SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Weekly-Opinion
Forging Peace in Gaza Would Also Help Harris Defeat Trump
It's the right thing to do morally and it's the wise thing to do politically. The polling data proves it and our shared humanity compels it.
Sep 09, 2024
If Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for U.S. president, were to take a decisive stance demanding that Israel agree to an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded aid to Palestinians, she would expand her vote lead over her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
This is one of the key findings of a recent poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute working with pollster John Zogby. Between the Republican and Democratic conventions, AAI surveyed 2,505 U.S. voters to assess how the war in Gaza and U.S. policy toward Israel’s conduct of the war would impact their votes in November.
What the poll found was that 15% of all voters say that the crisis in Gaza would be “very important” in determining their vote(another 33% saying it’s “somewhat important”). But on this issue, like many others in today’s America, there is a deep partisan divide—with Republicans more supportive of Israel and Democrats favoring Palestinians.
When asked how it would affect their vote if Harris were to demand that Israel agree to an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded human aid into Gaza, voters overwhelmingly support such a move, while only a scant number oppose it.
Looking more closely at the data, we find that the partisan divide actually results from deep differences in the views of the demographic groups forming each party’s base—with younger and non-white voters more sympathetic toward Palestinians and critical of Israel, and older, white, and “born-again” Christians much more favorable toward Israel.
For example, most voters in all groups, except Republicans and “born-again” voters, disapprove of the way Israel is conducting the war, feel Israel has used too much force in Gaza, want an immediate ceasefire, and oppose unrestricted financial and military support for Israel if it continues to operate in a manner that puts civilian lives at risk.
A plurality of all voters (43%) disapprove of how Israel is conducting the war, with only one-third approving. Those disapproving include 54% of Democrats and 52% of young voters.
In addition, 36% of all likely voters feel that Israel has used too much force, including 46% of 18–34-year-olds.
One area where there is near unanimity is with regard to the importance of an “immediate ceasefire.” Three-quarters of all voters say this is important to them—one-half say “very important” and another one-quarter say “somewhat important.” Only 11% say it’s “not important.” This super-majority includes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents and majorities of every demographic sub-group. The most substantial majorities come, of course, from young and non-white voters. Only very small percentages in all groups say an immediate ceasefire is not important.
Another area where there is strong support from most sub-sets of voters is in response to a question asking whether Israel should continue to receive unrestricted U.S. aid or whether that aid should be conditioned on Israel’s use of that aid in a way that harms civilians. Only 28% feel Israel should always receive unrestricted aid, while 51% say there should be no unrestricted aid if Israel endangers civilians. On this question, GOP voters are evenly split at 40%, while by a margin of 59% to 20% Democrats oppose unrestricted aid to Israel. Independents oppose it 56% to 26%.
Overall, the Biden administration receives low marks for its handling of the war—31% positive and 50% negative—a negative view shared by voters in all parties and demographic groups. The poll reveals that this dissatisfaction provides an opportunity for Vice President Harris. When asked how it would affect their vote if Harris were to demand that Israel agree to an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded human aid into Gaza, voters overwhelmingly support such a move, while only a scant number oppose it. A deeper look into the numbers shows significant gain and very little risk for Harris by taking this stand, including very positive outcomes and few negatives among most key groups, including a plurality of Jewish voters. It would also win her the support of a plurality of those traditionally Democratic voters who are currently supporting third-party candidates or who remain undecided. Overall, if Harris were to take this stand, her vote tally would increase from 44% to 50%.
One area where Harris can grow support is by building on her already stated compassion for Palestinian suffering, her call for an immediate ceasefire, and her implied concern for how Israel has acted in this war by making clear that there will be consequences if the war continues...
The same positive results hold true if Harris were to support a suspension of arms shipments and withhold diplomatic support for Israel until there was a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces from Gaza. Such a stand would increase her support from 44% to 49%.
The poll also revealed that Democrats, concerned with President Biden’s age and capacity, were overwhelmingly supportive of his decision to step down as a candidate. This was especially true among Democratic voters. The President’s policy toward Gaza was also a factor, especially among young and non-White voters.
At the start of August, VP Harris held a slim lead against former President Trump in both a head-to-head and multi-candidate contest. This poll found the same to be true.
Both Harris and Trump have consolidated support among voters from their respective parties. Harris’ favorable/unfavorable ratings are better than Trump’s, with her strongest support coming from young and non-White voters. Trump’s support is strongest among White and born-again voters. Given the deep divisions in the American electorate, the presidential contest will most likely remain close.
One area where Harris can grow support is by building on her already stated compassion for Palestinian suffering, her call for an immediate ceasefire, and her implied concern for how Israel has acted in this war by making clear that there will be consequences if the war continues, a step President Biden has been loath to take.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Everyone Talks About the Economy, But No One Does Anything About It!
Buried in the 2020 Democratic Party platform is a little discussed line that could hold the key to reducing wanton job destruction. Will Kamala Harris seize this opportunity?
Sep 09, 2024
The number one issue in the election this year, polls tell us, is “the economy.” But what does that mean?
