobilizing voters far beyond her district. Indeed, she almost single-handedly carried the Sanders campaign on her back while Sanders was in Washington, D.C. during the impeachment trial.
Whether or not AOC represents "the future" of the Democratic party, she clearly represents an important part of its future, if it is to have a future.
If the Democratic leadership is serious about uniting the wings of the party for a decisive November victory, then it must recognize that AOC is a necessary part of this effort. Biden surely cannot embrace every one of her policy preferences. But he should embrace her, because of who she is, what she has done, what she can bring to the campaign trail, and what she symbolizes--a new generation of progressive leadership capable of moving the party forward. Indeed, it would be a brilliant move if he were to actually endorse her, right now. There is little downside, and enormous upside, to such a move. It is perhaps the easiest way for Biden to prove to those Sanders supporters still unsure about him that he is serious about engaging progressive ideas and uniting the party.
And such unity will surely be needed if the Democrats are to prevail in November.
The 16 groups urge the agency "to uphold its obligation to promote competition, localism, and diversity in the U.S. media."
A coalition of 16 civil liberties, press freedom, and labor groups this week urged U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to abandon any plans to loosen media ownership restrictions and warned against opening the floodgates to further corporate consolidation.
Public comments on the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule were due to the Federal Communications Commission by Monday—which is when the coalition wrote to the FCC about the 39% national audience reach cap for U.S. broadcast media conglomerates, and how more mergers could negatively impact "the independence of the nation's press and the vitality of its local journalism."
"In our experience, the past 30 years of media consolidation have not fostered a better environment for local news and information. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 radically changed the radio and television broadcasting marketplace, causing rapid consolidation of radio station ownership," the coalition detailed. "Since the 1996 act, lawmakers and regulators have further relaxed television ownership limits, spurring further waves of station consolidation, the full harms of which are being felt by local newsrooms and the communities they serve."
The coalition highlighted how this consolidation has spread "across the entire news media ecosystem, including newspapers, online news outlets, and even online platforms," and led to "newsroom layoffs and closures, and the related spread of 'news deserts' across the country."
"Over a similar period, the economic model for news production has been undercut by technology platforms owned by the likes of Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta, which have offered an advertising model for better targeting readers, listeners, and viewers, and attracted much of the advertising revenue that once funded local journalism," the coalition noted.
While "lobbyists working for large news media companies argue that further consolidation is the economic answer, giving them the size necessary to compete with Big Tech," the letter argues, "in fact, the opposite appears to be true."
We object."Handing even more control of the public airwaves to a handful of capitulating broadcast conglomerates undermines press freedom." - S. Derek TurnerOur statement: https://www.freepress.net/news/free-press-slams-trump-fccs-broadcast-ownership-proceeding-wildly-dangerous-democracy
[image or embed]
— Free Press (@freepress.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 12:58 PM
The letter points out that a recent analysis from Free Press—one of the groups that signed the letter—found a "pervasive pattern of editorial compromise and capitulation" at 35 of the largest media and tech companies in the United States, "as owners of massive media conglomerates seek to curry favor with political leadership."
That analysis—released last week alongside a Media Capitulation Index—makes clear that "the interests of wealthy media owners have become so inextricably entangled with government officials that they've limited their news operations' ability to act as checks against abuses of political power," according to the coalition.
In addition to warning about further consolidation and urging the FCC "to uphold its obligation to promote competition, localism, and diversity in the U.S. media," the coalition argued that the agency actually "lacks the authority to change the national audience reach cap," citing congressional action in 2004.
Along with Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron, the letter is signed by leaders at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America, National Coalition Against Censorship, Local Independent Online News Publishers, Media Freedom Foundation, NewsGuild-CWA, Open Markets Institute, Park Center for Independent Media, Project Censored, Reporters Without Borders USA, Society of Professional Journalists, Tully Center for Free Speech, Whistleblower and Source Protection Program at ExposeFacts, and Writers Guild of America East and West.
Free Press also filed its own comments. In a related Tuesday statement, senior economic and policy adviser S. Derek Turner, who co-authored the filing, accused FCC Chair Brendan Carr of "placing a for-sale sign on the public airwaves and inviting media companies to monopolize the local news markets as long as they agree to display political fealty to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement."
"The price broadcast companies have to pay for consolidating further is bending the knee, and the line starts outside of the FCC chairman's office," said Turner. "Trump's autocratic demands seemingly have no bounds, and Carr apparently has no qualms about satisfying them. Carr's grossly partisan and deeply hypocritical water-carrying for Trump has already stained the agency, making it clear that this FCC is no longer independent, impartial, or fair."
"The war in Gaza is contrary to international law and is causing terrible suffering," said Norway's finance minister.
The Norwegian government may seek to divest its state investment fund from Israeli companies participating in the illegal occupation of the West Bank or the genocide in Gaza.
Norway's Government Pension Fund Global is worth $2 trillion and is considered the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world.
On Tuesday, following the latest reports on the "worsened situation" in Gaza—which includes mass starvation as a result of Israel's blockade of humanitarian aid—Norway's finance minister, Jens Stoltenberg, ordered the fund's ethics council to review the fund's investments in Israeli companies.
The fund came under renewed scrutiny from activists and trade unions this week after the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reported on the fund's investments in the Israeli company Bet Shemesh Engines Holdings, which maintains the engines of fighter jets and attack helicopters that have been used to carry out devastating attacks on Gaza.
Although Norway's center-left government had determined in November 2023 that Israel's warfare in the Gaza Strip was violating international law, it only continued to increase its shares in Bet Shemesh throughout 2024, resulting in more than $15 million invested—a 2.1% stake—in the company.
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said he was "very concerned" by the report and ordered Stoltenberg to contact the country's central bank to investigate.
"The war in Gaza is contrary to international law and is causing terrible suffering, so it is understandable that questions are being raised about the fund's investments in Bet Shemesh Engines," Stoltenberg said.
Norway's sovereign wealth fund has been described by Amnesty International as "an international leader in the environmental, social, and governance investment field."
Its ethics policy has strict guidelines against investing in companies that cause "serious violations of fundamental ethical norms," including "systematic human rights violations" and "violations of the rights of individuals in situations of war or conflict."
Following these guidelines, it has divested from some companies involved in the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine.
In 2009, it dropped Israel's largest arms company, Elbit Systems, due to its supplying of surveillance technology used to patrol the separation wall—commonly called the "apartheid wall"—fencing off the West Bank from Israel-proper.
And in 2024, following the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion that Israel was committing the crime of apartheid, it also cut off Bezeq, Israel's largest telecommunications company, which supplies telecommunications equipment to illegal West Bank settlements. It later did the same for the Israeli energy company Paz Retail and Energy Ltd.
However, as Amnesty described in May, the fund remains "invested in several companies listed in the U.N. database of businesses involved in the unlawful occupation of Palestine."
Last month, a report by Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, revealed that Norway's sovereign wealth fund had increased its investments in Israeli companies by 32% since October 2023.
Albanese found that 6.9% of its pension fund's total value was directed towards companies "involved in supporting or enabling egregious violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territory."
In a letter to the Norwegian government sent in April, she listed dozens of investments: including Caterpillar, whose bulldozers have been used to destroy houses in the West Bank and attack Palestinians in Gaza; several Israeli banks that fund illegal settlements; and other military and technology firms like Hewlett-Packard and Motorola, whose technologies have been used for the purposes of surveillance and torture.
"I found Norwegian politicians, trade unions, media, and civil society to be generally more educated, aware, and principled about Palestine-Israel than many of their peers in Europe," Albanese wrote on X earlier this year. "That is why I can't believe the Norwegian Oil Fund and Pension Fund is still so involved in Israel's unlawful occupation. This must end, totally and unconditionally, like Israel's occupation itself—no more excuses."
"The immediate economic losses projected here are just the tip of the iceberg," explained the CEO of the NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
The number of international students enrolling at U.S. colleges looks set to plummet this fall, according scenario modeling by an organization that advocates on behalf of academic exchange worldwide.
Insider Higher Ed reported on Tuesday that new data from the group, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, has found that American colleges could lose up to 150,000 international students in the coming academic year, which would represent a decline of up to 40% in foreign enrollment. In fact, the projected drop in international students is so large that it could lead to a drop in overall enrollment of 15%.
NAFSA cited multiple factors leading to the projected decline in international students: a three-week period between late May and the middle of June where student visa interviews were suspended all together; limited appointments available for students in countries such as India, China, Nigeria, and Japan; and new visa restrictions on 19 different countries stemming from an executive order U.S. President Donald Trump signed in early June.
NAFSA projected that the consequences of losing 150,000 international students this fall would be grim not just for universities but also the American economy as a whole. In all, the association found that a drop in students of that magnitude "would deprive local economies of $7 billion in spending and more than 60,000 jobs."
Fanta Aw, the executive director of NAFSA, emphasized that the United States would suffer even greater long-term damage from its policies discouraging the enrollment of international students.
"The immediate economic losses projected here are just the tip of the iceberg," Aw explained. "International students drive innovation, advance America's global competitiveness, and create research and academic opportunities in our local colleges that will benefit our country for generations. For the United States to succeed in the global economy, we must keep our doors open to students from around the world."
Trump and his administration have been going to war with the American higher education system by withholding federal research funding from universities unless they agree to a list of demands such as eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and reviewing their policies for accepting international students.
The administration has also cracked down on international students who are already in the U.S. and has detained them and threatened them with deportation for a wide range of purported offenses such as writing student newspaper editorials critical of the Israeli government, entering the country with undeclared frog embryos, and having a single decade-old marijuana possession charge.