That depends on who you are and where you sit in the vast structure of inequality that engulfs us. If you’re sitting pretty, “the economy” means an expanding gross national product, the growth of your investments, higher stock prices, and lower personal and corporate income taxes. “The economy” for the well-to-do is all about increasing income and wealth with no interference from government meddlers.
For the rest of us, those sitting lower down, “the economy” is deeply connected to finding and holding onto a job that provides a decent income and benefits. Without a stable job it doesn’t much matter if housing or food is expensive, because if you don’t have work you can’t afford much of anything. You’re in trouble, big trouble. Proposals for systemic economic growth seem far removed from your day-to-day struggles.
A low unemployment rate, to be sure, is critically important to working people. Tight labor markets help drive up wages and create job more openings, but that’s not the same as having a stable job. Unemployment can be low and you still can be bounced from job to job, continually undermining your standard of living.
How do these corporations get the money for nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stock buybacks each year? They lay off workers, freeing up cash by reducing payroll expenses. The more the better.
The research from my book, Wall Street’s War on Workers, shows that more than 30 million workers have lost their jobs due to mass layoffs since 1996. The usual explanation for these layoffs puts the blame on new technologies and the inevitable decline of manufacturing jobs because of stiff global competition from workers in other countries who earn much less.
But that’s not the whole story. If it was, then why are high-tech workers also seeing their jobs disappear? (Spoiler alert, it’s not AI.) In 2023, approximately 264,220 jobs were lost in tech companies, the crown jewels of our post-industrial economy. So far this year, another 135,811 have evaporated.
The Challenger Report, which tracks overall corporate layoffs, finds that 75,891 jobs were cut in August 2024. It also shows that on average this year, 891 jobs per month were cut due to AI. (For a fuller description on why new technologies like AI are not the primary job killers, please see Chapter 11 in Wall Street’s War on Workers.)
Why is there so much job instability? For the most prosperous corporations, it’s not due to a lack of profits, technology, or foreign competition. Meta, Alphabet, and Microsoft laid off more than 40,000 workers in 2022-23 despite booking hundreds of billions of dollars in profits.
These high-tech behemoths kill jobs because of what “the economy” means to their CEOs and to their major Wall Street investors. Their economy values higher stock prices, which translates into enormous incomes for investors and the company executives who are mostly paid through stock incentives.
How do they raise the stock price? Better products? Sure, that works but it takes too much time. The best and surest way to quickly raise the stock price is through a stock buyback, which before SEC deregulation in 1982 was an illegal form of financial manipulation. In a stock buyback, a company uses its own cash or borrowed money to repurchase its own shares in the stock market. These stocks are retired, reducing the number available and increasing the company’s earnings per share. The buyback doesn’t improve the company’s performance, it simply raises the price of the shares and shovels money to the wealthiest investors and company officials. This is plain and simple stock manipulation, something that Econ 101 tells us is a no-no in free-market capitalism where prices are supposed to be set by market supply and demand, not by one company’s self-dealing.
How do these corporations get the money for nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stock buybacks each year? They lay off workers, freeing up cash by reducing payroll expenses. The more the better. Which is how the very same economy can look so very different to those siphoning off corporate wealth and those losing their jobs.
How are the two presidential candidates addressing this problem?
Trump wants to make it worse. He’s in love with Elon Musk, who he called in a recent interview “the greatest cutter.” He praises the way Musk laid off half of the workers at Twitter to help cover the costs of his purchase of the company. Trump now says he wants Musk to head a government efficiency commission, so he can cut, cut, cut government employees. And, if you think Trump will halt or even limit stock buybacks, please share your meds!
What about Harris? The Democratic Party platform in 2024 calls for an increase in the stock buyback excise tax from 1 to 4 percent. That’s better than nothing, but that’s nowhere near high enough to discourage stock buybacks and the job slashing that goes with them.
Voluntary buyouts are common for higher-level white-collar employees, why not make them the rule of the land for companies doing business with the government?
But buried in the 2020 Democratic Party platform is a little discussed line that could hold the key to reducing wanton job destruction. It reads, “Taxpayer money should not be used to pay out dividends, fund stock buybacks, or give raises to executives.” Unfortunately, this refers only to pandemic assistance funds to corporations, but it offers a way forward.
Harris could expand on that line to say,
“In my administration, no taxpayer money will go to corporations who lay off taxpayers and conduct stock buybacks. That means the $700 billion of taxpayer money per year in federal grants and contracts will not go to any corporation that lays off taxpayers or conducts stock buybacks.”
Corporations receiving tax-payer money would be free to restructure if they needed to, but would only be permitted to conduct voluntary layoffs, which means they would have to dip into their massive stock buyback funds to create wage and benefit severance packages sufficient to encourage workers to move on. Voluntary buyouts are common for higher-level white-collar employees, why not make them the rule of the land for companies doing business with the government?
In 1992, during Bill Clinton’s first campaign for president, James Carville famously said of the race’s most important issue, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Today, “the economy” means different things for the wealthy than it does for the rest of us. Maybe Carville’s mantra needs revision: “It’s job loss, stupid!”
Losing your job is one of the most stressful life events, but the troubles of those laid off are often papered over with promises of bright new jobs in the future that go to someone else. The candidate who turns this stress into action and calls for an end to the needless slaughter of jobs via stock buybacks could, in my humble opinion, run away with this election.Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular